[ad_1]
The Trump administration is promising an even tougher anti-immigration agenda after an Afghan national was charged this week in the shooting of two National Guard members, with new restrictions targeting the tens of thousands of Afghans resettled in the U.S. and those seeking to come, many of whom served alongside American soldiers in the two-decade war.
But those still waiting to come were already facing stricter measures as part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on legal and illegal migration that began when he started his second term in January. And the Afghan immigrants living in the U.S. and now in the administration’s crosshairs were among the most extensively vetted, often undergoing years of security screening, experts and advocates say.
The suspected shooter, who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan War, “was vetted both before he landed, probably once he landed, once he applied for asylum,” said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute. “But more importantly, he was almost certainly vetted extensively and much more by the CIA.”
Haris Tarin, a former U.S. official who worked on the Biden-era program that resettled Afghans, predicted that “as the investigation unfolds, you will see that this is not a failure of screening. This is a failure of us not being able to integrate — not just foreign intelligence and military personnel — but our own veterans, over the past 25 years.”
The program Operations Allies Welcome initially brought roughly 76,000 Afghans to the United States, many of whom had worked alongside American troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators. The initiative was in place for around one year before shifting to a longer-term program called Operation Enduring Welcome. Almost 200,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.S. under both programs.
Among those brought to the U.S. under the program was the alleged shooter, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who now faces a first-degree murder charge in the death of 20-year-old Specialist Sarah Beckstrom. The other National Guard member who was shot, 24-year-old Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition.
Those resettlements are now on hold. The State Department has temporarily stopped issuing visas for all people traveling on Afghan passports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced late Friday on X.
Trump and his allies have seized on the shooting to criticize gaps in the U.S. vetting process and the speed of admissions, even though some Republicans spent the months and years after the 2021 withdrawal criticizing the Biden administration for not moving fast enough to approve some applications from Afghan allies.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe said Lakanwal “should have never been allowed to come here,” Trump called lax migration policies “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation,” and Vice President JD Vance said Biden’s policy was “opening the floodgate to unvetted Afghan refugees.”
That rhetoric quickly turned into policy announcements, with Trump saying he would “permanently pause all migration” from a list of nearly 20 countries, “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States.” Many of these changes had already been set in motion through a series of executive orders over the past 10 months, including most recently in June.
“They are highlighting practices that were already going into place,” said Andrea Flores, a lawyer who was an immigration policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations.
Lakanwal applied for asylum during the Biden administration, and his request was approved in April of this year after undergoing a thorough vetting, according to #AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the war.
Flores said the system has worked across administrations: “You may hear people say, ‘Well, he was granted asylum under Trump. This is Trump’s problem.’ That’s not how our immigration system works. It relies on the same bedding. No asylum laws have really been changed by Congress.”
Trump and other U.S. officials have used the attack to demand a re-examination for everyone who came to the U.S. from Afghanistan, a country he called “a hellhole on Earth” on Thursday.
“These policies were already creating widespread disruption and fear among lawfully admitted families. What’s new and deeply troubling is the attempt to retroactively tie all of this to one act of violence in a way that casts suspicion on entire nationalities, including Afghan allies who risked their lives to protect our troops,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, said in a statement Friday.
This has left the nearly 200,000 Afghans who are currently living across the U.S. in deep fear and shame over the actions of one person in their community. Those in the U.S. are now worrying about their legal status being revoked, while others in the immigration pipeline here and abroad are waiting in limbo.
Nesar, a 22-year-old Afghan who arrived in America weeks after the fall of Kabul, said he had just begun to assimilate into life in the U.S. when the attack happened on Wednesday. He agreed to speak to the AP on condition that only his first name be used for fear of reprisals or targeting by immigration officials.
“Life was finally getting easier for me. I’ve learned to speak English. I found a better job,” he said. “But after this happened two days ago, I honestly went to the grocery store this morning, and I was feeling so uncomfortable among all of those people. I was like, maybe they’re now looking at me the same way as the shooter.”
Two days before the shooting, Nesar and his father, who worked for the Afghan president during the war, had received an interview date of Dec. 13 for their green card application, a moment he said they had been working toward for four years. However, he says it is now unclear if their application will move forward or if their interview will take place.
Another Afghan national, who also spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said that after fearing for his life under Taliban rule, he felt a sense of peace and hope when he finally received a special immigrant visa to come to the U.S. two years ago.
He said he thought he could use his experience working as a defense attorney in Afghanistan to contribute to American society. But now, he says the actions of an “extremist who, despite benefiting from the safety and livelihood provided by this country, ungratefully attacked two American soldiers,” he and other Afghans will once again face scrutiny.
“It seems that whenever a terrorist commits a crime, its shadow falls upon me simply because I am from Afghanistan,” he added.
___
Associated Press writer Renata Brito contributed to this report from Barcelona, Spain.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
MANILA, Philippines — World shares were mixed Friday in holiday-thinned trading as tech stocks slipped as a recent rebound driven by hopes for an interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve lost steam.
In early European trading, Germany’s DAX shed nearly 0.2% to 23,730.81 as traders awaited inflation data set to be released later in the day.
Britain’s FTSE 100 edged up 0.2% to 9,708.36 on gains in energy and mining stocks.
The CAC 40 in France was nearly unchanged at 8,100.87, despite government data showing France’s economy grew 0.5% quarter-on-quarter in July-September, up from 0.3% in the previous quarter.
While developments related to artificial intelligence have been driving recent ups and downs in world markets, the focus remains on the outlook for U.S. monetary policy. Recent comments by Fed officials have helped revive hopes the central bank will act during its meeting next month.
“Everyone is sprinting toward the same conclusion: the Fed will deliver holiday cheer,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.
In Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed 0.2% higher to 50,253.91, rebounding from losses earlier in the day. Data showed Japan’s housing starts rose 3.2% in October from the same period a year ago, the first annual increase since March. The number defied market expectations of 5.2% decline and reversed a 7.3% drop in September.
Government data also showed Tokyo’s year-on-year core inflation in November remained at 2.8%, unchanged from October and above the Bank of Japan’s 2% target. That reinforces expectations of a gradual shift by the central bank to higher interest rates, although a rate hike is not expected at the Bank of Japan’s December meeting.
South Korea’s Kospi dropped 1.5% to 3,926.59 after the country’s industrial production fell 4% month-on-month in October, more than the 1.1% decline in September. Semiconductor production plunged 26.5% month-on-month, pushing down tech stocks like LG Energy Solutions, SK Hynix, Samsung Electronics.
In Chinese markets, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index lost 0.3% to 25,858.89. The Shanghai Composite index edged up 0.3% to 3,888.60.
Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 index fell less than 0.1% to 8,614.10, while Taiwan’s Taiex rose 0.3%. India’s BSE Sensex was unchanged.
On Wednesday, before the trading holiday in the U.S., stocks closed broadly higher on Wall Street. The S&P 500 gaining 0.7% and the Dow up 0.7%. The Nasdaq composite added 0.8%.
