Category: Election

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and London’s Sadiq Khan share a faith and progressive vision, yet their political journeys highlight significant differences shaped by their unique cities.

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has drawn considerable comparisons to London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan. While both leaders share a progressive outlook and a Muslim identity, their political journeys reveal important differences. Critics have suggested that New York under Mamdani might follow “the way of London,” but the distinct political and social dynamics of the two cities mean that the parallels extend only so far.

Sadiq Khan, who has served as London’s mayor since 2016, is a seasoned politician well-versed in the pressures of governing a global city under intense scrutiny. He has faced persistent criticism and racist attacks, including harsh condemnation from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who labeled him a “stone cold loser” and falsely accused him of wanting to impose Sharia law. Khan responded to these attacks by branding Trump as “racist, sexist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.” Despite these challenges, Khan has successfully won three consecutive elections and has focused on improving transit, housing, and air quality in London.

In contrast, Zohran Mamdani, at 34, comes from a different background but shares Khan’s progressive vision. Born in Uganda to Indian immigrant parents and raised in the United States, Mamdani represents a new generation of grassroots activism and left-wing politics, heavily influenced by figures like Bernie Sanders. His campaign prioritized issues such as affordable housing, free childcare, and combating corruption. In his victory speech, Mamdani directly challenged Trump’s efforts to undermine his election, urging the city to reject divisiveness.

The BBC podcast titled “A Tale of Two Cities: London’s Lesson for New York’s First Muslim Mayor,” produced by Xandra Ellin, Valerio Esposito, and Cat Farnsworth, delves into these parallels in detail. The podcast features interviews with former BBC reporter Tim Donovan and Sadiq Khan himself, discussing the challenges of leading two of the world’s most diverse and dynamic metropolises. Khan emphasizes the importance of focusing on substantive policies rather than identity politics, a lesson that could prove beneficial for Mamdani as he navigates his new role.

Despite their shared religion and progressive values, Khan and Mamdani are confronted with unique political climates that will shape their leadership styles differently. Both have become targets of far-right rhetoric, yet their responses demonstrate resilience and a commitment to their cities. As Mamdani begins his tenure, the experiences of London offer valuable insights but also highlight that success will depend on navigating local challenges with strategy and coalition-building.

Source: Original article

Rep. Elise Stefanik received the World Jewish Congress’ highest honor while launching her campaign for New York governor, pledging to combat rising antisemitism in the state.

Rep. Elise Stefanik accepted the World Jewish Congress’ prestigious Theodor Herzl Award on Monday night, just days after announcing her candidacy for New York governor. During her speech at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan, she emphasized her commitment to fighting antisemitism and upholding what she described as “the very Western values that have shaped America.”

Stefanik received the award from Ronald Lauder, a businessman and former U.S. ambassador to Austria under President Ronald Reagan. The Theodor Herzl Award, established in 2012, is the highest honor given by the World Jewish Congress, recognizing individuals who embody Herzl’s vision for a secure and self-reliant Jewish community.

In her acceptance speech, Stefanik expressed gratitude to Lauder for his leadership and dedication to Jewish unity and security. “Under his leadership, the World Jewish Congress has carried forward Theodor Herzl’s vision — not only of a Jewish homeland, but of a Jewish people strong, self-reliant, and respected among the nations,” she stated.

Stefanik described the honor as “deeply humbling,” acknowledging the World Jewish Congress as a longstanding diplomatic voice and moral conscience for Jewish communities worldwide. She praised the organization for its efforts to combat antisemitism and strengthen ties between Israel and the global community of free nations.

Reflecting on her experiences in Congress, Stefanik recounted a notable 2023 hearing with the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, where she posed a critical moral question regarding antisemitism. “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?” she asked. Her expectation for a straightforward answer was met with a troubling response: “it depends on the context.” She asserted that this exchange sparked a global reckoning and accountability in higher education regarding antisemitism.

As she turned her focus to New York, Stefanik declared the state “the epicenter of the battle for the very Western values that have shaped America.” She emphasized the urgency of addressing antisemitism, bigotry, and anti-Americanism, particularly in a state with a significant Jewish population. “Eighty years after Kristallnacht, we must not stay silent. I will continue to call out antisemitism,” she affirmed, noting that antisemitic incidents in New York reached an all-time high last year.

Stefanik’s remarks resonated with the audience, as she invoked Theodor Herzl’s legacy, stating, “My friends, Theodor Herzl’s story is not ancient history. That is the spirit I see in this room tonight — the spirit that built Israel, the spirit that has always animated the Jewish people, and the spirit that will save New York.”

The award ceremony came a day after billionaire philanthropist Miriam Adelson publicly endorsed Stefanik’s gubernatorial campaign during the Zionist Organization of America’s Justice Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner. Adelson praised Stefanik for her efforts to confront antisemitism on college campuses, recalling her late husband Sheldon Adelson’s emphasis on moral conviction.

Stefanik, who serves as chairwoman of the House Republican Leadership, was also honored with the Zionist Organization of America’s Mortimer Zuckerman Maccabee Warrior Award for her advocacy against antisemitism. Adelson introduced her at the gala, calling her “a great leader” and commending her commitment to defending the Jewish people, Israel, and the Free World.

With her gubernatorial campaign officially launched, Stefanik is set to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in the 2026 election. Once critical of former President Donald Trump during his first presidential run, Stefanik has since become one of his most ardent supporters in Congress.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Gov. Hochul’s office for a comment regarding Stefanik’s campaign.

Source: Original article

Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized eight Senate Democrats for voting with Republicans on a continuing resolution, labeling it a harmful decision for working families.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, has publicly condemned eight Senate Democrats who sided with Republicans in a recent procedural vote to advance a continuing resolution in the U.S. Senate. In a video posted to his X account, Sanders described the decision as “a very, very bad vote.”

During the vote, which took place on Sunday, Sanders expressed his disapproval, stating, “Tonight, 8 Democrats voted with the Republicans to allow them to go forward on this continuing resolution. And to my mind, this was a very, very bad vote.”

The continuing resolution was intended to provide temporary funding for the federal government and prevent a shutdown. However, Sanders argued that it included provisions that could lead to increased healthcare premiums, potential cuts to Medicaid, and tax benefits favoring high-income earners.

According to Sanders, the measure threatens to “raise healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling them.” He emphasized the burden this would place on families already struggling with high healthcare costs, stating, “People can’t afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare.”

Sanders further criticized the resolution for potentially jeopardizing Medicaid coverage for 15 million individuals, warning that this could result in approximately 50,000 preventable deaths each year. “All of that was done to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1%,” he added.

