USA

As the nation hurtles toward a pivotal and divisive midterm election, it’s fair to wonder if people on opposite sides of the political spectrum will ever be able to again live peacefully as neighbors, to talk, and especially listen, to each other.

It’s a question co-directors Robert May and Barry Levinson and producer Jason Sosnoff set out to answer in the aftermath of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It led to their five-part docuseries, “Bucks County, USA,” now on streaming on PBS.org and the PBS app, that unfolds across four years in a suburban Pennsylvania county being ripped apart by vicious school board battles poisoned by partisan personal conflicts. (The finale streams Sunday, and the full docuseries will air Oct. 29 on SoCal PBS.)

“We don’t pay enough attention to one another,” Levinson says. “We just say, ‘I’ve formed my position and I’m locked into it’ and we don’t share enough interaction where we can discuss things. Democracy requires interactions, and if we cannot find a way to find common ground, that’s my big worry.”

The series shows how Paul Martino spent a fortune supporting Republican candidates who supported reopening schools quickly after the height of the pandemic but then, more contentiously, turned their attention to the culture wars. They focused on what was being taught in the classrooms and stocked on the shelves in the school libraries, leaving teachers feeling attacked and Black families and LGBTQ+ students alienated and ostracized.

“It’s unexpected how something like that can accelerate into such a contentious situation,” Levinson says, “where well-educated people in a wonderful community can’t figure things out.”

May says national polarization is poisoning the atmosphere locally. “It became a life-or-death battle in the name of their kids, but they both felt their children would be mercilessly mistreated if they didn’t do something to save them from the other side.”

An aerial view of Bucks County, Pa., the community at the center of Robert May and Barry Levinson’s docuseries.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

The filmmakers followed the heated battles as people in the divided community resorted to screaming and name-calling. It frequently plays like a fun house nightmare version of “Our Town.” That’s true even of their version of the play’s Stage Manager. Two teenagers, Evi Casey and Vanessa Martino, Paul’s daughter, guide us through each episode. While the girls are best friends, Evi’s liberal mother and Vanessa’s conservative father view each other as hostile opposition.

“I think the series does a good job of showing the political division and how it affects the kids,” says Casey.

The series opens with a school choir singing “What a Wonderful World” underneath a collection of residents telling us how they’ve been berated: “I’ve been called a pedophile.” “I’ve been called a Nazi.” “I’ve been called anti-American.” “I’ve been called a dyke and a groomer.”

But the series then gets to know people in depth, allowing for far more nuance than the contentious school board meetings.

“My hope was that people can take the time to at least have a deeper conversation with somebody who they think is doing harm to their community and try and understand it better, “ Sosnoff adds. “It starts with microchanges where somebody reconsiders the way they might harm somebody else.”

Katherine “Kitty” Good Semisch, a retired Bucks County teacher and a key figure in the documentary, says the series is perfectly timed for the midterms because of its efforts to humanize everyone. “Dehumanization and demonization lead to the worst outcomes, and this kicks out from under anybody the lazy position that the people on the other side aren’t human,” she says. “Everyone is just trying to find something that works for their community.”

Sosnoff originally approached Levinson with the idea of a project that would humanize both sides, but his original idea was to bring people together at a summer camp with a facilitator so they could get to know each other better. “Barry wisely said, ‘That’s more of a sociological experiment where you’re playing God,’” Sosnoff recalls. “He said, ‘Let’s focus on a seemingly idyllic small town, like in “Our Town,” and examine what happened and why.’”

They chose Bucks County, a purple county in a purple state. “It’s not a place of extremists but people were really inflamed,” Sosnoff says, noting that some people were reluctant to speak on camera. “The climate of fear was very much alive. It was a community in trauma.”

There are brawls over policy that lead to lawsuits, but the main drama is the 2023 school board election, where the Democrats hoped to reverse the Republicans’ 6-3 majority.

While May says he is offended by “people that don’t care about other people or their right to exist,” especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, he emphasized that he resisted taking sides in the documentary. “When we don’t see people as human, that’s when you lose a society.”

Indeed, Sosnoff says that while it’s bad when people are marginalized and victimized by discrimination from those in power, they’d still edit episodes to keep everything balanced, occasionally saying, “We need to give conservative characters more screen time and understand their positions.” (He also says they grew to like everyone involved.)

