Showing posts with label Interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interview. Show all posts

Monday, July 06, 2026

THE INTERVIEW: ‘All I Have Is The Power To Talk And Be Heard’

Tucker Carlson - Wikipedia

Tucker Carlson on pitying Donald Trump, never listening to podcasts, and planning a new political party—while selling you nicotine pouches.

BY AMOS BARSHAD


On a recent afternoon, I drove down a wooded Maine road, past serene ponds with no people in sight, until I reached a big white barn. I parked, in patchy grass, near a Ford F-350 with a crane bolted onto the back, an American flag, and an idling black SUV. A guy in the driver’s seat of the SUV, whose tattoos peeked out beneath the sleeves of a white dress shirt, sent me thirty feet down the road to another guy, in a large white SUV, who politely told me to wait. Tucker Carlson was still recording.

I wouldn’t have been surprised to see anyone—a United States senator? A prison guard claiming to have evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered? Donald Trump?—walk out of that barn. Carlson, who is fifty-seven, occupies a singular space in American media: after decades in corporate television, most famously at Fox News, he now hosts The Tucker Carlson Show, a video podcast, where he can and does follow his every whim, taking his hordes of fans along with him. A recent episode, “The Secret History of Biblical Giants,” has 1.5 million views on YouTube.

Eventually, Carlson—boyish, tanned, wearing an outdoorsman vest and New Balances—welcomed me into the barn. As I entered, I passed that day’s interviewee: Nick Maynard, an English surgeon who has worked extensively treating Gazan victims of Israeli air strikes.

On his show, Carlson advocates long-held hard-line conservative views, which include total opposition to immigration, abortion, and trans rights. He also takes a strong stand against war: Carlson has vociferously denounced the American and Israeli attacks on Iran—during which over thirteen thousand targets have been bombed and more than three thousand people killed—as well as Israel’s post–October 7 assault on Gaza. Carlson has personally lobbied Trump, whom he’s known at least since both were NBC television personalities, not to attack Iran. He’s an imperfect vessel for the anti-war argument, but his reach and influence may make him America’s most prominent crusader for the cause.

Because of his reputation among American conservatives, Carlson can book guests such as Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, and grill them on their warmongering. In a 2025 interview that went viral, Carlson asked Cruz to tell him the population of Iran; Cruz couldn’t do it. “You’re a senator who’s calling for the overthrow of the government,” Carlson shouted in response, “and you don’t know anything about the country!” It was a rare thing: a complete pantsing of a powerful public figure. “I am always struck by the ignorance of policymakers,” Carlson told me. “I wanted him to feel shame. And he felt no shame.”

Carlson’s relevance is rooted in the fact that he can both book Cruz and embarrass him. It’s also connected to his symbiosis with a subset of Republicans. According to a recent New York Times/Siena poll of self-identified Republicans and Trump voters, nearly 60 percent of those with a “very favorable” view of Carlson say “they want the next Republican presidential nominee to take the party in a new direction.”

What may be most significant about Carlson now is that his campaign against the Iran war and Israel’s influence on the American political system has placed him in strange cultural territory: suddenly, he has fans on the left. Cenk Uygur, the creator of the progressive news show The Young Turks, has cheered Carlson for criticizing Trump’s attacks on Muslims. When Olivia Reingold, a writer for the Free Press, compiled a dossier against Rama Duwaji, the First Lady of New York City, one of Reingold’s ostensibly damning reveals was that Duwaji had liked a Carlson post criticizing AIPAC.

Peter Beinart—the editor-at-large at Jewish Currents and a prominent Israel critic—has pushed back on the left’s support for Carlson, arguing in a recent Substack video that any progressive who is going on Carlson’s show “should not leave your principles at the door. If you’re against bigotry” and “the argument that somehow white Christians are superior to Black and brown immigrants,” then don’t “ignore all of that because you think you’re working with him to try to turn US policy against Israel.” Carlson recently spoke to Lulu Garcia-Navarro, a journalist for the New York Times, who pressed him about his interview with Nick Fuentes, the white-nationalist influencer.

Carlson often starts his podcast episodes with lengthy, showy monologues. He doesn’t write them down, he told me, instead sketching them out in his head during daily sauna sessions. The monologues encapsulate both his appeal and the fear he strikes in people. Whatever the topic—biblical giants, Christian nationalism, Gaza—he is a preternaturally compelling speaker. At one point in our conversation, he fell into a reverie describing all the cigarettes he smoked in Dubai while sitting down with an aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. “I love smoking so much,” Carlson said. These days, though, he mostly gets his fix via his own nicotine-pouch brand, ALP, which stands for American Lip Pillow.

Carlson’s barn, in the town of Woodstock—his family has owned the barn for years, and their summer home is nearby—feels like a GOP-themed chain restaurant. Nearly every spare inch is covered with taxidermy or Republican memorabilia. Carlson took a seat under a big stuffed bear head and torso, near a Nixon/Agnew sign and a Bush ’88 ashtray. He spit out an ALP, popped in a new one—with twelve milligrams of nicotine, he made sure to point out, making it one of the most potent pouches on the market—and we began talking. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

AB: Fox fired you in 2023. Did you anticipate any of what would come next?

TC: No! I don’t anticipate where I’m going to be after dinner tonight. I’m not a planner. I never have been. A lot of our producers got fired with me. We immediately pivoted from television to the internet. It was actually a lot easier than I thought. We had the Fox studio in the other part of the barn: they came and took all their cameras and the lighting rig and the soundproofing.

I certainly did not anticipate talking about Israel. I had been on TV for thirty years. I don’t think I had ever really talked about Israel. From my perspective, I got pushed into it.

How so?

I felt I had no choice. Early in 2025, Netanyahu showed up at the White House right after Trump’s inauguration, and I thought, “This is a little early to be siphoning off the energy from this campaign and this election for the benefit of another country.” And I resented it. I very quickly began to understand the point of these visits was a regime-change effort in Iran. And that’s something that I talked to Trump about many times over ten years. Fifty times! More! In public, but mostly in private.