Reflecting on the recent elections, Sanders noted, “As everybody knows, just on Tuesday, we had an election all over this country. And what the election showed is that the American people wanted us to stand up to Trumpism — to his war against working-class people, to his authoritarianism. That is what the American people wanted. But tonight, that is not what happened.”

In his video, Sanders framed the procedural vote as more than just a measure to keep the government operational; he viewed it as indicative of a broader policy direction that undermines healthcare protections and the interests of working-class Americans. “So we’ve got to go forward, do the best that we can to ensure and protect working-class people, to make sure that the United States not only does not throw people off of healthcare, but ends the absurdity of being the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people,” he asserted. “We have a lot of work to do, but to be honest with you, tonight was not a good night.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that if the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies established under the American Rescue Plan are allowed to expire, millions of Americans could face significantly higher marketplace premiums. A 2023 CBO analysis highlighted that the expiration of these expanded subsidies would lead to increased out-of-pocket costs for enrollees in ACA marketplaces.

Additionally, studies referenced by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which Sanders chairs, have estimated that substantial cuts to Medicaid could result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually. A 2023 HELP Committee report on Sanders’ website cited peer-reviewed research published in Health Affairs and The Lancet Public Health, which found that losing Medicaid coverage is associated with higher mortality rates due to reduced access to preventive and emergency care.

Supporting this alarming trend, a letter from researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics warned that proposed federal healthcare cuts could lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths each year.

Sanders’ remarks reflect his long-standing opposition to Republican budget proposals, which he argues disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of working Americans. His comments have been consistently echoed in press releases on his official website since March of this year.

Source: Original article

Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican Emilio González will face off in a runoff for Miami mayor on December 9, potentially making history with the election of the city’s first female mayor.

Miami’s mayoral race is set for a pivotal runoff on December 9, as Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican candidate Emilio González advance from a crowded field of 13 candidates. The runoff was necessitated after no candidate secured more than 50% of the vote in the initial election.

Higgins and González will compete to succeed the term-limited Republican Mayor Francis Suarez. The runoff format is triggered when no candidate achieves the required majority, compelling the top two candidates to face off in a decisive election.

Eileen Higgins, who has served as a Miami-Dade County commissioner since 2018, represents several neighborhoods including Miami Beach, Downtown, Brickell, Coral Way, Little Havana, and West Flagler. Her diverse background includes roles as an engineer, marketing executive, and director of the Peace Corps in Belize, where she served starting in 2006. Additionally, Higgins has experience as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. State Department.

During a recent debate on October 16, Higgins emphasized her commitment to a drama-free administration, stating, “There’s going to be no drama. There’s going to be no corruption. There’s going to be no yelling.” She pledged to focus on the needs of Miami residents, aiming to make the city “the best place on earth.”

Her campaign priorities include enhancing affordability, restoring trust in Miami City Hall by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, funding police and first responders, improving transportation, and protecting the environment, as outlined on her campaign website.

In contrast, González, who is backed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott, has positioned himself as a reform candidate. He previously served as a bilingual surrogate for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and was involved in the transition team before becoming a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute.

González has focused his campaign on modernizing city services, cutting property taxes, easing regulations for small businesses, increasing police presence, and reducing government spending. At the debate, he remarked, “We need reform and we need reform bad,” highlighting the loss of public trust in local government. He expressed a commitment to public service, stating, “Public service and being mayor has to be vocational. It isn’t about making money, it isn’t about making my ego bigger.”

The mayoral race has not attracted the same level of national attention as other high-profile elections, such as those in New York or gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. However, it has been marked by political jabs and past scandals involving various candidates. In September, a Florida judge blocked a city plan to postpone the November election to 2026 without voter approval, a decision that followed a lawsuit initiated by González.

The upcoming runoff will not only determine the next mayor of Miami but also has the potential to make history by electing the city’s first female mayor. As the campaigns intensify, both candidates are expected to further clarify their visions for Miami’s future.

Source: Original article

Republican Congressman Rich McCormick advocates for a stronger partnership between India and the U.S., emphasizing the importance of maintaining close ties and cautioning against tariff increases.

WASHINGTON, DC – Republican Congressman Rich McCormick, co-chair of the India Caucus, has called for a stronger partnership between India and the United States, suggesting that their collaboration could lead to “another generation” of global peace.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Hudson Institute on November 3, McCormick emphasized the need for the Trump administration to keep allies like India “close” to the United States. He stated, “When you talk about India, and I’m the chair of the India Caucus, I love India. I think India and the United States pair up well into the future of the largest democracy and the wealthiest and oldest democracy. Pairing together could bring us together for another generation of peace that the world’s never seen, where you can have prosperity and wealth development.”

In addition to advocating for stronger ties, McCormick also provided advice regarding the Trump administration’s tariff policies toward India. He urged caution, noting that India has historically imposed tariffs averaging around 15 percent, while the U.S. has maintained a much lower rate of about 2 percent with no barriers. “That’s something that President Trump did very well, but we have to be careful,” he remarked.

McCormick praised India’s advancements in its space program, particularly highlighting its achievement in 2023 as the first country to successfully land a spacecraft near the dark side of the moon. He quipped, “A country that does things very well puts a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for $74 million. I always joke that we couldn’t even develop a building to talk about putting a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for that amount. We could do things so much better if we keep our friends close.”

Following a period of relative silence, many Republican lawmakers are now publicly reaffirming their support for India-U.S. relations. In recent weeks, at least six bipartisan letters and resolutions have been drafted, defending the interests of the Indian American community, reaffirming support for the India-U.S. partnership, and urging the administration to be accountable for its recent actions targeting New Delhi.

As discussions around international relations continue to evolve, McCormick’s remarks underscore the significance of maintaining strong diplomatic ties with India, particularly in the context of global peace and economic collaboration.

Source: Original article

Voters across the United States are heading to the polls for key elections on Tuesday, with the outcomes seen as a significant test of former President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.

As voters prepare to cast their ballots on Tuesday, the spotlight is on several key races across the country, including gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as a high-profile mayoral contest in New York City. These elections are viewed as the first major test of former President Donald Trump’s ambitious second-term agenda, which has sparked considerable debate and division.

Nearly ten months into Trump’s second term, the elections are being closely monitored as indicators of the political landscape leading up to next year’s midterms. Trump, leveraging his influence, has urged Republican voters to participate, stating on social media, “FAILING TO VOTE TOMORROW IS THE SAME AS VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT.”

New Jersey and Virginia are the only states holding gubernatorial elections in the year following a presidential election, making their races particularly significant. Historically, these contests have attracted national attention and are often seen as bellwethers for the upcoming midterm elections, where the GOP will aim to defend its slim majorities in both the House and Senate.