At the center of the drama depicted in “Bucks County, USA” is a school board election and a community grappling with political division.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

May says he knows some viewers will be furious with this approach, but he hopes that if they watch all five episodes, they’ll get a full picture. “You can’t just see parts of it. You need to see in order,” May says. “People reveal who they are over the five episodes. There’s an extraordinary amount of nuance, but if somebody’s saying something stupid, we have that too.”

(And don’t mistake May’s efforts at evenhandedness for a lack of passion — the day after a 30-minute joint interview with Levinson, he called me back and talked, largely uninterrupted, mostly about bias and perceptions.)

Amazingly, most people interviewed from both sides in the community support the final version.

At the center of the action are Vanessa’s mother, Aarati Martino, who ran for school board as a Republican, and Paul, who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into school board elections.

“Overall, I am pleased,” Paul Martino says now. “There’s some things I think don’t portray the facts exactly quite right, but they recorded 500 hours and you’re not going to love everything that’s on the screen. Everybody is represented in this film.”

Martino, who never really owns the impact of him using his fortune to try to elect cultural conservatives, says he’s been “unfairly attacked” and has become “a convenient boogeyman in some of the scenes. But I’m actually not even upset about that piece of the puzzle.” (What he feels is lacking is that in 2021 he says 30% of the 300 candidates he funded around the state were Democrats.)

And Donte King, whose family endures racism both subtle and blatant, praises the filmmakers’ attempts to humanize people with contrasting viewpoints, saying he was pleased with getting to tell his story. “It allows people to connect with you,” he says. “We might have different ideologies, but we’re more alike than we are unalike, so maybe somebody who votes blue will identify with someone who votes red and vice versa.”

The closest thing to a hero in the series may be Semisch, a liberal, who shows civic courage in her efforts to build bridges, meeting one-on-one with Vonna DeArmond, a conservative elementary school teacher, and organizing events like an ice cream social and a candle-making evening. (Martino also posted an online peace offering, saying he’d buy anyone from the other side drinks; Semisch was the only one to take him up on it, but several people interviewed, including May, say Martino’s unbending personality may explain the lack of response.)

Semisch wishes that May had fact-checked some of the misleading claims by the right, but she praises the series’ subtlety. “I understand people’s frustration, but they’re leaving it to the audience to sort out who’s making sense,” she says. “My side was advocating for more books in the library and for better training for teachers to navigate difficult topics. As you watch, it seems to me that the people on the other side aren’t making as much sense.”

Near the end of the series, there’s one sweet moment of coming together between Evi’s and Vanessa’s mothers and another moment of seemingly genuine outreach by one of the town’s conservatives to King. But there’s also plenty of acrimony and recrimination in the aftermath of the school board election and one final confrontation between King and Paul Martino at a roundtable that leaves little doubt that tensions are still simmering.

Still, May says, “I remain hopeful and optimistic because I’ve seen the humanity in all of them. I think things are better there now than when we started.”

Semisch, with DeArmond, will lead discussions about the series in Bucks County and May hopes others will follow suit around the country. He and Levinson hope that by strengthening local communities, it can eventually lead to stronger national bonds. “Maybe people can learn from them. Maybe this series is literally the beginning of a change.”

Sosnoff is a bit more measured in his final assessment, quoting a participant as saying, “We haven’t buried the hatchet yet, but it’s been put away in the closet,” he says. “I’ll take that as progress.”

In 2018, Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas – two of the three youngest players on Furyk’s team – starred as they won three out of four points as a foursomes and fourballs pairing.

With 21-year-old Jackson Koivun having impressed during an unbeaten Presidents Cup debut in last month’s comeback victory over the Internationals in Chicago, Furyk says he is excited to inject more youth into the US side.

“I really love the guys who have played for us in the past few years,” the 56-year-old, who played in nine consecutive Ryder Cups between 1997 and 2014, told the BBC.

“We have tough, gritty veterans who have been around the block, and I’m excited, we have a lot of great, young talent who have yet to play in this cup and I’d bet two or three of them will be at Adare.”

During the news conference, Furyk said he will ask his team to “do more than any American team has in the past” to seal an elusive away win and vowed to address his side’s dismal recent record in foursomes.

The US won just three points from a possible 16 in the alternate-shot format over the past two Ryder Cups.

“I know those numbers very well. I’ve lived them the last four,” said Furyk.

“It’s not an anomaly. There’s some issues. We understand that. Not something I’m very happy with. I plan on making some changes.

“As captains we need to do a better job – not only putting the folks into good pairings in good positions, but I don’t think we are preparing for those matches in a proper way.”