Early Friday, the futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were up 0.1%.
Brent crude, the international standard for pricing, was up 15 cents at $63.02 per barrel.
The U.S. dollar rose to 156.34 Japanese yen from 156.31 yen. The euro fell to $1.1567 from $1.1596.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
MANILA, Philippines — World shares were mixed Friday in holiday-thinned trading as tech stocks slipped as a recent rebound driven by hopes for an interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve lost steam.
In early European trading, Germany’s DAX shed nearly 0.2% to 23,730.81 as traders awaited inflation data set to be released later in the day.
Britain’s FTSE 100 edged up 0.2% to 9,708.36 on gains in energy and mining stocks.
The CAC 40 in France was nearly unchanged at 8,100.87, despite government data showing France’s economy grew 0.5% quarter-on-quarter in July-September, up from 0.3% in the previous quarter.
While developments related to artificial intelligence have been driving recent ups and downs in world markets, the focus remains on the outlook for U.S. monetary policy. Recent comments by Fed officials have helped revive hopes the central bank will act during its meeting next month.
“Everyone is sprinting toward the same conclusion: the Fed will deliver holiday cheer,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.
In Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed 0.2% higher to 50,253.91, rebounding from losses earlier in the day. Data showed Japan’s housing starts rose 3.2% in October from the same period a year ago, the first annual increase since March. The number defied market expectations of 5.2% decline and reversed a 7.3% drop in September.
Government data also showed Tokyo’s year-on-year core inflation in November remained at 2.8%, unchanged from October and above the Bank of Japan’s 2% target. That reinforces expectations of a gradual shift by the central bank to higher interest rates, although a rate hike is not expected at the Bank of Japan’s December meeting.
South Korea’s Kospi dropped 1.5% to 3,926.59 after the country’s industrial production fell 4% month-on-month in October, more than the 1.1% decline in September. Semiconductor production plunged 26.5% month-on-month, pushing down tech stocks like LG Energy Solutions, SK Hynix, Samsung Electronics.
In Chinese markets, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index lost 0.3% to 25,858.89. The Shanghai Composite index edged up 0.3% to 3,888.60.
Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 index fell less than 0.1% to 8,614.10, while Taiwan’s Taiex rose 0.3%. India’s BSE Sensex was unchanged.
On Wednesday, before the trading holiday in the U.S., stocks closed broadly higher on Wall Street. The S&P 500 gaining 0.7% and the Dow up 0.7%. The Nasdaq composite added 0.8%.
Early Friday, the futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were up 0.1%.
Brent crude, the international standard for pricing, was up 15 cents at $63.02 per barrel.
The U.S. dollar rose to 156.34 Japanese yen from 156.31 yen. The euro fell to $1.1567 from $1.1596.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Black Friday may no longer be the retail bacchanalia of years past, when the promise of one-time bargains caused people to leave Thanksgiving tables for malls where some customers got into fistfights over toys or TVs. But the event still has enough enthusiasts to make it the biggest shopping day in the U.S.
For that reason, the day retains its crown as the official start of the holiday shopping season. This year’s kickoff comes as companies navigate an uncertain economic environment and wrestle with the volatility of President Donald Trump ‘s wide-ranging tariffs on imported goods.
Many have absorbed some of the costs and pulled back on hiring instead of raising prices for customers. Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy fell this month to the lowest since April — when Trump announced his tariffs — in the aftermath of the government shutdown, weak hiring and stubborn inflation, according to a report The Conference Board issued Tuesday.
Shoppers nonetheless have remained resilient and willing to spend, at least judging by the solid quarterly sales reports from Walmart, Best Buy and other retailers. But many retail executives also say customers are focusing on deals and have been selective in what they’re buying.
Aron Boxer, 50, from Greenwich, Connecticut, said he delayed buying a car this year amid worries about tariffs. He said he’ll be looking for deals on toys on Cyber Monday but is also willing to wait to the end for the best discount.
“The tariffs definitely are not behind me, and I am concerned about it,” the founder of an educational services company and a life coaching service said. “I did consider buying earlier this year, but I feel like some people made some pretty bad business decisions anticipating tariffs to have a bigger impact than they did.”
Still, analysts and mall executives cited solid momentum heading into Black Friday week.
“We’re seeing a very positive start to the holiday season,” said Jill Renslow, chief business development and marketing officer at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, which plans to give gift cards and other giveaways to the first 250 customers who show up at 7 a.m. on Friday. “The last few Saturdays in November have been very strong.”
Mall traffic heading into Black Friday surpassed the numbers from pre-pandemic 2019, Renslow said.
A forecast from the National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, predicted a healthy increase in holiday sales. The group estimated that shoppers would collectively spend between $1.01 trillion and $1.02 trillion in November and December, or 3.7% to 4.2% more than last year.
Retailers rung up $976 billion in holiday sales last year, or a 4.3% increase from 2023, the group said.
Mastercard SpendingPulse, which tracks spending across all payment methods including cash, predicted a 3.6% increase in holiday sales from Nov. 1 through Dec. 24. That compares with a 4.1% increase last year.
“Clearly, there’s uncertainty,” Mastercard Chief Economist Michelle Meyer said. “Clearly, consumers feel on edge. But at the moment, it doesn’t seem like it’s changing how they are showing up for this season.”
Online sales have been strong so far. From Nov. 1 to Sunday, consumers spent $79.7 billion, according to Adobe Analytics. That represented a gain of 7.5% from a year earlier and was bigger than Adobe’s 5.3% growth forecast for the season.
Tariffs have played a role in stores’ merchandising and pricing strategies. Many retailers accelerated shipments of some holiday merchandise before the tariffs took effect while also absorbing some of the extra import costs. But stores still have passed on some of the expense for items like toys, which are largely sourced in China.
Market research firm Circana’s retail tracking service examined various subcategories of general merchandise and found 40% of all general merchandise sold in September saw a price increase of at least 5% compared with the first four months of the year.
Toys, baby products, housewares, and team sports equipment were among the hardest hit. For example, 83% of toys sold in September saw an increase of at least 5%, Circana said.
That number was up from 32% in June and will go even higher in coming months, according to Marshal Cohen, the firm’s chief industry advisor.
Some executives have noticed retailers advertising tamer holiday discounts. Mall of America’s Renslow said deals didn’t show up at the mall as early as she anticipated. But she estimated store tenants had ramped up this week with discounts in the range of 30% to 50%. She thinks they’ll likely go deeper for the weekend.
Stephen Lebovitz, CEO of CBL Properties, which operates 85 shopping properties, also noted unimpressive holiday discounting.
“I think one of the benefits of the tariffs or the silver lining is that the inventory levels for the retailers are leaner, and they’ve tried to allow themselves to keep pricing power,” he said.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Black Friday may no longer be the retail bacchanalia of years past, when the promise of one-time bargains caused people to leave Thanksgiving tables for malls where some customers got into fistfights over toys or TVs. But the event still has enough enthusiasts to make it the biggest shopping day in the U.S.