In New Jersey, Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli is making his third consecutive bid for the governorship. After a narrow defeat to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy four years ago, Ciattarelli is optimistic about his chances this time around. Despite New Jersey’s Democratic-leaning voter base, Ciattarelli has gained momentum in recent weeks, closing the gap with his Democratic opponent, Representative Mikie Sherrill.

Trump’s support has been pivotal for Ciattarelli, who has received significant backing from the former president in the campaign’s final days. “We appreciate what the president is doing to get the base excited, and remind them that they got to vote,” Ciattarelli stated after a campaign stop in northern New Jersey. He emphasized the importance of voter turnout, asserting that “the future of our state hangs in the balance.”

However, Sherrill has consistently linked Ciattarelli to Trump, arguing that he has aligned himself closely with the former president’s policies. The race has been further complicated by a recent controversy involving the release of Sherrill’s military records, which were improperly redacted and included sensitive personal information. This incident has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious campaign.

In Virginia, the gubernatorial race has also been fraught with drama. Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman, was initially seen as the frontrunner against Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. However, the race took a turn following the emergence of controversial texts from Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones, who faced backlash for comparing a Republican lawmaker to historical mass murderers.

Spanberger has been forced to defend her association with Jones, whose remarks have drawn widespread condemnation. During a recent debate, Earle-Sears seized the opportunity to link Spanberger to Jones, calling for her to denounce his candidacy. Spanberger, while denouncing Jones’s comments, did not distance herself from him, which could impact her campaign.

Meanwhile, the mayoral election in New York City is generating significant interest, particularly as 34-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani seeks to make history as the city’s first Muslim and millennial mayor. Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary earlier this year sent shockwaves through the political landscape, and he now faces challenges from former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after resigning amid scandals four years ago.

Cuomo’s return to the political arena has raised eyebrows, and he is vying for a comeback against Mamdani and two-time Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. The dynamics of this race are further complicated by the recent withdrawal of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who had been running for re-election as an independent but has since endorsed Cuomo.

In addition to these high-stakes races, voters in California will decide on a significant ballot measure regarding congressional redistricting. The proposed measure seeks to dismantle the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, allowing the Democrat-controlled legislature to redraw congressional maps for the next decade. This move is seen as an effort to create additional Democratic-leaning districts in response to recent Republican gains in Texas.

Finally, three state Supreme Court justices in Pennsylvania are facing retention elections, which could shift the balance of power in a court that currently holds a Democratic majority. The outcome of these elections could have far-reaching implications for key issues such as voting rights and reproductive rights in the state.

As voters head to the polls, the stakes are high, and the outcomes of these contests could shape the political landscape for years to come. The results will not only reflect the current sentiments of the electorate but also serve as a precursor to the upcoming midterm elections.

According to Fox News, the outcomes of these races will be pivotal in determining the direction of both state and national politics.

Source: Original article

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu announces his candidacy for the 2026 Senate race in New Hampshire, aiming to succeed retiring Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire is making a significant move to reclaim his seat in the U.S. Senate. On Wednesday, he officially announced his candidacy for the 2026 race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, marking his return to the political arena after nearly two decades in the private sector.

In a campaign launch video shared exclusively with Fox News Digital, Sununu expressed his concerns about the current state of Congress, describing it as “loud, dysfunctional, even angry.” He emphasized his desire to “calm the waters” and contribute to a more productive legislative environment.

Sununu, who previously served three terms in the Senate, first won election in 2002 by defeating then-Governor Shaheen. However, he lost to her in a rematch in 2008. With Shaheen’s announcement earlier this year that she would not seek re-election in the upcoming midterms, Republicans are eager to flip the seat as they aim to defend and potentially expand their Senate majority.

Reflecting on his decision to run again, Sununu stated, “Maybe you’re surprised that I’m running for the Senate again. I’m a bit surprised myself. Why would anyone subject themselves to everything going on there right now? Well, somebody has to step up and lower the temperature. Somebody has to get things done.”

Sununu is a well-known figure in New Hampshire politics, with a family legacy that includes his father, John H. Sununu, a former governor and chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush. His younger brother, Chris Sununu, currently serves as the state’s governor and has been re-elected multiple times.

However, Sununu will face competition for the GOP nomination. Former ambassador and Senator Scott Brown, who previously served in the Senate from Massachusetts and narrowly lost to Shaheen in the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race, entered the race in late June. Brown has emphasized his campaign’s resources and his commitment to grassroots politics, stating, “Our campaign will have the necessary resources for the long haul, and allow me to campaign the only way I know how: relentless hard work and a focus on retail politics that Granite State voters expect.”

Brown has also criticized Sununu for his past lack of support for former President Donald Trump, who remains a significant influence within the GOP. Sununu served as national co-chair for the 2016 presidential campaign of then-Ohio Governor John Kasich, who did not endorse Trump as the party’s nominee. Additionally, both Sununu and his brother endorsed former ambassador Nikki Haley in the 2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, where she competed against Trump for the nomination.

In contrast, Brown endorsed Trump ahead of his 2016 primary victory and later served as U.S. ambassador to New Zealand during Trump’s presidency. Brown has argued that Sununu’s past affiliations with the “DC establishment” and his time in the private sector may not resonate with today’s GOP primary voters. He stated, “Anyone who thinks that a never Trump, corporate lobbyist who hasn’t won an election in a quarter century will resonate with today’s GOP primary voters is living in a different universe.”

Despite the challenges, Sununu’s candidacy has garnered attention from national Republican strategists, who view him as a strong contender to reclaim the Senate seat for the GOP. Earlier this year, Trump expressed support for Chris Sununu’s potential Senate bid, indicating a willingness to overlook past criticisms. Trump remarked, “He’s been very nice to me over the last year or so. I hope he runs. I think he’ll win that seat.”

As the race unfolds, four-term Democratic Representative Chris Pappas has emerged as the frontrunner for his party’s nomination. New Hampshire’s state primary, scheduled for next September, will be one of the last in the nation, while the state has historically held the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Although Republicans have seen success in state elections, controlling the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature, they have not won a Senate election in New Hampshire since 2010. With Sununu’s return to the political landscape, the dynamics of the race are poised to shift as both parties prepare for a competitive battle in the coming years.

Source: Original article

Experts and lawmakers speculate that President Trump’s military actions against drug trafficking in the Caribbean may be aimed at pressuring Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

President Donald Trump recently stated that Venezuela is “feeling heat” as his administration intensifies its efforts against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. In just the past week, U.S. forces have targeted at least two vessels. While Trump claims these strikes aim to reduce the influx of drugs into the United States, experts and some lawmakers suggest that the underlying goal is to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to relinquish power.