The breaking point and the huge change in my life came in June of 2025, with the Twelve-Day War—which was not about Iran’s nuclear program. It was the first salvo in a regime-change effort led by Israel. And that’s just antithetical to everything Trump ran on.

I’ve been to Israel several times, both for work and as a visitor. I love Jerusalem—amazing city—but I’m not interested in Israel. I don’t think it’s significant as a country from an American perspective. It’s not in our hemisphere. It’s got no resources. So I just don’t care. But once you start taking over my political system and destroying my country, then I have a right to care. So now I do care.

When you’re trying to dissuade Trump from going to war, what do you see as your role? Are you speaking as a concerned American or as a journalist?

What category do I occupy? I haven’t the faintest idea. I’m not interested at all in defining it. I’m not a politician, that’s for sure. I’m not a rival to Trump for power. I have no power. I’m someone who knows Trump, and I know him well, and I’ve known him for a long time. I can call him. He often calls me.

Do you still speak to Trump?

I haven’t spoken to him since the regime-change war began. I’m not interested in talking to him. I feel sorry for him. He’s not a man in charge of his own life at this point. I feel sorry for anybody who’s enslaved, including him. I mean, I visited him three times at the White House in the month before the Twelve-Day War, and I told him the same thing all three times: “You’re not gonna see the rise of a democratic, pro-Western government in Tehran. The best you’re gonna see there is just this suppurating wound.” And he said, “I know.”

What is it really about, in Trump’s mind? Why did he destroy himself? His administration? His legacy? The Republican Party and America? I don’t know, but maybe someone at CJR should get on this and find out.

Okay, so, three years after leaving Fox, you’re suddenly one of the most prominent anti-war voices in America—

It’s not hard, because no one else is against it! Where is everybody?

Are you surprised to find yourself in this position?

Well, no. I’ve been against war since December of 2003, when I was in Iraq and I was highly distressed by it. So I’ve had the same views for twenty-three years now, more or less. But I just stayed away from Israel because—and I would say this to people who worked for me at Fox—it’s not worth it. It’s too personal. The unwritten rule is that criticism of Israel is criticism of all Jews, and because I am not against Jews, it’s not worth it.

I’ve been to Israel a lot, so I’m fully aware of the apartheid situation in Israel. I’ve been offended by it going back twenty years. But I would always say to myself, “Okay, I’ve been in a lot of places with injustice.” I’ve seen Nigerians treat Liberians like animals, firsthand, in West Africa, and I was offended by it. But I didn’t organize my life around defending oppressed Liberians.

Occasionally, something would happen and my staff at Fox would bring me a story about Israel. I’d be like, “Nope, I don’t want to do it.” Now, that was probably cowardice on my part, but also the truth was I had mixed feelings about it. I’m not defending this. I’m just telling you the way I thought. I would sublimate it. “Is it really worth it? I don’t want to think about it, and I’ve got all these children, and I want America to be a decent place.” But the Iran war, that was too far.

There’s been speculation that hawks like Marc Thiessen, the Washington Post columnist, have played a part in convincing Trump to continue the Iran war. Do we, meaning the public, have a good understanding of how people in the media influence Trump?

I don’t know if people have a good understanding of it. I don’t know if I always have a good understanding of it. But I don’t believe that Trump is substantially influenced by Marc Thiessen. I doubt Marc Thiessen influences his wife, assuming he has one. I think that Marc Thiessen and others like that are just a sideshow designed to divert your attention away from the people who are influencing the president. And those would include his donors. Those would include John Paulson and Miriam Adelson and Rupert Murdoch, who’s had a huge effect on Trump. Rupert Murdoch would call Trump three or four times a day to encourage him to attack Iran. And I know that because I’ve talked to Trump about it many times.

You and Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, were both on Fox. Do you have any thoughts about his fitness for the job?

I feel sad about the whole thing. I think it’s disgusting to brag about killing people. It’s totally unchristian and immoral. We should treat death with reverence, period. You can certainly make the case that some people should be killed, but I don’t think anyone should ever celebrate the death of another human being. And by the way, you’re gonna be punished for that.

What do you make of Trump’s lurching attempts to end the war in Iran with the memorandum of understanding?

It’s a humiliating defeat for the United States, but it’s still an improvement over what would happen if we kept going, so I’m grateful for it. Israel is the victim in this. Israel got so far over its skis. Imagine it from Israel’s perspective: you think you’re gonna be the regional hegemon, and then, three months later, Iran becomes a global power. It’s a freaking nightmare!

But there’s no meaningful diplomatic effort; Israel doesn’t even have the capacity for diplomacy. “We’re just gonna explode your pagers.” You can talk yourself into thinking you’re far more powerful than you are, and when you do that, you get hurt. I learned that at twenty-five in a bar fight. And I never punched anyone again, because last time I did, I got the snot knocked out of me, and I had to go on TV with a black eye. I was married. With kids. I was actually thirty-two, now that I’m thinking about it. And my wife was not impressed at all, and my kids were confused. Everything about it was bad. But I realized I’m better at talking my way out of problems than fighting my way out of problems.

I don’t think I’m making complicated points, and I don’t think I’m saying anything radical. Like in that interview with the New York Times. Midway through it she gets kind of emotional and treats me like I’m a dangerous figure. I don’t see myself that way at all. I see myself as thoroughly moderate, and more so as I get older, and I don’t think I have any weird sacred cows that I’m not admitting in public.

The Times reporter, Garcia-Navarro, asked repeatedly about your interview with Nick Fuentes, which seemed to surprise you.

I’m happy to answer questions about Nick Fuentes, but if you’re asking me your eleventh question on Nick Fuentes, I’m gonna have to call it out for what it is, which is a diversion tactic.