For that reason, the day retains its crown as the official start of the holiday shopping season. This year’s kickoff comes as companies navigate an uncertain economic environment and wrestle with the volatility of President Donald Trump ‘s wide-ranging tariffs on imported goods.
Many have absorbed some of the costs and pulled back on hiring instead of raising prices for customers. Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy fell this month to the lowest since April — when Trump announced his tariffs — in the aftermath of the government shutdown, weak hiring and stubborn inflation, according to a report The Conference Board issued Tuesday.
Shoppers nonetheless have remained resilient and willing to spend, at least judging by the solid quarterly sales reports from Walmart, Best Buy and other retailers. But many retail executives also say customers are focusing on deals and have been selective in what they’re buying.
Aron Boxer, 50, from Greenwich, Connecticut, said he delayed buying a car this year amid worries about tariffs. He said he’ll be looking for deals on toys on Cyber Monday but is also willing to wait to the end for the best discount.
“The tariffs definitely are not behind me, and I am concerned about it,” the founder of an educational services company and a life coaching service said. “I did consider buying earlier this year, but I feel like some people made some pretty bad business decisions anticipating tariffs to have a bigger impact than they did.”
Still, analysts and mall executives cited solid momentum heading into Black Friday week.
“We’re seeing a very positive start to the holiday season,” said Jill Renslow, chief business development and marketing officer at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, which plans to give gift cards and other giveaways to the first 250 customers who show up at 7 a.m. on Friday. “The last few Saturdays in November have been very strong.”
Mall traffic heading into Black Friday surpassed the numbers from pre-pandemic 2019, Renslow said.
A forecast from the National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, predicted a healthy increase in holiday sales. The group estimated that shoppers would collectively spend between $1.01 trillion and $1.02 trillion in November and December, or 3.7% to 4.2% more than last year.
Retailers rung up $976 billion in holiday sales last year, or a 4.3% increase from 2023, the group said.
Mastercard SpendingPulse, which tracks spending across all payment methods including cash, predicted a 3.6% increase in holiday sales from Nov. 1 through Dec. 24. That compares with a 4.1% increase last year.
“Clearly, there’s uncertainty,” Mastercard Chief Economist Michelle Meyer said. “Clearly, consumers feel on edge. But at the moment, it doesn’t seem like it’s changing how they are showing up for this season.”
Online sales have been strong so far. From Nov. 1 to Sunday, consumers spent $79.7 billion, according to Adobe Analytics. That represented a gain of 7.5% from a year earlier and was bigger than Adobe’s 5.3% growth forecast for the season.
Tariffs have played a role in stores’ merchandising and pricing strategies. Many retailers accelerated shipments of some holiday merchandise before the tariffs took effect while also absorbing some of the extra import costs. But stores still have passed on some of the expense for items like toys, which are largely sourced in China.
Market research firm Circana’s retail tracking service examined various subcategories of general merchandise and found 40% of all general merchandise sold in September saw a price increase of at least 5% compared with the first four months of the year.
Toys, baby products, housewares, and team sports equipment were among the hardest hit. For example, 83% of toys sold in September saw an increase of at least 5%, Circana said.
That number was up from 32% in June and will go even higher in coming months, according to Marshal Cohen, the firm’s chief industry advisor.
Some executives have noticed retailers advertising tamer holiday discounts. Mall of America’s Renslow said deals didn’t show up at the mall as early as she anticipated. But she estimated store tenants had ramped up this week with discounts in the range of 30% to 50%. She thinks they’ll likely go deeper for the weekend.
Stephen Lebovitz, CEO of CBL Properties, which operates 85 shopping properties, also noted unimpressive holiday discounting.
“I think one of the benefits of the tariffs or the silver lining is that the inventory levels for the retailers are leaner, and they’ve tried to allow themselves to keep pricing power,” he said.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Wednesday’s “heinous assault” on two National Guard members near the White House proves that lax migration policies are “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation.”
“No country can tolerate such a risk to our very survival,” he said.
Trump’s remarks, released in a video on social media, underscores his intention to reshape the country’s immigration system and increase scrutiny of migrants who are already here. With aggressive deportation efforts already underway, his response to the shooting showed that his focus will not waver.
The suspect in the shooting is believed to be an Afghan national, according to Trump and two law enforcement officials. He entered the United States in September 2021, after the chaotic collapse of the government in Kabul, when Americans were frantically evacuating people as the Taliban took control.
The 29-year-old suspect was part of Operation Allies Welcome, the Biden-era program that resettled tens of thousands of Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal from the country, officials said. The initiative brought roughly 76,000 Afghans to the United States, many of whom had worked alongside American troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators.
It has since faced intense scrutiny from Trump and his allies, congressional Republicans and some government watchdogs over gaps in the vetting process and the speed of admissions, even as advocates say it offered a lifeline to people at risk of Taliban reprisals.
Trump described Afghanistan as “a hellhole on earth,” and he said his administration would review everyone who entered from the country under President Joe Biden — a measure his administration had already been planning before the incident.
During his remarks, Trump also swung his focus to Minnesota, where he complained about “hundreds of thousands of Somalians” who are “ripping apart that once-great state.”
Minnesota has the country’s largest Somali community, roughly 87,000 people. Many came as refugees over the years.
The reference to immigrants with no connection to Wednesday’s developments was a reminder of the scope of Trump’s ambitions to rein in migration.
Administration officials have been ramping up deportations of people in the country illegally, as well as clamping down on refugee admissions. The focus has involved the realignment of resources at federal agencies, stirring concern about potentially undermining other law enforcement priorities.
However, Trump’s remarks were a signal that scrutiny of migrants and the nation’s borders will only increase. He said he wants to remove anyone “who does not belong here or does not add benefit to our country.”
“If they can’t love our country, we don’t want them,” Trump added.
Afterward, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it would indefinitely stop processing all immigration requests for Afghan nationals pending a review of security and vetting protocols.
Supporters of Afghan evacuees said they feared that people who escaped danger from the Taliban would now face renewed suspicion and scrutiny.
“I don’t want people to leverage this tragedy into a political ploy,” said Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac.
He said Wednesday’s shooting should not shed a negative light on the tens of thousands of Afghan nationals who have gone through the various legal pathways to resettling in the U.S. and those who await in the pipeline.
Under Operation Allies Welcome, tens of thousands of Afghans were first brought to U.S. military bases around the country, where they completed immigration processing and medical evaluations before settling into the country. Four years later, there are still scores of Afghans who were evacuated at transit points in the Middle East and Europe as part of the program.
Those in countries like Qatar and Albania, who have undergone the rigorous process, have been left in limbo since Trump entered his second term and paused the program as part of his series of executive actions cracking down on immigration.