“The Trump administration is likely attempting to force Maduro to voluntarily leave office through a series of diplomatic moves, and now military action and the threat thereof,” said Brandan Buck, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, in an email to Fox News Digital. He added that whether this constitutes a ‘regime change’ is a matter of semantics.

The Trump administration has consistently refused to recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader, labeling him instead as the head of a drug cartel. In August, the administration increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, branding him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”

Despite the escalating military actions, the administration has remained tight-lipped regarding Maduro. Trump declined to answer questions about whether the CIA had the authority to “take out” Maduro but confirmed that he authorized the agency to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. This decision followed reports that Venezuela has released prisoners into the U.S. and that drugs were entering the country via sea routes from Venezuela.

In a recent statement, Trump noted that Maduro had offered the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and other natural resources, claiming the Venezuelan leader did not want to “f*** around” with the U.S.

However, experts like Buck caution that these military strikes are unlikely to significantly disrupt the flow of drugs into the U.S. “It is more likely that those strikes are part of this incremental effort to dislodge Maduro than merely an effort to wage war on the cartels,” he explained. He pointed out that Pacific and overland routes through Mexico are far more prolific, and Venezuela itself plays a relatively minor role, especially concerning fentanyl trafficking.

The Trump administration has ramped up its maritime forces to combat drug threats, bolstering naval assets in the Caribbean in recent months. This includes the deployment of several U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers to enhance counter-narcotics efforts in the region, a strategy that began in August.

Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted that the administration hopes the increased military presence will encourage the Venezuelan military to take action against Maduro. “What President Trump is hoping is that this deployment will signal to the Venezuelan military that they should rise up against Maduro themselves,” Ramsey said in an email. “The problem is that we haven’t seen this approach bear fruit in twenty years of trying. Maduro is terrible at governing, but good at keeping his upper ranks fat and happy while the people starve.”

Ramsey emphasized the need for a clear roadmap or blueprint for a transition that could appeal to the ruling party and those around Maduro who might secretly desire change but need assurance of a future in a democratic Venezuela.

As the Trump administration adopts a hard-line approach to combat the flow of drugs into the U.S., it has designated various drug cartel groups, including Tren de Aragua and Sinaloa, as foreign terrorist organizations as of February. Additionally, the White House informed lawmakers on September 30 that the U.S. is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug smugglers, having conducted at least six strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The most recent strike resulted in the seizure of survivors, marking a shift in the nature of these military actions.

Concerns regarding the legality of these strikes have been raised by lawmakers from both parties. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) filed a war powers resolution in September aimed at preventing U.S. forces from engaging in “hostilities” against certain non-state organizations. This resolution failed in the Senate by a narrow margin of 51–48 on October 8, with Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting alongside their Democratic colleagues.

On Friday, Schiff, Kaine, and Paul introduced a more targeted war powers resolution to prevent U.S. armed forces from participating in “hostilities” specifically against Venezuela. The lawmakers expressed concern over Trump’s comments suggesting potential land operations in Venezuela. “The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,” Schiff stated. “In recent weeks, we have seen increasingly concerning movements and reporting that undermine claims that this is merely about stopping drug smugglers. Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela, and we must assert our authority to prevent the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America.”

When questioned about lawmakers’ concerns regarding the legality of the strikes, Trump dismissed them, asserting that lawmakers were informed the vessels carried drugs. “But they are given information that they were loaded up with drugs,” Trump said. “And that’s the thing that matters. When they’re loaded up with drugs, they’re fair game. And every one of those ships were and they’re not ships, they’re boats.”

Source: Original article

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has condemned President Trump’s plan to deploy federal troops to the city, asserting that there is no current lawlessness or violence in the area.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson voiced strong opposition on Saturday to President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the deployment of federal troops to Oregon’s largest city. The president’s decision comes amid ongoing protests and heightened tensions between federal authorities and local activists.

In a statement made during a news conference, Wilson asserted that there is no need for military intervention in Portland, declaring that the number of troops required is “zero.” He emphasized that the city is not a military target, stating, “This is an American city. We do not need any intervention.”

Trump’s announcement, made early Saturday morning, indicated that he had directed War Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide “all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” The president suggested he would authorize full force if necessary to address what he described as lawlessness.

In response, Wilson criticized the portrayal of Portland as a city in chaos, claiming that video footage of violence being circulated was outdated, stating it was “recycled and then recycled again” from incidents that occurred five years ago. He insisted that if Trump were to visit Portland today, he would see a community engaged in everyday activities such as riding bikes, playing sports, and shopping at local markets.

Wilson highlighted the progress the city has made since the footage was recorded, noting reforms in the public safety system and efforts to support vulnerable populations. “We’ve had hard conversations, and we’ve done important work in the years since that footage was taken,” he said.

Protests have intensified near the ICE facility in Portland since June, with city officials citing land use violations, including improper detainee holding times and boarded-up windows. The facility has been the site of vandalism and clashes between protesters and federal agents, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations. Law enforcement has responded with rubber bullets, tear gas, and flashbangs to disperse crowds during these events.

In August, video footage captured a particularly violent protest, showing demonstrators rolling out a guillotine, setting fires, and clashing with authorities. This incident prompted law enforcement to take action to control the situation.

Rather than sending troops to Portland, Wilson suggested that the president consider dispatching “hundreds of engineers, or teachers, or outreach workers” to the city. He expressed disappointment with the federal government’s approach, stating, “At the end of the day, this may be a show of force, but that’s all it is. It’s a big show, and after the big show, everyone goes home.”

Wilson emphasized Portland’s long-standing tradition of peaceful protest and its commitment to positive social change. He expressed concern over the potential risks associated with the federal intervention, noting that the administration has not clarified what it means by deploying “full force” against the city and its residents.

While Trump did not explicitly state that he would deploy full force against Portland’s citizens, he did mention sending “all necessary troops” to protect the city and its ICE facilities, authorizing full force against domestic terrorism if deemed necessary.

Portland has been designated a sanctuary city since 2017, resisting federal immigration enforcement and becoming a focal point in the administration’s immigration enforcement initiatives. In August, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Wilson, warning that the city’s sanctuary policies undermine U.S. interests and demanding compliance with federal law.

The City of Portland did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the situation.

Source: Original article

Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia faces accusations from Republicans regarding his claims about a veterans housing bill, which he defends as a celebration of bipartisan efforts to assist veterans.