I feel like the thing that people are really mad about is the fact that they can’t get jobs that are well-paying enough to build an independent life. Young people are threatened by the promise of AI, which is taking away their futures. And she wants to talk about Nick Fuentes? It is so perfectly representative of the way a certain class of people in America thinks, which is small and narrow. We’re supposed to be running the world! Not with people like you, man.

You did express regret in that Times interview about interviewing Fuentes, at least on the basis that it created too much blowback for you. If you are going to continue to be a prominent anti-war voice and Israel critic, are you thinking about calibrating your approach in any way?

No. I’m not an anti-Semite; if I was an anti-Semite, I would just say so: “I’m against the Jews, here’s why.” I don’t have an employer. I don’t have investors. I don’t even have any creditors, so I can say whatever I think is true, and I plan to.

I find it so interesting that people are unwilling to accept my word. I always say, “Well, why wouldn’t I just say it? What am I going to get? Canceled? I’ve already been fired.” I had the highest-rated show in the history of Fox, and they fired me anyway. So it’s like, what are you going to take from me now?

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan recently reported that JD Vance pitched having you interview Ghislaine Maxwell in prison as part of the Trump administration’s pushback to negative coverage around the Epstein files. Were you involved in this idea?

I was one of the very first, maybe the first person to attack the administration in public last summer for hiding the Epstein materials. Not only was I not involved in a cover-up, I was publicly attacking them. I’ll be happy to interview Ghislaine Maxwell or anybody else. That’s my job. But no, I was not involved in a plot to cover it up.

In an interview recently, Sebastian Gorka, the White House counterterrorism “czar,” name-checked you after being asked about right-wing terror threats.

Sebastian Gorka—he’s not even American. My family’s been here for like four hundred years. And I’m the terror threat because I would like democracy and free speech. I texted him immediately and said, “Let’s have a conversation.” He never responded. He used to invite me over for dinner to his house, and I got such a creepy vibe. I just knew, I’m gonna get over there and he’s going to have me put on a costume.

Sorry, a costume? What kind of a costume?

I don’t know. I’m just guessing. If there’s anybody that has a costume room, it’s Gorka.

Speaking of free speech crackdowns—one of the most famous recent examples when it comes to Israel/Palestine is Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia student-protest leader detained by ICE.

Even then, I didn’t say anything. So determined was I to stay out of this that I made the—in retrospect, probably foolish and maybe even cowardly—decision to not say anything when they started revoking people’s visas for their political views.

Now, I’m for less immigration. In fact, I’m for ending all immigration today. I don’t know how you can justify immigration when half of all white-collar jobs are going away because of AI. What are people going to do for a living? There’s no economic justification for any immigration in the United States because we can’t even figure out what we’re going to do with all these unemployed people. So it’s crazy. Social-services spending, healthcare, education—who’s going to pay for that? So I’m opposed. And in the case of Sebastian Gorka—like, I would deport him immediately.

Legacy media is in constant flux. Do you see the old-school press being able to navigate this era? Or is it slowly just withering away?

Do I see NBC News making a comeback? No! I don’t know David Ellison, but he’s not a genius, I’ll tell you that. He’s buying CBS. Are you gonna buy RCA Records next? I wouldn’t take CBS News for free. I wouldn’t take CNN for free—maybe CNN International. But, like, Paramount Pictures? This is not the future. It’s not even the recent past. It’s the distant past.

I’m not exactly sure where young people are getting their information, but wherever they’re getting it is the right place, because they are so well-informed. For years, I thought that weed and porn and SSRIs and benzodiazepines have totally disabled young people. But I don’t think that anymore. I employ a lot of them, and they’re the sharpest, hardest-working people. They give me a lot of hope. And boy, they don’t believe anything. And they’re very well-informed. So much better-informed than I was when I was twenty-seven. I thought the CIA was a force for good! I literally thought that!

I think Trump is the last Fox News viewer. I’m so grateful every single day that I got fired. I probably wouldn’t have left, knowing me. I’d just be increasingly unhappy.

And here, you feel like you’ve found your—

I feel totally happy. I mean, I think my influence is overstated. I don’t seem to have influence at all. I couldn’t stop Trump from attacking Iran. And my wife, who is hilarious, literally laughed at me after the war started: “So I guess you weren’t very good at that, Mr. Powerful Influential Guy!” What matters is the ability to affect outcomes. And I have no demonstrated ability to do that. None.

Some have referred to the current divide on the right as being a split between Fox News Republicans and YouTube Republicans. Are you strategically positioning yourself as counterprogramming?

I’m not strategic in any way. I make almost all decisions on the basis of smell and instinct. I have no real idea who watches our show. I’m sure there are people who work here who have, or claim to have, a better sense of who the audience is. I really don’t. I make all decisions about what we air myself, usually without consulting anybody. I have a short attention span. That’s been a huge advantage for me over the years.

One thing I always loved about Rachel Maddow, and I often told her this, is that she just existed in her own universe. She’s off in the Berkshires alone, thinking. She was disconnected from the herd. I’ve always wanted to be that. I haven’t always succeeded. It’s shameful the number of times I’ve covered something because everyone else was talking about it. But I really try not to be that way. And increasingly, especially as I age, I am cut off.

I’ve never posted in my life. I don’t have my password on social media. I don’t read anything. I get almost all my information by text message or phone call. That’s it. It could be every bit as wrong. But I just don’t trust anybody at all, and I don’t want it in my head. I’ve never listened to a podcast. I have some form of intense dyslexia, and something about podcasts and movies and television puts me to sleep almost immediately. I still read books every day.

Are you interested in aligning yourself with other anti-war voices?

I do know what really matters is war and finance. Where does the money come from? Where does it go? And who gets killed? And on those questions, the parties are in lockstep solidarity with each other. That’s not a democracy. That’s a one-party state posing as a democracy, and it needs to be broken, and there’s going to be a third party, and I’m going to do everything I can to bring that about.