Vice President JD Vance, writing on social media, criticized Biden for “opening the floodgate to unvetted Afghan refugees,” adding that “they shouldn’t have been in our country.”
“Already some voices in corporate media chirp that our immigration policies are too harsh,” he said. “Tonight is a reminder of why they’re wrong.”
___
Amiri reported from New York. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
TORONTO — Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand said Monday that Canada and India will move quickly to advance a trade deal after two years of strained relations, noting Ottawa has a new foreign policy in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war.
Anand’s statement follows a meeting between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Group of 20 summit in South Africa this past weekend, where the leaders agreed to restart stalled talks for a new trade deal.
Relations between Canada and India have been strained since Canadian police accused New Delhi of playing a role in the June 2023 assassination of a Canadian Sikh activist near Vancouver.
“The leaders were adamant that this work proceed as quickly as possible so that timing is going to be expeditious,” Anand said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Carney will visit India early next year.
Anand noted Carney’s goal to double non-U.S. trade over the next decade. Canada is one of the most trade-dependent countries in the world, and more than 75% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S. Most exports to the U.S. are exempted by the USMCA trade agreement but that deal is up for review in 2026.
“This is a completely new approach to foreign policy that is responsive to the global economic environment in which we find ourselves,” Anand said. “There is a new government, a new foreign policy, a new prime minister and a new world order where countries are becoming more protectionist and this is a moment for Canada as a trading nation.”
Canada is also seeking better relations with Beijing. Carney and Chinese President Xi Jinping took a step toward mending the long-fractured ties between their countries last month with a meeting at the Asia-Pacific summit.
In 2023, Ottawa suspended trade talks after going public with allegations from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the Indian government was behind an assassination of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
Nijjar, 45, was fatally shot in his pickup truck after he left the Sikh temple he led in Surrey, British Columbia. An Indian-born citizen of Canada, he owned a plumbing business and was a leader in what remains of a once-strong movement to create an independent Sikh homeland.
Four Indian nationals living in Canada were charged with Niijar’s murder and are awaiting trial in Canada.
Relations improved in June when Carney invited Modi to the G7 summit in Alberta and when both countries agreed to restore their top diplomats in August.
“This is a step by step process. And in the last six months, significant steps have been taken,” Anand said.
Anand said both countries expect to be able to double bilateral trade by 2030, to US$50 billion, and noted that Canada is India’s seventh largest trade partner for goods and services, and one of the largest foreign investors in India.
Trump ended trade talks with Carney after the Ontario provincial government ran an anti-tariff advertisement in the U.S., which upset him. That followed a spring of acrimony, since abated, over the president’s insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.
Anand said Canada remains ready to resume trade talks with Trump.
“We are operating under the fact that the United States has fundamentally changed all of its trading relationships,” Anand said. “We look forward to getting back to the table.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
NEW YORK — A tax on tea once sparked rebellion. This time, it’s just causing headaches.
Importers of the prized leaves have watched costs climb, orders stall and margins shrink under the weight of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Now, even after Trump has given them a reprieve, tea traders say it won’t immediately undo the damage.
“It took a while to work its way through the system, these tariffs, and it will take a while for it to work its way out of the system,” says Bruce Richardson, a celebrated tea master, tea historian and purveyor of teas at his shop, Elmwood Inn Fine Teas, in Danville, Kentucky. “That tariffed tea is still working its way out of our warehouses.”
While a handful of bigger firms are behind the biggest supermarket brands, the premium tea market is largely the work of smaller businesses, from family farms to specialty importers to a web of little tea shops, tea rooms and tea cafes across the U.S. Amid an onslaught of tariffs, they have become showcases for the levies’ effects.
On their shelves, selection has narrowed, with some teas now missing because they’re no longer viable products to stock with steep levies on top. In their warehouses, managers are consumed with uncertainty and operational headaches, including calculating what a blend really costs, with ingredients from multiple countries on a roller coaster of tariffs. And in backrooms where the wafting scent of fresh tea permeates, owners have been forced to put off job postings, raises, advertising and other investments so they can have cash available to pay duties when their containers arrive at U.S. ports.
“If I were to add up all the money I’ve spent on tariffs that weren’t there a year ago, it could equal a new employee,” says Hartley Johnson, who owns the Mark T. Wendell Tea Company in Acton, Massachusetts.
Johnson’s prices used to stay static for a year or longer. He ate the tariff costs before being forced to respond. His most popular tea, a smoky Taiwanese one called Hu-Kwa, has steadily risen from $26 to $46 a pound.
He knows some customers are reconsidering.
“Where is that tipping point?” Johnson asks. “I’m kind of finding that tipping point is happening now.”
Though Trump backed off some tariffs on agricultural products last week, many in the tea trade are wary of celebrating too soon and caution tea drinkers shouldn’t either. Much of next year’s supply has already been imported and tariffed and the full impact of those duties may not have fully spilled downhill.
Meantime, other tariff-driven price hikes persist. All sorts of other products tea businesses import, from teapots to infusers, remain subject to levies, and costs for some American-made items, like tins for packaging, have spiked because they rely on foreign materials.
“The canisters, the bamboo boxes, the matcha whisks, everything that we import, everything that we sell has been affected by tariffs,” says Gilbert Tsang, owner of MEM Tea Imports in Wakefield, Massachusetts.
Though globally, tea reigns supreme, imbibed more than anything but water, it has long been overshadowed by coffee in the U.S. Still, tea is entwined in American history from the very beginning, even before colonists angry with tariffs dumped tons of it in Boston Harbor.
Boston may run on Dunkin’ today, but it was born on tea.
The 1773 revolt that became known as the Boston Tea Party rose out of the British Parliament’s implementation of tea tariffs on colonists, who rejected taxation without representation in government. After an independent United States was born, one of the new government’s first major acts, the Tariff Act of 1789, ironically set in law import taxes on a range of products including tea. In time, though, trade policy came to include carve-outs for many products Americans rely on but don’t produce.
For more than 150 years, most tea has passed through U.S. ports with little to no duties.
That began to change in Trump’s first term with his hardline approach to China. But nothing compared to what came with his return to the White House.
In July, the most recent month for which the U.S. International Trade Commission has tallied tariff numbers, tea was taxed at an average rate of over 12%, a huge increase from a year earlier when it was just under one-tenth of a percent. In that single month, American businesses and consumers paid more than $6 million in tea import taxes, amassing in just 31 days more tariffs than any previous full year on record.
“All over again, taxation without representation,” says Richardson, an adviser to the Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum. “Our wants and needs and our voices are not being represented because Congress is avoiding the issue by simply allowing the president to act like George III.”
All told, tea importers paid about $19.6 million in tariffs in the first seven months of 2025, nearly seven times as much as the same period last year.
It’s all been confounding to those steeped in the world of tea, on which the U.S. depends on foreign countries for nearly all of the billions of pounds Americans brew each year. Though a number of small tea farms exist in the U.S., they can’t fill Americans’ cups for more than a few hours of the year.