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat from Georgia, has dismissed Republican accusations that he misrepresented his involvement in the passage of a veterans housing bill. He questioned, “Is this the best they’ve got?” in response to the criticism.

The controversy centers around claims that Ossoff exaggerated his role in helping to pass legislation designed to prevent veterans from losing their homes. Some local media outlets inaccurately reported that Ossoff co-sponsored the bill, despite his lack of formal involvement.

Ossoff shared a video on social media last week featuring a news report that documented his press conference alongside local leaders and veterans groups. This event occurred shortly after President Donald Trump signed the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act. In the video caption, Ossoff stated that he “championed” the bipartisan bill aimed at protecting veterans.

However, a Fox News analysis revealed that Ossoff was not a co-sponsor of the legislation and did not vote on it. The bill was passed by unanimous consent in the House and through a voice vote in the Senate. Furthermore, Ossoff did not introduce any companion legislation in the Senate, nor was he present or active during the Senate floor discussions in July, according to a GOP source.

Republicans have criticized Ossoff’s messaging, arguing that he had “absolutely nothing” to do with the bill. When asked to clarify the discrepancies regarding his claims, Ossoff’s team defended his statements, asserting that he was merely celebrating the passage of a bipartisan bill that addressed a problem created by Republicans.

A spokesperson for Ossoff stated, “The Trump administration canceled the VASP program, and Sen. Ossoff sounded the alarm that its cancellation risked veteran homelessness, then celebrated the passage of a bipartisan bill to solve the problem. This is the best they’ve got?”

The VA Home Loan Reform Act is intended to replace the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program, which Ossoff previously criticized the Trump administration for terminating. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Republican from Wisconsin and the lead sponsor of the VA Home Loan Reform Act, described the VASP program as “fiscally irresponsible” and stated it was “endangering the entire VA home loan guarantee program.”

After Van Orden highlighted Ossoff’s social media posts claiming he “championed” the new veteran foreclosure bill, he accused the senator of telling a “bald-faced lie.” Other Republicans joined in the criticism, attacking Ossoff on social media platforms.

Rep. Buddy Carter, a Republican from Georgia, referred to Ossoff’s statements as “pathetic, disgusting lies,” suggesting that the senator was using veterans as props for political gain. He stated, “Congrats on showing Georgians you’re not above using veterans as props for your press stunts. Your empty suit gimmicks spit in the face of people you claim to serve.”

Senator Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that Ossoff had no involvement in the Republican-led efforts to assist veterans. He criticized Ossoff for attempting to take credit amid what he described as political desperation, stating, “Georgia deserves so much better.”

Van Orden reiterated that Ossoff had no role in the bill, emphasizing, “He did not even vote for it; it passed by unanimous consent. This disgusting and shameful behavior must stop. Veterans are not political props.”

The controversy surrounding Ossoff’s claims has led to multiple local news outlets reporting inaccuracies regarding his role in the Veterans Affairs legislation. For instance, WSB Radio in Atlanta published an article stating that a new law co-sponsored by Ossoff aimed to prevent veteran foreclosures. However, according to official records, Van Orden was the bill’s sole sponsor.

The bill was forwarded to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee for approval before being passed by a voice vote in the Senate, where Ossoff is not a member.

Ossoff’s team announced that President Trump signed the Veterans Affairs Home Loan Program Reform Act into law on a Wednesday, describing it as bipartisan legislation that Ossoff co-sponsored and supported to assist veterans relying on VA loans. This assertion has been challenged by critics who argue that Ossoff’s claims are misleading.

As Ossoff prepares for his 2026 re-election campaign, he faces a competitive Republican field, including Derek Dooley, a former University of Tennessee football coach and ally of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, as well as Republican Representatives Mike Collins and Buddy Carter.

As the political landscape evolves, the scrutiny surrounding Ossoff’s claims highlights the contentious nature of political discourse, particularly regarding issues affecting veterans.

Source: Original article

World leaders condemned political violence following the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative media figure, during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University.

International leaders expressed their outrage and sorrow on Wednesday after the tragic news broke that Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative media personality and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during a speaking event at Utah Valley University. Kirk, 31, was a husband and father of two.

Former President Donald Trump confirmed Kirk’s death in a social media post, revealing that he had been hospitalized after suffering a neck wound from the shooting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the first world leaders to voice his grief over Kirk’s assassination. He stated on social media, “Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom.” Netanyahu described Kirk as a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” who fought against falsehoods and stood firm for Judeo-Christian values. He noted that he had spoken with Kirk just two weeks prior and had invited him to Israel, lamenting that “sadly, that visit will not take place.” He concluded his tribute by acknowledging Kirk’s profound pride in America and his unwavering belief in free speech, stating, “Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.”

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also expressed her condolences, stating on X that she was “shocked by the news of the killing of Charlie Kirk.” She characterized the act as “an atrocious murder, a deep wound for democracy and for those who believe in freedom.” Meloni extended her sympathies to Kirk’s family, loved ones, and the American conservative community.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei shared a personal photo with Kirk and former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, offering condolences to Kirk’s family and to the young people worldwide who admired him. He called Kirk “a formidable disseminator of the ideas of freedom and staunch defender of the West,” labeling him a “victim of an atrocious murder” and attributing blame to the “left,” despite law enforcement officials not confirming the identity of the shooter. “The entire world lost an incredible human being,” Milei added.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed his sorrow and condemned political violence in a post on X, stating, “My thoughts this evening are with the loved ones of Charlie Kirk.” He emphasized the heartbreak of a young family being robbed of a father and husband, asserting that “we must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear – there can be no justification for political violence.”

Numerous leaders across the U.K. echoed Starmer’s sentiments, including Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, who shared a photo with Kirk and remarked, “This is a very dark day for American democracy.” He expressed his deep sadness for Kirk, his wife, and children.

New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, also condemned the rise of political violence and its threat to democracy. He stated on X, “It is tragic that we now live in a world where differences of opinion are met with a gun,” emphasizing that Kirk’s death should not merely be classified as “political violence” but rather as “an assassination.” Peters lamented the loss, noting that Kirk had traveled extensively to university campuses to provide open forums for debate, where all voices were welcomed. He warned that “the essence of democracy is under threat around the world and we must do everything we can to protect it.”

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked a global conversation about the dangers of political violence and the importance of safeguarding democratic discourse.

Source: Original article

Democrats are condemning President Trump’s recent social media post that suggested military action and deportations in Chicago, calling it an inappropriate threat against U.S. cities.