And that’s the lesson of the last two and a half months, to me. If you vote for Trump and you still wind up in a regime-change war—if Chuck Schumer is strongly behind Trump’s foreign policy, which he is—then we need options, or else let’s just give up and be ruled by the most unscrupulous people. And I’m just too young to accept that. We need a third party.

And when you say do everything you can—

I’m going to help build a third party. There should be a good-faith effort to figure out what benefits the country. I mean, if you make sixty thousand dollars a year, you’re degraded. Your life expectancy has gone down, and the promise of your children’s lives is likely gone. No one seems to care. It’s not even a factor. “What about Hamas?” I officially don’t care about Hamas. The US government should have, as its first priority, the welfare of its own people.

Would you be a candidate for this third party?

I don’t want to be a candidate. Before I did the Times interview, someone said to me, “They’re going to ask you if you’re running for president.” I was very tempted to say “I am running—on the pro-patriarchy ticket.” Just to make sure I gain no new fans.

What’s your goal in speaking to outlets like CJR or the Times—people who are presumably outside of your direct audience?

It’s the only power I have. I don’t have any tricky plan to win Times readers to my campaign for some office. I don’t have any institutional power. I don’t control a military. So all I have is the power to talk and be heard. And though it’s borne no fruit so far, I remain hopeful.

The headline of that Times interview was “What Does Tucker Carlson Really Believe?” The Atlantic used an almost identical headline for a 2019 profile.

So weird. Like I’m using some kind of verbal magic trick to hide something. From my perspective, I am the least mysterious person who’s ever lived. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything in public that’s complicated or hard to understand. I have a commitment to not doing that. I believe if you can’t explain something clearly, either you don’t understand it, or you’re trying to hide something.

What do I really believe? What do you think I’m hiding? I could talk for twenty-four hours! I’ll tell you everything I believe! I can’t stop talking!

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Ebola Outbreak In The DRC: Four Reasons It Will Be Hard To Contain

A road leading into Goma, the capital of the province of North Kivu in DR Congo. Picture by guenterguni/Getty Images

BY JIA B. KANGBAI
SENIOR LECTURER, 
NJALA UNIVERSITY

By the second week of the latest Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo it was already clear that containing the spread of the haemorrhagic disease was proving to be difficult.

On 17 May 2026, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. This is its highest level of global health alert. It is mostly reserved for an extraordinary disease outbreak or event that is a public health risk to many countries through international spread and hence requires global coordinated efforts.

According to the WHO, as of 19 May 2026 the DRC had recorded more than 500 cases and 130 deaths, while its neighbour (Uganda) had recorded two cases and one death.

These statistics are huge considering that the current outbreak was only declared on 15 May. The largest Ebola outbreak was in west Africa from December 2013 to March 2016. It caused 28,652 infections resulting in 11,325 deaths in 10 countries; 99% of the fatalities were in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Infectious disease outbreaks are nothing new for the DRC, a central African country. Last year, while other parts of the world were shaking off the global mpox outbreak, the DRC was still struggling with it.

But the current Ebola outbreak in the DRC has potential to become huge and of long duration.

I am an infectious disease epidemiologist with experience of dealing with the Ebola outbreak in 2013-2016 in Sierra Leone.

In my view there are four reasons while this outbreak will be hard to contain:

late detection and insecurity

misdiagnosis

cultural factors

shortage of global health funds.

Late detection

One of the challenges is the time between a person being infected and being diagnosed (identifying the disease in a laboratory). This detection lag is a major problem because to control the spread of the disease, infected individuals need to be isolated. Ebola is highly contagious.

Late detection was responsible for the early deaths and increased number of Ebola cases in Sierra Leone during the 2013-2016 outbreak. Early cases went unnoticed there because Ebola was new in the country. Clinicians and laboratory scientists were totally unfamiliar with it.

The DRC is familiar with Ebola outbreaks and has witnessed more than any other country.

But in the DRC, late detection is fuelling the rapid spread of the disease and is primarily due to insecurity in the region.

The time it takes to identify an infectious pathogen in the laboratory depends on how long it takes for the pathogen to replicate to detectable level, the type of laboratory tests used, and (for some diseases) the development of antibodies. Ideally, for Ebola virus it varies between one and 32 days.

The first confirmed case was a resident of Goma, a town which lies on the border with Rwanda and is highly unstable. Fighting between DRC government forces and rebels (believed to be backed by Rwanda) has been going on around Goma for a long time.

The instability and volatility of the epicentre of the outbreak is having a major impact. Under those conditions, an infectious disease thrives and outbreaks mostly go unnoticed.

The number of Ebola cases and deaths that have been registered in the current Ebola outbreak in the DRC is difficult to place within the susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model, a tool used in epidemiology. Ebola’s R0 (basic reproduction number, a measure of disease transmission) ranges between 1.5 and 2.5, which means within a susceptible Goma population, a single infected person can spread the virus to an average of 1.5-2.5 Goma residents.

However, the current Ebola incidence and deaths in the DRC exceed the expected number of secondary infections based on Ebola’s basic reproduction number. As of 21 May there were over 136 suspected deaths, 35 confirmed cases, and more than 600 suspected cases caused by the Bundibugyo strain in the ongoing outbreak in the DRC.

Misdiagnosis

The delay in diagnosis may also have been due to subtle early Ebola symptoms that can be misdiagnosed. Both malaria and typhoid have identical fever symptoms.

During the early days of the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, many nurses working at the Kenema Government Hospital and the Lassa Fever Hospital lost their lives because they misdiagnosed the disease as Lassa fever. Ebola and Lassa fever belong to the same class of viral haemorrhagic fever diseases since patients present with similar symptoms and pathophysiologies (what the disease does to the body).