“We don’t have an industry and we can’t produce one overnight,” says Angela McDonald, president of the United States League of Tea Growers.
Trump’s suspension of tea tariffs came too late for some businesses, including Los Angeles-based International Tea Importers Inc., for which tariffs created an untenable cash-flow crunch.
“We just became over-leveraged financing not just the inventory, but also the tariffs,” says the company’s CEO, Brendan Shah.
Tariffs weren’t the only thing the 35-year-old business was facing, but without them, Shah says it may have survived.
“Unpredictable tariff policies,” he wrote to customers in announcing the company’s closure, “have created the final, insurmountable barrier.”
___
Matt Sedensky can be reached at msedensky@ap.org and https://x.com/sedensky
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says its plan to dismantle the Education Department offers a fix for the nation’s lagging academics — a solution that could free schools from the strictures of federal influence.
Yet to some school and state officials, the plan appears to add more bureaucracy, with no clear benefit for students who struggle with math or reading.
Instead of being housed in a single agency, much of the Education Department’s work now will be spread across four other federal departments. For President Donald Trump, it’s a step toward fully closing the department and giving states more power over schooling. Yet many states say it will complicate their role as intermediaries between local schools and the federal government.
The plan increases bureaucracy fivefold, Washington state’s education chief said, “undoubtedly creating confusion and duplicity” for educators and families. His counterpart in California said the plan is “clearly less efficient” and invites disruption. Maryland’s superintendent raised concerns about “the challenges of coordinating efforts with multiple federal agencies.”
“States were not engaged in this process, and this is not what we have asked for — or what our students need,” said Jill Underly, Wisconsin’s state superintendent. Underly urged the Trump administration to give states greater flexibility and cut down on standardized testing requirements.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said schools will continue receiving federal money without disruption. Ultimately, schools will have more money and flexibility to serve students without the existence of the Education Department, she said.
Yet the department is not gone — only Congress has the power to abolish it. In the meantime, McMahon’s plan leaves the agency in a version of federal limbo. The Labor Department will take over most funding and support for the country’s schools, but the Education Department will retain some duties, including policy guidance and broad supervision of Labor’s education work.
Similar deals will offload programs to the Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department and the Interior Department. The agreements were signed days before the government shutdown and announced Tuesday.
Inking agreements to share work with other departments isn’t new: The Education Department already had dozens of such agreements before Trump took office. And local school officials routinely work with other agencies, including the U.S. Agriculture Department, which oversees school meals. What’s different this time is the scale of the programs offloaded — the majority of the Education Department’s funding for schools, for instance.
Yet Virginia schools chief Emily Anne Gullickson, for one, said schools are accustomed to working with multiple federal agencies, and she welcomed the administration’s efforts to give states more control.
Response to the plan has mostly been drawn along political lines, with Democrats saying the shakeup will hurt America’s most vulnerable students. Republicans in Congress called it a victory over bureaucracy.
Yet some conservatives pushed back against the dismantling. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said on social media that moving programs to agencies without policy expertise could hurt young people. And Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary to Republican President George W. Bush, called it a distraction to a national education crisis.
“Moving programs from one department to another does not actually eliminate the federal bureaucracy, and it may make the system harder for students, teachers and families to navigate and get the support they need,” Spellings said in a statement.
There’s little debate about the need for change in America’s schooling. Its math and reading scores have plummeted in the wake of COVID-19. Before that, reading scores had been stagnant for decades, and math scores weren’t much better.
McMahon said that’s evidence the Education Department has failed and isn’t needed. At a White House briefing Thursday, she called her plan a “hard reset” that does not halt federal support but ends “federal micromanagement.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union and one of McMahon’s sharpest opponents, questioned the logic in her plan.
“Why would you put a new infrastructure together, a new bureaucracy that nobody knows anything about, and take the old bureaucracy and destroy it, instead of making the old bureaucracy more efficient?” Weingarten said at a Wednesday event.
The full impact of the shakeup may not be clear for months, but already it’s stoking anxiety among states and school districts that have come to rely on the Education Department for its policy expertise. One of the agency’s roles is to serve as a hotline for questions about complicated funding formulas, special education laws and more.
The department has not said whether officials who serve that role will keep their jobs in the transition. Without that help, schools would have few options to clarify what can and can’t be paid for with federal money, said David Law, superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools in Minnesota.
“What could happen is services are not provided because you don’t have an answer,” said Law, who is also president of AASA, a national association of school superintendents.
Some question whether other federal departments have the capacity to take on an influx of new work. The Labor Department will take over Title I, an $18 billion grant program that serves 26 million students in low-income areas. It’s going to a Labor office that now handles grants serving only 130,000 people a year, said Angela Hanks, who led the Labor office under former President Joe Biden.
At best, Hanks said, it will “unleash chaos on school districts, and ultimately, on our kids.”
In Salem, Massachusetts, the 4,000-student school system receives about $6 million in federal funding that helps support services for students who are low-income, homeless or still mastering English, Superintendent Stephen Zrike said. He fears moving those programs to the Labor Department could bring new “rules of engagement.”
“We don’t know what other stipulations will be attached to the funding,” he said. “The level of uncertainty is enormous.”
Other critics have noted the Education Department was created to consolidate education programs that were spread across multiple agencies.
Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the ranking member on the House Education and Workforce Committee, urged McMahon to rethink her plan. He cited the 1979 law establishing the department, which said dispersion had resulted in “fragmented, duplicative, and often inconsistent Federal policies relating to education.”
___
AP education writers Moriah Balingit in Washington, Bianca Vázquez Toness in Boston and Makiya Seminera in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” the latest Coast Guard policy, released late Thursday, declared before adding that this category included “a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups.”
“This is not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols,” an accompanying Coast Guard press release said.
The late-night change came on the same day that media outlets, led by The Washington Post, discovered that the Coast Guard had written a policy earlier this month that called those same symbols “potentially divisive.” The term was a shift from a years-long policy, first rolled out in 2019, that said symbols like swastikas and nooses were “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and called their display “a potential hate incident.”
The latest policy that was rolled out Thursday night also unequivocally banned the display of any divisive or hate symbols from all Coast Guard locations. The earlier version stopped short of banning the symbols, instead saying that commanders could take steps to remove them from public view and that the rule did not apply to private spaces outside of public view, such as family housing.
Both policies maintained a long-standing prohibition on publicly displaying the Confederate flag outside of a handful of situations, such as educational or historical settings.
The latest Coast Guard policy appears to take effect immediately.
After the initial policy change became public, Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada said the change “rolls back important protections against bigotry and could allow for horrifically hateful symbols like swastikas and nooses to be inexplicably permitted to be displayed.”
“At a time when antisemitism is rising in the United States and around the world, relaxing policies aimed at fighting hate crimes not only sends the wrong message to the men and women of our Coast Guard, but it puts their safety at risk,” she added.