Democrats across the United States are voicing strong criticism of President Donald Trump following a controversial social media post that appeared to threaten Chicago with military intervention and deportations. The post, shared on Truth Social, featured an AI-generated image of Trump styled as Robert Duvall’s character from the iconic Vietnam War film “Apocalypse Now.” The image was accompanied by the phrase “Chipocalypse Now” and a play on a famous quote from the film: “I love the smell of deportations in the morning.”

In the post, Trump stated, “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” referencing his recent executive order that renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This provocative message has sparked outrage among local and state leaders, particularly as discussions about deploying the National Guard to address crime in Chicago have intensified.

California Governor Gavin Newsom was among the first to respond, condemning Trump for using military personnel as “political pawns.” He urged Americans not to become desensitized to such threats, stating, “The President of the United States is deploying the military onto US streets and using our troops like political pawns.” Newsom’s comments reflect a broader concern among Democrats regarding the militarization of domestic issues.

Illinois Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin also expressed their disapproval of Trump’s remarks. Duckworth, a combat veteran and retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, asserted, “No Donald, Chicago is not your war zone.” Durbin echoed her sentiments, criticizing Trump for diverting attention from pressing national issues such as job reports and public health crises. He described the notion of deploying troops to Chicago as “disgusting” and an embarrassment for the nation.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker joined the chorus of criticism, labeling Trump’s threats as a serious matter. “The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city,” Pritzker wrote. “This is not a joke. This is not normal. Donald Trump isn’t a strongman; he’s a scared man. Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has also been vocal in his opposition to Trump’s comments. He highlighted recent data indicating a decline in violent crime in the city, with homicides and robberies decreasing by over 30% and shootings dropping by nearly 40%. Johnson remarked, “The President’s threats are beneath the honor of our nation, but the reality is that he wants to occupy our city and break our Constitution.” He emphasized the need to protect democracy from what he described as authoritarianism.

The backlash against Trump’s post underscores the growing tension between the federal government and local authorities regarding crime and public safety. As discussions about the potential deployment of the National Guard continue, Illinois leaders remain firm in their stance against what they perceive as unwarranted military threats against American cities.

According to Fox News, the situation continues to evolve as local leaders prepare to respond to any federal actions that may arise.

Source: Original article

Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to limit presidential authority over military deployments without state approval.

WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) has taken a significant step by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that seeks to restrict the president’s authority to deploy U.S. military forces or federalize the National Guard without obtaining approval from state officials.

This legislative measure, co-sponsored by Congresswoman Haley Stevens (D-MI), is a reintroduction of their previously proposed Stop Trump’s Abuse of Power Act. The amendment arises in response to actions taken by former President Donald Trump, who threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago without a request from Illinois officials. Additionally, Trump had previously sent active-duty forces to cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Krishnamoorthi expressed concerns regarding the implications of such unilateral military actions, describing them as an overreach of executive power that could undermine constitutional protections. “No president should be able to turn the U.S. military into their personal police force,” he stated. He further criticized Trump’s threats to militarize Chicago, suggesting that such moves would lead to “chaos and spectacle” rather than effectively addressing public safety issues.

The proposed amendment would mandate that a governor or state executive must formally request federal military support prior to any deployment of active-duty personnel or the federalization of the National Guard. Furthermore, it would prohibit the use of military troops in response to peaceful protests or demonstrations without the necessary state approval.

Currently, the amendment is under review by the House Rules Committee, which will determine whether it can advance to a floor vote as part of the NDAA.

As discussions around military authority and state rights continue, Krishnamoorthi’s initiative reflects a growing concern among lawmakers regarding the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly in the context of public safety and civil liberties.

Source: Original article

Texas is embroiled in a contentious political battle over redistricting, raising concerns about representation and the voices of marginalized communities ahead of the 2026 elections.

The Lone Star State is currently facing a political firestorm that extends beyond party control; it delves into the fundamental issue of representation. The ongoing debate centers on whose voices are amplified and whose are marginalized in the electoral process.

On August 14, a briefing hosted by American Community Media (ACoM) brought together state lawmakers, civil rights lawyers, and advocates to address what they term a “redistricting war.” The focus of this conflict is the Republican-led initiative to redraw Texas’s electoral maps, a move critics argue is designed to benefit the party in the upcoming 2026 elections while undermining the voting power of Black, Latino, and Asian communities.

Texas State Representative Gene Wu, who participated in the briefing from Chicago, highlighted the urgency of the situation. Wu, along with numerous Democratic colleagues, had previously staged a dramatic walkout on August 3 to block a quorum and stall the redistricting bill. “This isn’t just politics—it’s cheating,” Wu asserted. “They’re trying to rewrite the rules mid-game because they know they’re losing.”

Wu elaborated on the tactics being employed in the redistricting process, describing them as “cracking and packing.” He explained, “They’re cracking minority communities into pieces and attaching them to districts that don’t share their interests. Or they’re packing us into one district, so we can’t influence others. Either way, it’s about silencing us.”

He raised a critical alarm about the implications of these changes: “If this goes through, your voice will carry less weight. If you’re Latino, your vote might count as one-third of a white vote. If you’re Black, maybe one-fifth. That’s not democracy.” Wu warned that if such practices are allowed to continue, it could set a dangerous precedent for redistricting efforts across the country. “If they get away with this, every state will start redrawing maps after every election they don’t like. That’s the end of our republic,” he cautioned.

The concerns surrounding the redistricting process are echoed by Karla Maradiaga, a voting rights attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. Maradiaga recounted her experience at a redistricting hearing in Houston, where nearly 1,000 individuals signed up to speak despite the maps not yet being released. “People showed up anyway,” she noted, emphasizing the community’s concern over the lack of transparency in the process.

Maradiaga criticized the current redistricting efforts as being driven by political pressures rather than the needs of the community or census data. “This process should be open and fair,” she stated. “Instead, it’s being driven by a letter from the DOJ under Trump.”

She also addressed the misconception surrounding partisan gerrymandering, clarifying that while Republicans assert it is legal, the Supreme Court has not endorsed it. “The Supreme Court didn’t say it’s OK. It said it’s not their job to fix it. That’s a big difference,” she explained. Maradiaga is currently pursuing legal challenges against the redistricting efforts, including a case in Tarrant County where a predominantly minority district was dismantled, resulting in the removal of a Black woman commissioner from office. “We’re fighting back,” she affirmed. “Because this is about protecting the right to vote.”

Melissa Ayala, a longtime activist and resident of Congressional District 29, shared her personal experiences regarding the impact of the new maps on her community. “We’re a working-class, mostly Latino district,” she said. “Now they’ve redrawn it into a weird box that favors Republicans. It’s clear parts we were left out on purpose.”