The 2027 Ryder Cup – the second to be staged in Ireland after the K Club in 2006 – will take place on 17-19 September.

The Trump administration has warned France and Germany to release emergency diesel reserves to help lower global fuel prices or risk facing a potential US ban on diesel exports, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The warning represents a sharp escalation in Washington’s pressure on European allies as President Donald Trump looks for ways to increase fuel supplies and bring down prices ahead of the November midterm elections.

US officials have become increasingly frustrated with France and Germany, which Washington believes have not fully acted on earlier commitments to release emergency oil and petroleum reserves as global fuel markets face mounting disruptions.

“It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers,” a US official told Reuters.

A second source familiar with the discussions said the United States had asked the European Union to release 120 million barrels of diesel over the next six months.

The demand highlights the growing importance of Europe’s fuel reserves at a time when disruptions to major energy-producing regions are tightening global supplies.

Washington Raises Pressure on Europe

The US administration’s warning comes as Trump considers restricting US diesel exports as part of a broader effort to increase domestic supplies and reduce fuel prices for American consumers.

The approach creates a difficult balance for Washington. Limiting exports could increase the amount of diesel available inside the United States, potentially putting downward pressure on domestic prices. But it could simultaneously reduce supplies available to international markets, particularly Europe, which has become increasingly dependent on imported refined fuels.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday that the administration expected European countries to announce additional diesel supplies soon.

“We’ve lost some diesel exports from the Middle East, although we’re restoring those, and we’ve lost diesel exports from China,” Wright told reporters.

The disruptions have exposed the vulnerability of global refined fuel markets to geopolitical conflicts and changes in trade flows.

Germany’s economy ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while France’s energy ministry declined to comment.

The White House’s pressure also appears to have become a broader diplomatic issue among Western allies.

An official at the French presidency said Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron did not discuss the issue when they met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last week.

Macron, however, plans to convene a video conference of G7 leaders to address rising fuel prices and the availability of refined petroleum products.

The discussions are expected to include coordination over the release of emergency reserves in cooperation with the International Energy Agency.

Why Europe Matters to the Fuel Market

Europe’s position in the global fuel market has changed substantially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

European countries previously relied heavily on Russian crude oil and refined petroleum products. The subsequent sanctions and restrictions on Russian energy imports forced European governments and companies to find alternative suppliers.

The result has been greater dependence on imports from countries including the United States and suppliers in the Middle East and Asia.

That dependence has become more significant as the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has disrupted energy flows from the Middle East.

The loss or reduction of refined fuel exports from major suppliers can quickly affect diesel markets because refining capacity cannot always be shifted between regions immediately.

Diesel is particularly important because it powers much of Europe’s commercial transport, heavy industry, agriculture and logistics sectors. Sustained shortages can therefore affect the broader economy rather than simply increasing prices at fuel stations.

The US Faces Its Own Fuel Dilemma

For Trump, the issue also has a strong domestic political dimension.

Fuel prices are highly visible to American consumers, making gasoline and diesel costs politically sensitive ahead of the November midterm elections.

The administration is therefore examining multiple ways to increase available supplies and reduce costs.

But a potential US diesel export ban could have consequences beyond America’s borders.

The United States has become an important supplier of refined petroleum products to international markets. Restricting those exports could tighten supplies elsewhere, potentially pushing international prices higher even if American prices fall.

That creates a difficult policy tradeoff for Washington.

The administration wants to protect US consumers from high fuel costs while maintaining sufficient supply in global markets. European governments, meanwhile, face pressure to use their own emergency reserves even as they seek to maintain energy security following the loss of Russian supplies.

Europe Seeks a Coordinated Response

France appears to be pursuing a broader G7 response rather than treating the issue as a bilateral dispute with Washington.

Macron’s planned meeting would allow the world’s major industrial economies to discuss the availability of refined products and potentially coordinate emergency stock releases through the International Energy Agency.

Such coordination could help prevent individual countries from taking measures that unintentionally worsen shortages elsewhere.

But disagreements over how much fuel should be released, when reserves should be used and who should bear the cost could complicate the process.

Emergency reserves are designed primarily to protect countries against severe supply disruptions. Releasing large quantities can provide temporary relief, but it also reduces the buffer available if another disruption occurs.

That makes Europe’s response particularly consequential at a time when energy markets remain exposed to geopolitical shocks.

A New Test for Transatlantic Energy Relations

The dispute illustrates how the global energy system has become increasingly intertwined with broader geopolitical and trade relationships.