Admiral Kevin Lunday, acting commandant of the Coast Guard, said the policy did not roll back any prohibitions, calling it “categorically false” to claim otherwise in a statement released earlier Thursday.
“These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy,” Lunday said in a statement, adding that “any display, use or promotion of such symbols, as always, will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished.”
Lunday’s predecessor, Admiral Linda Fagan, was fired on President Donald Trump’s first day in office. Trump officials later said she fired in part for putting an “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion efforts that diverted “resources and attention from operational imperatives.”
The older policy that was rolled out earlier in November also explicitly said that “the terminology ‘hate incident’ is no longer present in policy” and conduct that would have previously been handled as a potential hate incident will now be treated as “a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual.”
Commanders, in consultation with lawyers, may order or direct the removal of “potentially divisive” symbols or flags if they are found to be affecting the unit’s morale or discipline, according to the policy.
The newest policy is silent on whether Coast Guard personnel will be able to claim they were victims of hate incidents.
The Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security, but it is still considered a part of America’s armed forces and the new policy was updated in part to be consistent with similar Pentagon directives, according to a Coast Guard message announcing the changes.
It also has historically modeled many of its human resources policies on other military services.
The policy change comes less than two months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a review of all the hazing, bullying and harassment definitions across the military, arguing that the policies were “overly broad” and they were “jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.”
The Pentagon could not offer any details about what the review was specifically looking at, if it could lead to similar changes as seen in the Coast Guard policy or when the review would be complete.
Menachem Rosensaft, a law professor at Cornell University and a Jewish community leader, said in a statement that “the swastika is the ultimate symbol of virulent hate and bigotry, and even a consideration by the Coast Guard to no longer classify it as such would be equivalent to dismissing the Ku Klux Klan’s burning crosses and hoods as merely ‘potentially divisive.’”
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called the move “disgusting, and it’s more encouragement from the Republicans of extremism.”
___
Haigh reported from Norwich, Connecticut.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
BERLIN—Europe is moving to relax some of the world’s tightest digital regulations in a bid to boost growth and reduce its reliance on U.S. tech.
Germany and France on Tuesday backed an effort by the European Union, long seen as a global rulesetter for technology, artificial intelligence and digital services, to loosen regulatory strictures on the fast-growing, U.S.-dominated sectors.
Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
[ad_2]
Bertrand Benoit
Source link
[ad_1]
President Trump dispatched a high-level Pentagon delegation to Kyiv for talks Wednesday in the administration’s latest attempt to revive negotiations on halting Russia’s war with Ukraine, according to senior U.S. officials.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, along with two four-star Army generals, was scheduled to hold discussions with President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials, as well as top military and industry representatives, two of the officials said. Driscoll is planning to meet with Russian officials at a later date.
Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
[ad_2]
Lara Seligman
Source link
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (AP) — For years, Washington has been warning others not to trust loans from Chinese state banks fueling its rise as a superpower. But a new report reveals an ironic twist: The United States is the biggest recipient of all — by far. And the security and technology implications have yet to be fully understood.
China’s state lenders have funneled $200 billion into U.S. businesses for a quarter of a century, but many of the loans have been kept secret because the money was first routed through shell companies in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Delaware and elsewhere that helped obscure their origins, according to AidData, a research lab at the College of William & Mary in Virginia.
More alarming, much of the lending was to help Chinese companies buy stakes in U.S. businesses, many tied to critical technology and national security, including a robotics maker, a semiconductor company and a biotech firm.
The report found a far more widespread and sophisticated lending network than previously thought — a web of financial obligations extending beyond developing countries to rich ones, including the U.K., Germany, Australia, the Netherlands and other U.S. allies.
“China was playing chess while the rest of us were playing checkers,” said former White House investment adviser William Henagan, who worries the hidden lending has given China a chokehold on technologies. “Wars will be won or lost based on whether you can control products critical to running an economy.”
While the U.S. still welcomes most foreign investment — and President Donald Trump has courted it — money from China has drawn particular scrutiny as the world’s two biggest economies with opposing ideologies battle for global supremacy.
Deals financed by China’s state-owned banks, the ones studied in the AidData report, are especially problematic. The lenders are controlled by China’s central government and the Communist Party’s Central Financial Commission, and they are directed to advance China’s strategic goals.
In total, the AidData report found China lent more than $2 trillion from 2000 through 2023 around the world, double the highest previous estimates and a surprise to even longtime analysts of China’s rise. And much of the lending to wealthy countries was focused on critical minerals and high-tech assets — rare earths and semiconductors needed for fighter jets, submarines, radar systems, precision-guided missiles and telecom networks.
“The U.S., under both (former President Joe) Biden and Trump, have been beating this drum for more than a decade that Beijing is a predatory lender,” said Brad Parks, executive director of AidData. “The irony is very rich.”
Until now, a full accounting of China’s state lending has never been published because much of the financing is buried beneath layers of secrecy, masked by Western-sounding shell companies and mislabeled by international databases as ordinary private financing.
“There is a complete lack of transparency that speaks to the lengths to which China goes, whether through shell companies or confidentiality agreements or redactions, to make it extremely difficult to come up with this full picture,” said Scott Nathan, the former head of the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., an agency set up in the first Trump term to invest in foreign projects deemed in the U.S. national interest.
Since the report’s last documented loan in 2023, U.S. scrutiny has gotten better. Screening mechanisms, such as the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., got beefed up in 2020 to protect sensitive sectors in the economy.
But China has gotten better, too, in part by setting up banks and branches overseas — more than 100 in recent years — that then lend to offshore entities, further clouding the origins of the money.
“In places where there are more cops on the beat,” Parks said, “it has found ways to work around barriers to entry.”
Chinese state bank financing has touched projects across the U.S., particularly in the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, the West Coast and along the Gulf of Mexico, which Trump has renamed the Gulf of America. Many loans targeted critical high-tech industries, according to the report.
— In 2015, for instance, Chinese state-owned banks lent $1.2 billion to a private Chinese business to buy an 80% stake in Ironshore, a U.S. insurer whose clients included the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials and undercover agents who might need help paying legal bills in case they got into trouble in their jobs.
U.S. regulators were unaware of the Chinese government involvement because the financing was funneled through a Cayman Island business with no obvious ties to China, according to the report. U.S. officials later realized the Chinese government could access information and ordered the Chinese buyer to divest.
— That same year, the Chinese government published “Made in China 2025,” a list of 10 high-tech areas, such as semiconductors, biotechnology and robotics, where it wanted to reach 70% self-sufficiency within a decade. The next year, in 2016, the Export–Import Bank of China, a policy bank, provided $150 million in loans to help a Chinese company buy a robotics equipment company in Michigan.
After China’s adoption of the manufacturing master plan, the percentage of projects targeting sensitive sectors such as robotics, defense, quantum computing and biotechnology rose from 46% to 88% of China’s portfolio for cross-border acquisition lending, according to AidData.