Ayala, who previously worked as a census worker, understands the importance of accurate representation. “I learned about redistricting through the census. But now, even older folks are just learning how it works—and how it affects them,” she remarked. She highlighted the economic pressures that hinder families from staying politically engaged, stating, “Groceries are up. Cars are expensive. People are just trying to survive. But we still need to vote. We still need to organize.”

Her message was clear: “We’re not just voters—we’re also on the menu. If we don’t fight back, we’ll be served up.”

Carmela Walker, Program Manager at the Houston Area Urban League, emphasized the high stakes for Black communities in this redistricting battle. “This isn’t just about race—it’s about humanity,” Walker said. “When you lose your voice, you lose your ability to fight for schools, healthcare, safety—everything.”

Walker shared troubling accounts of families facing mistreatment in schools and communities without representation. “We got a call about a mom who was arrested just for sitting with her child in the cafeteria. That’s what happens when you don’t have representation,” she recounted.

She called for unity and civic education, asserting that fairness is a civic value that transcends partisanship and race. “No one’s coming to save us. We have to save ourselves,” she urged, emphasizing the need for community solidarity.

Despite the grim outlook, the speakers at the briefing remained united in their call to action: stay engaged, stay vocal, and keep voting. In closing remarks, Wu advocated for “trigger laws” in blue states like California to counter Texas’s redistricting moves. Maradiaga reiterated the importance of litigation, while Ayala urged for more town halls and grassroots organizing. Walker reminded attendees that “we’re stronger together.”

Source: Original article

Democratic Party officials gathered in Minnesota for their annual meeting, facing internal divisions over the Gaza war and campaign finance reforms while emphasizing unity against former President Donald Trump.

Democratic Party officials and committee members convened in Minnesota on Monday for their annual summer meeting, where they engaged in discussions about competing positions regarding the ongoing war in Gaza and the need for campaign finance reforms.

The meeting commenced with a call for unity against former President Donald Trump, despite the underlying tensions within the party. “We are unified towards one single goal: to stop Donald Trump and put this country back on track,” declared DNC Chair Ken Martin to the more than 400 elected officials from all 50 states and seven territories.

While the Democrats appeared to rally around the objective of countering Trump’s controversial actions since his return to the White House, divisions among committee members were anticipated to surface during the discussions scheduled for Tuesday.

On the agenda was the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, alongside the issue of limiting dark money in presidential politics. The DNC’s Resolutions Committee was set to meet, where competing symbolic resolutions regarding the Gaza war would be voted on. This conflict was ignited by Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in nearly 1,200 Israeli deaths and over 250 hostages taken. In the aftermath, Israel’s military response has led to the deaths of over 60,000 Palestinians.

The Democratic Party’s historically strong support for Israel has begun to fracture amid rising concerns over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, particularly among the party’s progressive base. Recent polling indicates a significant decline in support for Israel’s military actions among Democrats.

One resolution, which Martin supports, calls for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. In contrast, a competing resolution advocates for an arms embargo and the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, a long-standing ally in the Middle East.

Another resolution expected to generate significant debate is Martin’s proposal for the DNC to reaffirm its commitment to eliminating unlimited corporate and dark money in the presidential nominating process, starting with the 2028 cycle. This initiative aims to create a new panel that will propose enforceable measures to curb the influence of dark money in the party’s primary elections.

As the influence of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions but must disclose their donors, has grown in recent election cycles, the call for reform has gained traction among party leaders.

Democratic leaders are gathering at a critical time for the party, which is attempting to recover from significant electoral losses in the previous year. The Democrats lost control of the White House and Senate and fell short in their efforts to regain a House majority. Additionally, Republicans have made gains among voter demographics that were once key to the Democratic base.

The situation has only worsened for the Democrats in the ten months following those electoral setbacks. The party’s brand has become increasingly unpopular, particularly among younger voters, as national surveys show approval ratings at all-time lows. The DNC is also facing a substantial fundraising deficit compared to the Republican National Committee (RNC), with voter registration data indicating a decline in Democratic Party registrations while GOP sign-ups have increased in 30 states that register voters by party.

Amid these challenges, Martin and other party leaders emphasized the importance of unity. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz addressed committee members, stating, “There’s a division in my damn house, and we’re still married, and things are good. That’s life… We are strong because we challenge each other.”

Longtime Democratic strategist and DNC committee member Maria Cardona echoed this sentiment, expressing frustration over the focus on internal conflicts. “I’m so sick of people focusing on the infighting and the circular firing squad. All of that is crap when we have real issues, existential threats that we need to fight about, and we are all united on that front and that’s all that matters,” she said.

Martin, who was elected DNC chair in February, has navigated considerable turmoil during his tenure, including controversy surrounding former vice chair David Hogg’s support for primary challengers against older House Democrats in secure blue districts.

In response to the DNC’s summer meeting, RNC communications director Zach Parkinson criticized Martin’s leadership, stating, “Under Ken Martin’s leadership, Democrats have sunk to their lowest approval rating in 35 years.” He added that Republicans view Martin’s leadership positively, suggesting they would endorse him to continue as DNC Chair.

Source: Original article

Democrats are renewing calls for Washington D.C. statehood as President Trump asserts control over the district’s police force, reigniting a long-standing debate about representation and governance.

The debate over Washington D.C. statehood has intensified as President Donald Trump continues to exert authority over the district’s police force. This situation has prompted House and Senate Democrats, along with D.C.’s non-voting delegates, to argue that if D.C. were a state, the president would not have the power to federalize its police force.

Last week, Trump invoked a provision of the Home Rule Act, which grants some autonomy to the nation’s capital, to effectively take control of the Metropolitan Police Department. This move was framed as a response to rising crime rates, leading to an increased presence of federal law enforcement agencies and the National Guard on the streets of D.C. The White House has highlighted rapid decreases in crime and numerous arrests since the federal takeover.

However, critics argue that the president’s actions represent an overreach of power and underscore the need for D.C. to achieve statehood. Currently, Washington D.C. lacks voting representation in Congress and is overseen by Congress despite having its own mayor and city council. Senator Paul Strauss, the district’s shadow senator, emphasized that if D.C. were a state, the president would not be able to impose such control outside of the federal enclave.

Strauss, who has long advocated for D.C. statehood, expressed concern that the current crackdown ignores the self-determination of D.C. residents. “It would be one thing if we actually had a crime emergency here, but we don’t,” he stated. “Violent crime in particular is down to 30-year lows. That’s not what’s happening here. He is using these national guardsmen and women as a stunt, and that’s wrong.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s non-voting delegate in the House, echoed Strauss’s sentiments. “The president’s abuses are evidence of the urgent need for D.C. statehood so that more than 700,000 D.C. residents can finally have the full rights and privileges afforded to other Americans, including control of their own local resources and policies,” she said in a statement.