The other challenge with diagnosis in this outbreak is that it is a different virus to the one treated in the most recent Ebola outbreaks. Bundibugyo virus was first identified in Uganda in 2007. Unlike Zaire Ebola virus disease, which was discovered decades ago, the relative newness of Bundibugyo Ebola virus disease means it’s less researched, especially in terms of vaccine and medicine development.

Cultural factors

Other factors affecting the spread are cultural practices such as ritual burials. Ritual burials are common in many African countries, like Sierra Leone and the DRC. These are ceremonies born out of the belief that death is a sacred passage to another world or ancestral realm. Mostly it starts with communal grieving and wake keeping, followed by the ceremonial preparation of the body.

In Sierra Leone a ritual burial of a high priest who died of Ebola in the southern town of Moyamba during the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreaks led to the death of scores of people who took part in ceremonial preparation of his body. It is not surprising to learn of relatives setting Ebola hospital tents on fire simply because they were prevented from handling the corpse of their loved one.

Shortage of global health funds

The cuts in global health funds and the ending of many projects through the dissolution of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is greatly affecting the operations and effectiveness of public health activities around the world.

Most global health security projects aimed to prepare for and mitigate any future disease outbreak.

Sierra Leone and other countries affected by the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreaks benefited immensely from international donor (including USAID) support during that outbreak.

Unfortunately, the DRC will have less international support to help fight this outbreak. The country has long experience in tackling disease outbreaks (especially Ebola) but the lack of experts and logistics on site implies an extended delay in managing this situation. The DRC has the people and the necessary labs and facilities. The major challenge with the current outbreak is that it started in an insecure environment where access to testing facilities are scarce, hence the late detection.

Additionally, the country is about the size of western Europe (including France, Germany, Spain, the UK and Italy). This vast size, coupled with insecurity, will make it difficult to channel logistics across the affected regions.

What’s needed

Tackling the current Ebola outbreak in the DRC requires a rapid, multi-tiered response. It should focus on rapid case detection, multinational support, swift collaborative surveillance and community engagement.

Over the past years the DRC has served as a scientific base for major international research institutions that work on infectious diseases and medical microbiology.

In the absence of a vaccine or medication, the health authorities should embark on community engagement to raise awareness and sensitisation. They must also enforce public health laws, especially those targeting cultures that promote unsafe burials and elevate the risk of Ebola infection. This is to prevent human transmission as many people might still be out there undetected.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Combating Kush in West Africa: A Conversation with Dr. Kars de Bruijne

A young man rolls a kush joint while others sleep in Freetown, Sierra Leone. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

In this interview, Dr. Kars de Bruijne shares his insights regarding the ongoing kush epidemic in West Africa. Dr. Bruijne argues that the rise of kush in Sierra Leone represents a broader trend towards synthetic opioid drug usage in low-income countries. Although kush remains embedded in local West African economies, Dr. Bruijne highlights how regional and international organizations can play a role in training law enforcement, providing medical support, and facilitating information sharing to prevent a further entrenchment of kush in the region.

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs: Can you please provide a brief overview of the kush epidemic? What is kush, and when did it first start appearing in West Africa?

Dr. Kars de Bruijne: Kush is a cheap synthetic drug that emerged in Sierra Leone in 2016 and quickly spread to neighboring countries, including Liberia and Guinea. Kush became increasingly prevalent between 2020 and 2022, and it remains a source of major concern across West Africa.

Until last year, the composition of kush was the subject of significant speculation. Rumors abounded that kush contained rat poison and ground human bones. To rectify these rumors and determine kush’s true makeup, the Global Initiative on Transnational Crime and my organization, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, conducted a research project. We identified two main variants of kush. The first contains synthetic cannabinoids, and the second contains synthetic opioids called nitazines. Nitazines can be more potent than fentanyl, and as a result, they are more deadly when consumed. This finding was particularly shocking and helps to explain why symptoms of kush consumption—such as dozing off and standing immobile for over 30 minutes at a time—are disturbingly similar to fentanyl.

GJIA: Why has Sierra Leone, as opposed to other coastal countries in West Africa, become the epicenter of the kush epidemic? Did any socioeconomic or political factors make Sierra Leone particularly conducive to the rise of kush?

KB: Rather than a particular factor endemic to Sierra Leone, I would argue that kush demonstrates the global threat posed by the rise of cheap synthetic drugs entering low-income markets. I think that kush is a starting point, and that similar epidemics will continue to emerge in impoverished regions worldwide.

That being said, two factors can help contextualize the rise of kush within Sierra Leone. First, there exists Sierra Leonean diaspora communities in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and these communities facilitated the initial export of substances required to produce kush. However, these communities alone are not solely responsible for kush’s emergence. The second factor is Sierra Leone’s persistent gang problem, which became increasingly severe under the last regime. When the new government was elected in 2018, gangs aligned with the opposition were seen as a threat. Whether intentionally or accidentally, the rise of kush helped reduce the gang threat. It mollified gang leaders by providing an alternative way to make money, and it provided the gangs’ “foot soldiers” with a cheap drug to consume for enjoyment. I have heard one explanation for the government’s slow response which points to an implicit recognition that drug consumption had a positive effect on the security problem that the government inherited. Conversely, the government likely did not foresee kush becoming as problematic as it eventually did. Kush consumers were going missing and dying on the streets, but addressing the kush epidemic was not seen as a priority until several years after it emerged.

GJIA: In the recent report that you co-authored on kush, you mentioned that the Sierra Leonean government declared tramadol use a national emergency in 2016. How does the ongoing kush epidemic differ from the tramadol epidemic?

KB: The main difference between tramadol and kush is that tramadol can be used for legitimate medical purposes. Tramadol is commonly sold in pharmacies, and people in Sierra Leone are able to purchase it without a prescription. As tramadol usage worsened, pharmacy boards played an important role in regulating the inflow of tramadol. Pharmacies also staunched the flow of tramadol by raising prices. As tramadol prices increased, the consumption rate decreased.