— In 2017, a Delaware private equity firm using a Cayman Islands company tried to buy a U.S. chip maker; the deal was blocked when investigators discovered both companies were owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise. That same Delaware company successfully bought a U.K. semiconductor maker that had to be divested when British authorities found out.
— And in 2022, the U.K. forced a Chinese company to divest another sensitive British firm in the industry, a designer of chips in Apple phones but potentially adaptable for military systems. The Chinese company had bought it through a company in the Netherlands that they owned. That Dutch firm is now accused of withholding semiconductors vital to automakers in the U.S.-China trade war.
To trace China’s hidden lending, AidData dug through regulatory filings, private contracts and stock exchange disclosures in more than 200 countries written in multiple languages.
The effort to track China’s state loans and investment started more than a decade ago when Beijing launched its Belt & Road Initiative to build infrastructure in developing countries. The project expanded sharply three years ago when the AidData team, which eventually grew to 140 researchers, realized many of the loans were landing in advanced economies such as the U.S., Australia, the Netherlands and Portugal, where acquisitions could allow it to access technology that Beijing considers essential to its global rise.
The report says the findings show a shift in the use of state credit from promoting economic development and social welfare to gaining geo-economic advantages.
“There’s global concern that this is part of a concerted effort to gain control over economic chokepoints and use this leverage,” said Brad Setser, an adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative in the Biden administration. “It’s important that we understand what they’re doing, and they don’t make it easy.”
___
Condon reported from New York.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
NEW YORK (AP) — When he first came to the United States after escaping civil war in Sierra Leone and spending almost a decade in a refugee camp, Dauda Sesay had no idea he could become a citizen. But he was told that if he followed the rules and stayed out of trouble, after some years he could apply. As a U.S. citizen, he would have protection.
It’s what made him decide to apply: the premise — and the promise — that when he became a naturalized American citizen, it would create a bond between him and his new home. He would have rights as well as responsibilities, like voting, that, as he was making a commitment to the country, the country was making one to him.
“When I raised my hand and took the oath of allegiance, I did believe that moment the promise that I belonged,” said Sesay, 48, who first arrived in Louisiana more than 15 years ago and now works as an advocate for refugees and their integration into American society.
But in recent months, as President Donald Trump reshapes immigration and the country’s relationship with immigrants, that belief has been shaken for Sesay and other naturalized citizens. There’s now fear that the push to drastically increase deportations and shift who can claim America as home, through things like trying to end birthright citizenship, is having a ripple effect.
What they thought was the bedrock protection of naturalization now feels more like quicksand.
Some are worried that if they leave the country, they will have difficulties when trying to return, fearful because of accounts of naturalized citizens being questioned or detained by U.S. border agents. They wonder: Do they need to lock down their phones to protect their privacy? Others are hesitant about moving around within the country, after stories like that of a U.S. citizen accused of being here illegally and detained even after his mother produced his birth certificate.
There has been no evidence of an uptick in denaturalizations so far in this Trump administration. Yet that hasn’t assuaged some. Sesay said he doesn’t travel domestically anymore without his passport, despite having a REAL ID with its federally mandated, stringent identity requirements.
Immigration enforcement roundups, often conducted by masked, unidentifiable federal agents in places including Chicago and New York City, have at times included American citizens in their dragnets. One U.S. citizen who says he was detained by immigration agents twice has filed a federal lawsuit.
Adding to the worries, the Justice Department issued a memo this summer saying it would ramp up efforts to denaturalize immigrants who’ve committed crimes or are deemed to present a national security risk. At one point during the summer, Trump threatened the citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist mayor-elect of New York City, who naturalized as a young adult.
The atmosphere makes some worried to speak about it publicly, for fear of drawing negative attention to themselves. Requests for comment through several community organizations and other connections found no takers willing to go on the record other than Sesay.
In New Mexico, state Sen. Cindy Nava says she’s familiar with the fear, having grown up undocumented before getting DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that protected people brought to the U.S. as children from being deported — and gaining citizenship through her marriage. But she hadn’t expected to see so much fear among naturalized citizens.
“I had never seen those folks be afraid … now the folks that I know that were not afraid before, now they are uncertain of what their status holds in terms of a safety net for them,” Nava said.
What citizenship has meant, and who was included, has expanded and contracted over the course of American history, said Stephen Kantrowitz, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He said while the word “citizen” is in the original Constitution, it is not defined.
“When the Constitution is written, nobody knows what citizenship means,” he said. “It’s a term of art, it comes out of the French revolutionary tradition. It sort of suggests an equality of the members of a political community, and it has some implications for the right to be a member of that political community. But it is … so undefined.”
The first naturalization law passed in 1790 by the new country’s Congress said citizenship was for any “free white person” of good character. Those of African descent or nativity were added as a specific category to federal immigration law after the ravages of the Civil War in the 19th century, which was also when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to establish birthright citizenship.
In the last years of the 19th century and into the 20th century, laws were put on the books limiting immigration and, by extension, naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively barred people from Asia because they were ineligible for naturalization, being neither white nor Black. That didn’t change until 1952, when an immigration law removed racial restrictions on who could be naturalized. The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act replaced the previous immigration system with one that portioned out visas equally among nations.
American history also includes times when those who had citizenship had it taken away, like after the 1923 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind. That ruling said that Indians couldn’t be naturalized because they did not qualify as white and led to several dozen denaturalizations. At other times, it was ignored, as in World War II, when Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps.
“Political power will sometimes simply decide that a group of people, or a person or a family isn’t entitled to citizenship,” Kantrowitz said.
In this moment, Sesay says, it feels like betrayal.
“The United States of America — that’s what I took that oath of allegiance, that’s what I make commitment to,” Sesay said. “Now, inside my home country, and I’m seeing a shift. … Honestly, that is not the America I believe in when I put my hand over my heart.”
___
This story has been corrected to reflect that Dauda Sesay is 48 years old, not 44.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The U.S. plans to eliminate tariffs on bananas, coffee, beef and certain apparel and textile products under framework agreements with four Latin American nations, a senior administration official told reporters Thursday.
The expected move—which would apply to some goods from Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala—is part of a shift from the Trump administration to water down some of its so-called reciprocal tariffs in the midst of rising prices for consumers, as well as legal uncertainty after a Supreme Court hearing this month.
Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
[ad_2]
Gavin Bade
Source link
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is adjusting his messaging strategy to win over voters who are worried about the cost of living with plans to emphasize new tax breaks and show progress on fighting inflation.
The messaging is centered around affordability, and the push comes after inflation emerged as a major vulnerability for Trump and Republicans in Tuesday’s elections, in which voters overwhelmingly said the economy was their biggest concern.
Democrats took advantage of concerns about affordability to run up huge margins in the New Jersey and Virginia governor races, flipping what had been a strength for Trump in the 2024 presidential election into a vulnerability going into next year’s midterm elections.