In response, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers countered that violent crime in the district has “been spiraling out of control.” She accused Democrats of misleading the public regarding crime levels in the nation’s capital. “If they needed some anecdotal evidence, they could ask their own Democrat colleague about the time he was carjacked outside of his D.C. apartment by three armed criminals,” she remarked.

Lawmakers from neighboring Virginia and Maryland joined Strauss and Norton in arguing that Trump’s federalization of the local police highlights the urgent need for D.C. statehood. Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va., described the police takeover as a prime example of why D.C. deserves the same rights as states. Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized Republicans for playing political games with the district’s funding while supporting what he termed an authoritarian overreach by the president.

Van Hollen has announced plans to reintroduce a bill alongside Norton to grant statehood to D.C. He, Norton, and Representative Jamie Raskin, D-Md., have also introduced a joint resolution in the House aimed at halting Trump’s takeover of the D.C. police.

Raskin pointed out that residents of Washington D.C. are uniquely disenfranchised, being the only citizens in a capital city worldwide without representation in their national legislature. “The people of Washington have petitioned for statehood and should be admitted as a state rather than treated as a MAGA-colonized populace,” he stated.

Despite the renewed push for statehood, the likelihood of achieving this goal remains slim while Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the presidency. Strauss noted, “I think there’s probably not a pathway to get this done while Republicans control all three branches of the government. They have shown that they’re more interested in the partisan impact of controlling the legislative branch and not really interested in the principle of self-determination for Washington, D.C. residents.”

The ongoing debate over D.C. statehood continues to reflect broader issues of representation and governance in the United States, with many advocates arguing that the residents of the nation’s capital deserve the same rights as those in the states.

Source: Original article

Former diplomat Vikas Swarup discusses U.S. President Donald Trump’s dissatisfaction with India, citing tariffs and geopolitical tensions following recent military conflicts with Pakistan.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s imposition of punitive tariffs on India stems from his frustration over New Delhi’s dismissal of his claimed role in facilitating a peace agreement with Pakistan, according to former diplomat Vikas Swarup. The ex-High Commissioner to Canada emphasized that while the U.S. maintains a tactical relationship with Pakistan, its ties with India remain strategic.

In an interview with the news agency ANI, Swarup praised India’s resilience against U.S. pressure during trade negotiations, asserting that Trump’s tariffs could ultimately lead to increased inflation in the United States.

Swarup explained that Trump’s discontent with India is multifaceted. He noted that Trump perceives India’s membership in BRICS as a challenge to U.S. interests, viewing the group as an anti-American coalition intent on establishing an alternative currency to the dollar. “He feels that India should not be a member of the BRICS,” Swarup stated.

Another point of contention is India’s refusal to acknowledge Trump’s contributions to the ceasefire negotiations following the military conflict in May. New Delhi has consistently maintained that it does not accept external mediation in such matters. The ceasefire was directly negotiated between the armed forces of India and Pakistan, initiated at the request of Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations.

Trump has repeatedly asserted that he played a crucial role in de-escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations, claiming credit for averting a potential nuclear conflict. “He is miffed that India has not acknowledged his role, whereas Pakistan has recognized his contributions and even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize,” Swarup remarked.

In early May, India conducted Operation Sindoor in response to a terror attack in Pahalgam, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Following this, India successfully repelled further Pakistani aggression.

Swarup highlighted that India has resisted U.S. demands for greater access to its agriculture and dairy sectors, viewing Trump’s tariffs as part of a broader strategy to pressure India into compliance. He noted that this tactic also serves as a signal to Russia, as Trump has expressed frustration over President Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to agree to a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

As Trump prepares for a meeting with Putin in Alaska, concerns linger among Kyiv and its allies that the two leaders may attempt to dictate terms for peace in the nearly four-year-long war.

Swarup characterized Trump as a dealmaker who has positioned himself as a peacemaker in various global conflicts, including those in Thailand, Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He believes that the India-Pakistan situation is particularly significant due to the nuclear capabilities of both nations. “From that perspective, Trump feels that he deserves credit,” he said.

He also noted that Trump has expressed a desire to surpass Barack Obama, the only U.S. president to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. “He has made no secret of his longing for that Nobel Peace Prize,” Swarup added, suggesting that a successful ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could be Trump’s ticket to such recognition.

Regarding the U.S.’s recent warming of relations with Pakistan, Swarup asserted that India’s foreign policy should not be blamed for this shift. He pointed out that Pakistan has successfully lobbied for greater access to U.S. decision-makers, which has influenced the current dynamics. “Pakistan, through some intermediaries, has gotten the ear of the U.S. President,” he said.

Swarup also mentioned Pakistan’s ambitions to become a hub for cryptocurrency, noting that a venture backed by Trump has signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s crypto council. “I think Pakistan is now trying to position itself as the ‘Crypto King’ of South Asia,” he remarked.

Despite the current tensions, Swarup believes that India remains a vital partner for the U.S., and that the relationship is fundamentally strategic rather than transactional, unlike the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. “I think the relationship with Pakistan right now is very tactical and short-term, primarily motivated by financial gain,” he stated.

He cautioned against viewing the U.S.-Pakistan relationship as indicative of a permanent shift, describing it instead as a temporary phase. “I call it a storm, not a rupture. You just have to wait out the storms. All storms eventually pass,” he said.

Swarup criticized the U.S. for labeling India as a “Tariff King,” pointing out that the U.S. now holds that title with an average tariff of 18.4 percent compared to India’s 15.98 percent. He argued that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration would ultimately burden American consumers and contribute to rising inflation in the U.S.

“If you cave in to a bully, then the bully will increase his demands,” he warned, asserting that India has made the right choice by maintaining its strategic autonomy. “Our strategic autonomy has been the bedrock of our foreign policy right from the 1950s,” he concluded.

In July, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, which later escalated to a total of 50 percent due to India’s imports of Russian oil. This move came despite hopes for an interim trade deal that could have mitigated the impact of such tariffs.

Swarup also addressed the implications of India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, noting that Pakistan is increasingly anxious about its water supply. He suggested that Pakistan’s military leadership is attempting to provoke fears of nuclear conflict to attract international attention. “They are deliberately provoking nuclear blackmail just so that they can catch the attention of the world,” he said.

India’s recent actions against Pakistan, particularly following the Pahalgam attack, have led to heightened tensions, with Pakistan’s military chief making nuclear threats during his visit to the United States.

Source: Original article