Unlike tramadol, kush is an illicit drug whose production is firmly rooted in local communities. Kush production generally involves drug peddling and local cartels, so cracking down on production involves a significant law enforcement response. Since the kush production and distribution business is so localized, it is much more difficult to beat than tramadol. For example, a local community leader may be a prominent gang member with the power to co-opt local law enforcement into ignoring kush production. These local protection structures, combined with the challenges of detecting sellers and hideouts, present significant obstacles for combating kush. Likewise, the “cooks”—those who distill kush’s ingredients into its drug form—often operate out of small sheds and use cheap tools, which makes it harder to identify supply lines.

GJIA: You mentioned that materials required to produce kush are imported from abroad. Do you foresee a risk of kush, in turn, being exported to Latin America, Europe, the United States or other drug markets?

KB: Latin America, Europe, and the United States are all fairly saturated drug markets, in which users are accustomed to and can afford particular drugs. Since these markets have more options available, and users tend to have a comparatively higher income, it would be very difficult for kush to infiltrate them.

However, there may exist a relationship between the markets for opioids and nitazenes. Since the Taliban is cracking down on heroin production in Afghanistan, there has been an expectation that the global supply of heroin will decrease in the coming years. Some observers predict that nitazenes will replace this deficit. Although this possibility should not be ruled out, I do not foresee nitazenes in Western markets being sold in the form of kush. In the United States, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, nitazenes have already emerged in oxycodone tablets and other synthetic opioid medicines. These substances will likely continue to increase in popularity as heroin becomes more scarce and expensive.

GJIA: To what extent are West African terrorist groups involved in the trafficking of kush? Do you see potential for terrorist organizations to get involved?

KB:
There is a preconception that Sahelian terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates, are involved in the drug trade. In reality, very little evidence indicates that this is true. Armed forces will occasionally find cannabis when they raid a terrorist camp, but in general, drug use is considered haram—forbidden—under Islamic law. When I speak to smugglers, they emphasize the importance of concealing drugs and avoiding detection when moving through terrorist-controlled territory.

GJIA: Do you think that regional bodies, such as the Economic Organization of West African States (ECOWAS) have a role to play in addressing the kush epidemic?

KB:
Yes, ECOWAS definitely has a role to play. ECOWAS must draw attention to the crisis and reduce its spread by enacting early warning procedures. For example, in November 2024, a series of raids on kush production sites in Sierra Leone displaced some important players to other countries in the region. Through a regional body like ECOWAS, officials from neighboring states can collaborate and coordinate their response to this dispersion.

Outsiders should also play a role in staunching the epidemic. From what I have observed, the substances that give kush its potency are not produced within Sierra Leone. Rather, these ingredients are shipped from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and China. Law enforcement in these countries must crack down on illegal exports and develop stronger oversight mechanisms for monitoring the outflow of goods to international markets.

GJIA: What steps can international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), take to aid West African states in reducing the severity of the epidemic?

KB:
The two UN branches that can have the greatest impact on the kush epidemic are the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC). One of the challenges in countering kush is the lack of access to medicines that can help people who use drugs to detox. The WHO should help local authorities establish rehabilitation clinics, where kush users can obtain medication to fight their addiction. The UNODC can play a dominant role in providing law enforcement training. Fundamentally, mitigating the kush epidemic requires preventing the drug from crossing borders and infiltrating new markets in West Africa. To achieve this goal, the UNODC can promote information sharing between different law enforcement agencies and train law enforcement officials to identify and interdict kush shipments.

GJIA: Lastly, you mentioned that you recently travelled to Sierra Leone to research kush. Did you see any differences between the current environment in Sierra Leone and your past trips?

KB:
One change that I immediately noticed was a substantial increase in the price of kush, which far outpaced inflation. While kush is still a widespread problem, higher prices will likely facilitate a decrease in consumption rates. Secondly, the drug market in Sierra Leone has become increasingly diversified. Tramadol remains rampant, and marijuana—which became nearly obsolete amidst the rise of kush—appears to be regaining a share of the market. Although kush remains a deadly, unsolved, and extremely complex problem, these observations lead me to believe that the situation has marginally improved. This improvement may signify a short-term change, but it does not guarantee that kush is on the decline. Given the push-and-pull dynamics of regional drug markets, West African countries must remain vigilant to prevent the situation from worsening again in the future.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Interview conducted by Sydney Pappas.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 17, 2026

100 Million African Children Are Not In School. What’s Driving The Trend And How To Reverse It

Schooling at a Sudanese refugee camp in Chad. Photo by Joris Bolomey / AFP via Getty Images


BY MOSES NGWARE
SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST,
AFRICAN POPULATION AND
HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER

Many countries across Africa have embraced universal basic education policies in recent decades. But recent data has revealed that more than 100 million children and adolescents remain out of school, out of a total potential population of 469 million. The latest statistics suggest that after some years of progress, the situation is deteriorating. Education and youth empowerment scholar Moses Ngware and his co-researchers recently carried out an analysis of trends going back 25 years. Their main findings are set out below.

What are the school attendance trends in Africa across all age groups?

In 2000, the number of out-of-school children in primary school, lower secondary and upper secondary was above 100 million. It was down to about 90 million in 2014, and then up again to 100 million by 2025.

Viewed against Africa’s high population growth of above 2.5%, these absolute numbers suggest that school participation is not keeping pace.

Nevertheless, between 2000 and 2024, the proportion of out-of-school children and adolescents declined at all education levels. It fell from 37% to 20% for primary schools; from 47% to 35% for lower secondary and from 56% to 47% for upper secondary school-age children. This is despite the absolute numbers of out-of-school children remaining high.

Countries that showed greatest improvement included Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar and Mozambique. Improvements were driven by at least two main factors. First, targeted policy responses that enabled them to achieve good coverage in a short time. Second, a strong political will combined with a multi-sectoral approach. The approaches included combining conditional cash transfers for households, food supplies, expanding access to schools and implementing universal education policies that reduce cost of schooling for households.