Europe needs reliable fuel supplies after cutting its dependence on Russian energy, while the United States is attempting to use its position as a major energy producer and exporter to address domestic price pressures.

Trump’s warning to France and Germany adds another layer to that relationship by linking European reserve policy to continued access to US diesel exports.

Whether Europe ultimately releases the amount of diesel Washington has requested will depend on national assessments of market conditions, domestic energy security and the risks of further supply disruptions.

For now, the dispute signals that the energy consequences of conflicts in the Middle East are reaching far beyond the region itself.

As the United States and its European allies try to contain fuel prices, they face a common problem but increasingly different pressures over how the burden of stabilising global energy markets should be shared.

With information from Reuters.

China said on Monday that a two-month extension of its trade truce with the United States would give both sides more time to assess the implementation of their existing arrangements and discuss further steps to resolve economic and trade disputes.

China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed that the truce would remain in place through January 10, saying the extension would provide a “relatively stable and predictable policy environment” for businesses and allow the two countries to continue their talks.

The extension was among the main outcomes of a summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Washington last week, their second meeting this year.

Background

The United States and China have spent years imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions on each other, with tensions extending beyond tariffs to technology, investment, supply chains and market access.

The latest extension follows an agreement by the two sides to establish a trade council that will oversee discussions on a range of economic issues.

One of its first tasks will be to discuss reciprocal tariff reductions covering about $30 billion worth of goods, with the aim of maintaining more stable economic and trade relations between the two countries.

China’s Commerce Ministry said the arrangement would also create better conditions for Chinese exporters seeking access to the US market.

The two sides will hold regular discussions on investment opportunities and barriers, policy transparency and predictability, and concerns raised by businesses.

Why it matters

The extension gives US and Chinese companies more time to operate under a relatively predictable trade environment while negotiators work through remaining disputes.

Agriculture is one of the main areas covered by the latest arrangements. A White House list showed that China plans to reduce tariffs on a range of US agricultural products, including corn, wheat, dairy products and meat, although soybeans were not included.

The proposed cuts appear linked to a US-stated Chinese commitment to purchase $17 billion worth of agricultural products. China has already resumed large-scale purchases of US soybeans under an agreement reached last year that called for annual purchases of 25 million metric tons.

The countries will also establish an agriculture working group under the new trade council, with its first meeting expected before the end of the year.

Energy trade is another part of the agreement. China will import 10 million metric tons of US coal annually in 2027 and 2028, according to the White House. That would account for about 2% of China’s annual coal imports. US liquefied natural gas and oil were not included in the list.

The arrangements extend beyond traditional trade. The two countries have agreed to establish a communication channel for artificial intelligence related incidents and hold another dialogue by the end of November.

China will also consider approving foreign financial institutions, including US backed firms, to operate and open branches in the country. Washington and Beijing will meanwhile continue discussions on increasing direct flights between the two countries.

What’s next

The immediate focus will be on implementing the agreements reached at the presidential summit.

The agriculture working group is expected to meet before the end of the year, while the AI dialogue is due to continue by the end of November. The two countries will also use the new trade council to discuss tariffs, investment, market access and regulatory concerns.

The extension runs until January 10, giving negotiators another two months to evaluate whether the existing arrangements are being implemented and determine what further agreements can be reached.

Whether the two sides can turn the temporary truce into longer-term trade arrangements will depend on progress across the different areas covered by their negotiations, including tariffs, agricultural purchases, investment and technology.

With information from Reuters,

The International team produced a brilliant fightback in the foursomes on day two of the Presidents Cup to take a 7-3 lead over the United States.

The US had been 3-2 up after the fourballs on Thursday but in a stunning turnaround were beaten in all five matches in the alternate-shot format in Medinah on Friday.

It boosted their hopes of a first victory in the event since 1998 and only a second since the competition began in 1994.

Geoff Ogilvy’s side secured their first point of the day as Sungjae Im and Hideki Matsuyama saw off Russell Henley and Jacob Bridgeman 3&2.

Canadian duo Corey Conners and Nick Taylor then produced a stunning result as they held on to beat world number one Scottie Scheffler and Sam Burns by one hole.

Burns almost snatched a half when his 20-foot putt at the last lipped out.

Open champion Ryan Fox and Min Woo Lee also edged a see-saw contest with Collin Morikawa and Wyndham Clark by one hole, before Adam Scott and Christiaan Bezuidenhout defeated Justin Thomas and Cameron Young 3&2.

Tom Kim and Si Woo Kim wrapped up the day with a dominant 4&3 victory over Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schauffele.