White House officials and others familiar with their thinking requested anonymity to speak for this article in order to not get ahead of the president’s actions. They stressed that affordability has always been a priority for Trump, but the president plans to talk about it more, as he did Thursday when he announced that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk would reduce the price of their anti-obesity drugs.
“We are the ones that have done a great job on affordability, not the Democrats,” Trump said at an event in the Oval Office to announce the deal. “We just lost an election, they said, based on affordability. It’s a con job by the Democrats.”
The White House is keeping up a steady drumbeat of posts on social media about prices and deals for Thanksgiving dinner staples at retailers such as Walmart, Lidl, Aldi and Target.
“I don’t want to hear about the affordability, because right now, we’re much less,” Trump told reporters Thursday, arguing that things are much better for Americans with his party in charge.
“The only problem is the Republicans don’t talk about it,” he said.
As of now, the inflation outlook has worsened under Trump. Consumer prices in September increased at an annual rate of 3%, up from 2.3% in April, when the president first began to roll out substantial tariff hikes that suddenly burdened the economy with uncertainty. The AP Voter Poll showed the economy was the leading issue in Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey, Virginia, New York City and California.
Grocery prices continue to climb, and recently, electricity bills have emerged as a new worry. At the same time, the pace of job gains has slowed, plunging 23% from the pace a year ago.
The White House maintains a list of talking points about the economy, noting that the stock market has hit record highs multiple times and that the president is attracting foreign investment. Trump has emphasized that gasoline prices are coming down, and maintained that gasoline is averaging $2 a gallon, but AAA reported Thursday that the national average was $3.08, about two cents lower than a year ago.
“Americans are paying less for essentials like gas and eggs, and today the Administration inked yet another drug pricing deal to deliver unprecedented health care savings for everyday Americans,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai.
Trump gets briefed about the economy by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials at least once a week and there are often daily discussions on tariffs, a senior White House official said, noting Trump is expected to do more domestic travel next year to make his case that he’s fixing affordability.
But critics say it will be hard for Trump to turn around public perceptions on affordability.
“He’s in real trouble and I think it’s bigger than just cost of living,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal economic advocacy group.
Owens noted that Trump has “lost his strength” as voters are increasingly doubtful about Trump’s economic leadership compared to Democrats, adding that the president doesn’t have the time to turn around public perceptions of him as he continues to pursue broad tariffs.
There will be new policies rolled out on affordability, a person familiar with the White House thinking said, declining to comment on what those would be. Trump on Thursday indicated there will be more deals coming on drug prices. Two other White House officials said messaging would change — but not policy.
A big part of the administration’s response on affordability will be educating people ahead of tax season about the role of Trump’s income tax cuts in any refunds they receive in April, the person familiar with planning said. Those cuts were part of the sprawling bill Republicans muscled through Congress in July.
This individual stressed that the key challenge is bringing prices down while simultaneously having wages increase, so that people can feel and see any progress.
There’s also a bet that the economy will be in a healthier place in six months. With Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s term ending in May, the White House anticipates the start of consistent cuts to the Fed’s benchmark interest rate. They expect inflation rates to cool and declines in the federal budget deficit to boost sentiment in the financial markets.
But the U.S. economy seldom cooperates with a president’s intentions, a lesson learned most recently by Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, who saw his popularity slump after inflation spiked to a four-decade high in June 2022.
The Trump administration maintains it’s simply working through an inflation challenge inherited from Biden, but new economic research indicates Trump has created his own inflation challenge through tariffs.
Since April, Harvard University economist Alberto Cavallo and his colleagues, Northwestern University’s Paola Llamas and Universidad de San Andres’ Franco Vazquez, have been tracking the impact of the import taxes on consumer prices.
In an October paper, the economists found that the inflation rate would have been drastically lower at 2.2%, had it not been for Trump’s tariffs.
The administration maintains that tariffs have not contributed to inflation. They plan to make the case that the import taxes are helping the economy and dismiss criticisms of the import taxes as contributing to inflation as Democratic talking points.
The fate of Trump’s country-by-country tariffs is currently being decided by the Supreme Court, where justices at a Wednesday hearing seemed dubious over the administration’s claims that tariffs were essentially regulations and could be levied by a president without congressional approval. Trump has maintained at times that foreign countries pay the tariffs and not U.S. citizens, a claim he backed away from slightly Thursday.
“They might be paying something,” he said. “But when you take the overall impact, the Americans are gaining tremendously.”
_____
Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump boasts that his tariffs protect American industries, lure factories to the United States, raise money for the federal government and give him diplomatic leverage.
Now, he’s claiming they can finance a windfall for American families, too: He’s promising a generous tariff dividend.
The president proposed the idea on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, five days after his Republican Party lost elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere largely because of voter discontent with his economic stewardship — specifically, the high cost of living.
The tariffs are bringing in so much money, the president posted, that “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.’’
Budget experts scoffed at the idea, which conjured memories of the Trump administration’s short-lived plan for DOGE dividend checks financed by billionaire Elon Musk’s federal budget cuts.
“The numbers just don’t check out,″ said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
Details are scarce, including what the income limits would be and whether payments would go to children.
Even Trump’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, sounded a bit blindsided by the audacious dividend plan. Appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,’’ Bessent said he hadn’t discussed the dividend with the president and suggested that it might not mean that Americans would get a check from the government. Instead, Bessent said, the rebate might take the form of tax cuts.
The tariffs are certainly raising money — $195 billion in the budget year that ended Sept. 30, up 153% from $77 billion in fiscal 2024. But they still account for less than 4% of federal revenue and have done little to dent the federal budget deficit — a staggering $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.
Budget wonks say Trump’s dividend math doesn’t work.
John Ricco, an analyst with the Budget Lab at Yale University, reckons that Trump’s tariffs will bring in $200 billion to $300 billion a year in revenue. But a $2,000 dividend — if it went to all Americans, including children — would cost $600 billion. “It’s clear that the revenue coming in would not be adequate,’’ he said.
Ricco also noted that Trump couldn’t just pay the dividends on his own. They would require legislation from Congress.
Moreover, the centerpiece of Trump’s protectionist trade policies — double-digit taxes on imports from almost every country in the world — may not survive a legal challenge that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a hearing last week, the justices sounded skeptical about the Trump administration’s assertion of sweeping power to declare national emergencies to justify the tariffs. Trump has bypassed Congress, which has authority under the Constitution to levy taxes, including tariffs.
If the court strikes down the tariffs, the Trump administration may be refunding money to the importers who paid them, not sending dividend checks to American families. (Trump could find other ways to impose tariffs, even if he loses at the Supreme Court; but it could be cumbersome and time-consuming.)
Mainstream economists and budget analysts note that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who then generally try to pass along the cost to their customers through higher prices.
The dividend plan “misses the mark,’’ the Tax Foundation’s York said. ”If the goal is relief for Americans, just get rid of the tariffs.’’
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Bessent Says ‘Tenfold’ Growth in Stablecoins Will Lift Demand for Treasurys
[ad_2]