On the other hand, there are countries that made little or no progress. They include Angola, Cape Verde, Lesotho, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. The main drivers of the low progress are:

political instability, as seen in South Sudan

poor economic performance, as witnessed in Zimbabwe

the high opportunity cost of schooling, as seen in Lesotho, where boys drop out due to poverty related coping mechanisms, including herding cattle, with only one in every five boys completing grade 12.

What are the notable changes in recent years?

In the past five years, we have seen a steady increase in absolute numbers of out-of-school children and adolescents from 95 million to 100 million, with an average of about 1 million children either not transitioning from primary to secondary school or leaving school or not joining school at all.

There are two main drivers of such a trend. First, finance – the fizzling effect of the universal basic education subsidies of the early 2000s. These subsidies made basic education affordable to many households. Of the 42 African countries with free education in their policies, only three were in a position to offer free schooling in 2025. Donor funding of education by multilateral organisations has also been reduced, with education aid in Africa declining by 7% in 2024. Second, the negative impact of COVID-19, with about 10 million who left school due to the lockdowns never to return, for various reasons, including forced marriages among girls and child labour for boys.

Across all the schooling levels, higher than before rates of out-of-school children and adolescents were observed in the Sahel region, in Central African Republic, Chad, Mauritania and northern Nigeria. These countries or regions are characterised by politically motivated violence, harsh climatic changes and a history of low school participation.

Why is school completion important for societies?

The main benefits to societies of school completion include transition to decent work, girls’ empowerment, and improved health outcomes. An additional year of schooling increases an individual’s lifetime earnings by about 10% on average, with a potential to increase an individual’s purchasing power. Such benefits can also trickle down to households through providing household financial stability and enhanced family support.

For girls, school completion is critical for participation in decision making at societal level. Research shows that a woman’s power to make decisions, such as education for her children or where to invest, increases with education attainment. This has a bearing on economic independence and gender equity within the society.

Furthermore, and related to these two benefits, children of mothers who have completed secondary education have a 45% lower under-3 mortality rate. This implies that such children have about half the risk of death before age 3 compared to those born to mothers with no education.

What are the gender dynamics?

By 2025, the proportion of males that were out of school, at 51%, was only slightly higher than that of females. However, the out-of-school female rate was on the rise – up by two percentage points in 10 years.

If this growth continues, then the proportion of out-of-school females will overtake that of males in the coming years. This will compound the vulnerabilities disadvantaged girls face in their schooling journey and transition to work.

In addition, the gains made in the last three decades in closing gender gaps in education will be eroded. Eroding the gains made in education has severe consequences, especially for girls. For instance, we are likely to see an increase in females getting married much earlier, and child bearing among adolescents may also increase.

What lessons can we learn from the better-placed countries?

There are a number of important lessons to be learnt from countries that have lowered the number of out-of-school children and adolescents.

First, Algeria, Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda have relied on a strong national policy framework backed by political good will, high-level central coordination and donor-partner support.

Second is the importance of targeted social support such as school feeding and conditional cash transfers. Close evaluations using hard data are needed.

Third is the elimination of significant direct fees or levies at basic education level, with timely financial disbursements and school supplies.

Fourth is the lesson that affirmative action for vulnerable populations is an invaluable investment. These populations include disadvantaged girls, children from remote rural areas, children with disabilities, and children from poor households.

Finally, there are other interventions that can add value depending on the context. These include reducing travel distance through expanding infrastructure, and flexible school entry, such as late entry to improve participation. Another is catch-up programmes, which means accelerating progression to recover lost time and learning.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Monday, September 22, 2025

Six World Leaders On Navigating Climate Change, Without The US

President William Ruto of Kenya. Dina Litovsky for The New York Times

BY DAVID GELLES

Climate debates often focus on the world’s largest economies and biggest emitters. But the work of adapting to a hotter planet is happening in countries that have contributed little to the problem but are nevertheless exposed to its consequences.

I spoke with six world leaders from these places and heard some common themes — the ravages of extreme weather, the difficulties posed by the Trump administration’s retreat. (The president withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement and denies the existence of climate change.)

But the conversations, which you can see in full, also show how varied environmental predicaments can be. Some of the interviews, condensed and edited, are here:

Kenya

President William Ruto has positioned himself as Africa’s climate leader. Kenya’s energy system is powered in large part by biofuels, wind and solar power. But many African countries, including Kenya, have struggled to obtain competitive financing for clean-energy projects. Ruto’s push for climate action has not moved many voters who want improvements in government services, currency stability and living costs.

Talking to your countrymen, how do you explain your focus on something that can seem very abstract to people who are still just struggling to get by?

Droughts made millions of Kenyans go hungry. Floods just in the city of Nairobi killed over 30 people. Nobody can persuasively tell any Kenyan that climate change is abstract. It is not.

Do you feel that the effort to coordinate global climate action has been effective?

It is generally acceptable now that countries like Kenya should be considered for financing. There was a time when we said this and it looked like a joke.

Does international collaboration on climate change work if the United States is rowing in the opposite direction? 

I am very confident that the position of the United States, of China, of Europe, of Africa must come together at some point. We may disagree for a moment, we may disagree for a while, but reality is going to beat us into an agreement. The effects of climate change are in every continent. The only difference is that developed countries can cushion themselves.

Finland

This country has done something unusual: It has cut down on carbon emissions while growing its economy. Of course, it helps that the Finnish public is wildly supportive of government action on climate. Finland hopes to be carbon neutral by 2035, but it is still reliant on oil because of shipping fuel. Prime Minister Petteri Orpo describes a nation being transformed: The Arctic is warming nearly four times as fast as the global average, and arable land is moving north as remote regions thaw.

Is China becoming a more powerful partner to Finland with the retreat of the U.S. on clean energy? 