There will be four further foursomes matches and four more fourballs on Saturday, with 12 singles games taking place on Sunday.

The Kremlin has signalled that Russia’s position on potential peace talks with Ukraine remains unchanged, despite a planned meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there were still no conditions for formal Ukraine peace talks to begin, while insisting that Moscow remained open to negotiations.

His comments came ahead of the Rubio Lavrov meeting, which is expected to provide an opportunity for Washington and Moscow to discuss the prospects for ending the war.

However, Peskov said there were no concrete plans for further high level meetings involving either the United States or Ukraine to discuss a potential peace agreement.

Moscow Maintains Its Position

The Kremlin also said there had been no change in its position regarding a possible direct meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Peskov reiterated that Zelenskiy could travel to Moscow for such a meeting and said Russia would provide the necessary security guarantees.

He also said the Ukrainian president was aware of the decisions that Moscow believes would be necessary before meaningful progress could be made.

The comments underline the continuing gap between the two sides over the conditions for direct negotiations.

Ukraine has repeatedly rejected the possibility of holding talks in Moscow and has instead proposed a neutral location for any direct meeting between the two presidents.

US Diplomacy Faces a Difficult Path

The Rubio Lavrov meeting comes as Washington continues to engage both Moscow and Kyiv over the possibility of a diplomatic settlement.

The meeting itself does not necessarily indicate that formal peace negotiations are imminent. Russia continues to say that the conditions for talks have not been established, while Ukraine has maintained its own requirements for any negotiations with Moscow.

That leaves the United States attempting to maintain communication with both sides while the basic framework for potential negotiations remains unresolved.

The disagreement over the location of a Putin Zelenskiy meeting is also significant because it reflects broader differences over the political conditions surrounding any future negotiations.

For Moscow, the latest statements reinforce its existing position that Ukraine must address Russian demands before a presidential meeting can produce meaningful progress. Kyiv, meanwhile, has rejected Moscow’s proposed setting and continues to favour a neutral venue.

What Comes Next

The Rubio Lavrov meeting could provide an indication of whether Washington and Moscow can narrow some of their differences, but the Kremlin’s latest statements suggest that Russia is not currently changing its stated position on the conditions for peace talks.

The immediate diplomatic focus will therefore be on whether the US Russian dialogue can establish enough common ground for further discussions involving Ukraine.

Until the disagreement over the conditions and format of negotiations is addressed, the prospect of a direct Putin Zelenskiy meeting remains uncertain. The New York meeting may keep diplomatic channels open, but it does not by itself resolve the fundamental differences separating Moscow and Kyiv.

With information from Reuters.

Scrum-half Seren Lockwood has been ruled out of Wales’ second WXV Global Series fixture, against USA in Cardiff on Saturday, after failing a head injury assessment.

Lockwood was taken off during the first half of Wales’ eight-try victory over South Africa and is now going through World Rugby’s return to play protocols.

It is a blow for Wales with Lockwood and Keira Bevan proving a promising half-back partnership in a new-look backline.

Her absence paves the way for Lleucu George to return at 10, with Bevan reverting to her usual position of nine at Cardiff Arms Park.

“It’s always sad to see an individual coming off, but the HIA is great to have on board, we’re looking after her,” said Wales head coach Sean Lynn.

“She’s not going to be available this weekend, but I’m super excited to see the half-back combination that we’ve got this week.”

The United States, Denmark and Greenland are preparing to sign an agreement that could reshape the American military presence in the Arctic and ease a diplomatic dispute that has strained relations within NATO.

US President Donald Trump is due to meet Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen in New York on Tuesday for a trilateral signing ceremony. The agreement is expected to allow Washington to expand its military infrastructure on Greenland, a strategically located and mineral rich territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The deal follows months of tension after Trump refused to rule out using military or economic pressure to bring Greenland under US control. The comments triggered a diplomatic crisis with Denmark and raised concerns about divisions within NATO.

The US military presence is set to expand

The agreement is expected to give the United States access to two additional military sites in Greenland, alongside the existing Pituffik Space Base.

One of the proposed locations is Narsarsuaq, a former Cold War airbase where only a small population remains. The other is Mestersvig, which is currently used by the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish special forces unit.

The expansion would significantly increase the US military footprint on the island and mark the first major expansion of American military infrastructure there since the Cold War.

During that period, the United States operated 17 installations in Greenland and had more than 10,000 personnel on the island.

Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic gives it considerable strategic importance. Its geography also places it close to major Arctic routes and areas of growing competition involving Russia, the United States and other NATO members.

NATO could play a larger role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said the agreement would place Arctic security more firmly within NATO’s collective framework rather than leaving responsibility primarily to Washington and Copenhagen.

That could be significant because the Greenland dispute exposed tensions within the alliance at a time when NATO members are already facing growing security concerns in the Arctic.

The Arctic has become increasingly important to NATO because of its geography, military access and emerging economic opportunities. Greater US military activity in Greenland could therefore become part of a wider alliance approach to Arctic security.

However, the precise role NATO would play remains unclear because the full text of the agreement has not yet been published.

What happens to Greenland’s sovereignty?

The agreement also leaves questions about the balance between US security interests, Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s aspirations for greater autonomy.

Greenland is a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its government has repeatedly maintained that decisions about Greenland’s future must involve Greenlanders themselves.

Trump said on Friday that the agreement would give the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland.”

Denmark has not endorsed that description. Copenhagen has instead said that the agreement respects the kingdom’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self determination.

It remains unclear whether the agreement will modify the 1951 US Denmark defence treaty, which has provided the legal basis for America’s military presence on the island, or establish a separate framework.

From acquisition ambitions to military access

The agreement represents a significant shift from Trump’s earlier push to acquire Greenland outright.

Greenland is roughly three times the size of Texas but has a population of only about 57,000 people, concentrated in small communities along its coastline. The island is also rich in natural resources, adding an economic dimension to its strategic importance.

Trump’s earlier comments about potentially using economic or military pressure to obtain Greenland created an unusual dispute between the United States and Denmark, both members of NATO.

The new agreement appears to offer a different approach: rather than changing Greenland’s sovereignty, Washington would gain a substantially larger military presence on the island.

Why does Greenland matter to the US?

Greenland’s strategic location makes it important to North American and Arctic defence. It sits between the United States, Europe and the Arctic and can provide access for monitoring activity across the region.

For Washington, expanding military infrastructure could strengthen its ability to monitor Arctic air and maritime activity and support wider North American defence.

For Denmark and Greenland, however, the issue involves more than military strategy. Any expansion of US activity has to operate within Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory and Greenland’s right to determine its political future.

The agreement therefore seeks to address two competing pressures at once: the United States’ desire for greater Arctic security access and Denmark and Greenland’s insistence that such cooperation must not amount to a transfer of sovereignty.

If signed as expected, the deal could mark a new phase in the Arctic relationship between the three governments. It would not resolve every disagreement over Greenland’s future, but it could replace the earlier confrontation over US acquisition with a more structured framework for American military access and NATO security cooperation.

With information from Reuters.

California is considering Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on its billionaires. This initiative is seen as a way to generate funds for healthcare, education, and food assistance, given that California is home to around 250 billionaires worth over $2 trillion. However, political analysts suggest that the proposition’s chances of passing are uncertain, especially with rising debates around income inequality and the implications for the state’s economy.

Opinion polls indicate a divide in support for the tax. A UC Berkeley poll from August showed 48% of likely voters in favor while 41% opposed, and a September poll showed support at 52%. However, historically, California ballot measures need strong initial support to succeed, and undecided voters often lean towards rejecting measures. Critics of the proposition argue it might drive billionaires out of the state, lowering potential tax revenue in the future.

Notable figures, including billionaires like Sergey Brin, are actively campaigning against Proposition 40, with Brin sharing his personal experiences to express concerns about socialism and its effects. Additionally, Governor Gavin Newsom opposes the measure and is advocating for a federal wealth tax instead.

California’s history with ballot initiatives reveals a complex relationship with taxation. While the state has a history of direct democracy, it has only approved about a third of citizen initiatives in the past. A recent attempt to raise taxes on high earners, Proposition 30 in 2022, was rejected, reflecting that even in a predominantly Democratic state, voters may not support aggressive tax increases on the wealthy.

The uniqueness of this initiative lies in its retroactive tax structure, which could limit billionaires’ ability to avoid the tax by relocating. However, supporters like economist Emmanuel Saez argue that the tax will not significantly deter wealthy individuals or tech startups, stressing California’s attractive qualities, such as its universities and infrastructure, which he believes outweigh potential tax burdens.

Overall, Proposition 40 encapsulates the ongoing conversation about wealth inequality in America and the contentious debate surrounding the taxation of the ultra-rich, making it a critical issue for California voters in the upcoming election on November 3.

With information from Reuters