We have to be careful. We have to get rid of dangerous dependencies, because we have to be autonomous in clean-energy production.

You’ve been working on this issue for many years now. What was the moment when you felt the most personal disillusionment about the politics around climate change? 

About five to 10 years ago, there was a debate in my own country over whether climate change is true or not. And because I believe it is, and I’m deeply worried about our world and our planet, that debate was frustrating. But we won. Today we have new technologies. We can change our behavior without cutting our welfare. We just have to believe that it’s possible, and we have to continue our work.

The Marshall Islands

This country, made from islands and reefs in the Pacific Ocean, is a few feet above sea level. Each year, the challenges grow. Mosquito-borne diseases have spread because of more frequent rainfall. Tuna — an economic backbone — are leaving for cooler parts of the Pacific. The water is rising. “We will be submerged by 2050 if the world doesn’t do its part,” says President Hilda Heine, who has spent her career sounding the alarm.

What do developed nations owe countries like the Marshall Islands? 

The plan for elevating only two of our communities is projected to cost us billions. It’s a lot of money. I wish that the big emitters could step up and put money into that.

What specific steps are you taking in the Marshall Islands? 

The warming of the ocean is killing our corals, which are building blocks of atoll nations. We are currently doing research to determine species of corals that can survive the warming ocean. We are building a fleet of ships that use wind and solar power to replace our fossil-fuel-run shipping fleet.

What are some of the changes your people have had to make? 

Seven years ago, Majuro had no sea walls. Now we build sea walls to protect homes and schools. I mean, we used to be able to just walk into the lagoon. Now you have to go over sea walls to get to the lagoon side or to the ocean side. The landscape is different.

Do you think your country will survive? 

As the leader of the Marshall Islands, I cannot take the view that we cannot survive.

Bangladesh

With a young population densely packed into a low-lying delta, rising sea levels and extreme heat are major problems. Agriculture is being disrupted. Populations are being displaced. After a popular uprising last year, the country installed Muhammad Yunus as the government’s chief adviser. Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for developing a way to give small loans to low-income people. He called it an example of the way small individual actions can produce widespread change, and he believes that the same is possible with climate.

How is Bangladesh experiencing climate change right now? 

We have to make use of every little space we’ve got in order to feed ourselves. But not only is our land sinking into the ocean; the water system brings saline water into the land because of the tide. And salinity eats up our cultivable land. So sum total is our land is getting squeezed. It’s not a very happy situation.

How much do you think international efforts on climate action have succeeded? 

We try to solve everything by pouring money into it. That’s not the solution. I’m saying I have to change myself. That’s how the world will change.

What do you think the developed countries that have historically been responsible for most global emissions owe a country like Bangladesh? All I can do is explain to them: “Look, this is our home. You start a fire in your part of the home, you suffer. But you do something to start a fire in my part of the house — this is not a fair thing to do. You are destroying the whole home. Our life depends on what you do.”

READ BORIGINAL STORY HERE

Friday, June 27, 2025

How Zohran Mamdani’s Win In The New York City Mayoral Primary Could Ripple Across The Country

New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, center, greets voters with New York Comptroller Brad Lander, right, on the Upper West Side on June 24, 2025. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

BY LINCOLN MITCHELL
LECTURER, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY

Top Republicans and Democrats alike are talking about the sudden rise of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a state representative who won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York on June 24, 2025, in a surprising victory over more established politicians.

While President Donald Trump quickly came out swinging with personal attacks against Mamdani, some establishment Democratic politicians say they are concerned about how the democratic socialist’s progressive politics could harm the broader Democratic Party and cause it to lose more centrist voters.

New York is a unique American city, with a diverse population and historically liberal politics. So, does a primary mayoral election in New York serve as any kind of harbinger of what could come in the rest of the country?

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Lincoln Mitchell, a political strategy and campaign specialist who lectures at Columbia University, to understand what Mamdani’s primary win might indicate about the direction of national politics.


Does Mamdani’s primary win offer any indication of how the Democratic Party might be transforming on a national level?

Mamdani’s win is clearly a rebuke of the more corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I know there are people who say that New York is different from the rest of the country. But from a political perspective, Democrats in New York are less different from Democrats in the rest of country than they used to be.

That’s because the rest of America is so much more diverse than it used to be. But if you look at progressive politicians now in the House of Representatives and state legislatures, they are being elected from all over – not just in big cities like New York anymore.

Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, ran an absolutely terrible mayoral campaign. He tried to build a political coalition that is no longer a winning one, which was made up of majorities of African Americans, outer-borough white New Yorkers and orthodox and conservative Jews. Thirty or 40 years ago, that was a powerful coalition. Today, it could not make up a majority.

Mamdani visualized and created what a 2025 progressive coalition looks like in New York and recognized that it is going to look different than the past. Mamdani’s coalition was based around young, white people – many of them with college degrees who are worried about affordability – ideological lefties and immigrants from parts of the Global South, including the Caribbean and parts of Africa, South Asia and South America.

When you say a new kind of political coalition, what policy priorities bring Mamdani’s supporters together?

Mamdani reframed what I would call redistributive economic policies that have long been central to the progressive agenda. A pillar of his campaign is affordability – a brilliant piece of political marketing because who is against affordability? He came up with some affordability-related policies that got enough buzz, like promising free buses. Free buses are great, but it won’t help most working and poor New Yorkers get to work – they take the subway.

He has been very critical of Israel and has weathered charges of antisemitism.

In the older New York, progressive politicians such as the late Congressman Charlie Rangel were very hawkish on Israel.

What Mamdani understood is that in today’s America, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not care if somebody is, sounds like or comes close to being antisemitic. For those people, calling someone antisemitic sounds Trumpy, and they understand it as a right-wing hit, rather than the legitimate expression of concerns from Jewish people. Some liberals think that claims of antisemitism are simply something done just by those on the right to damage or discredit progressive politicians, but antisemitism is real.

Therefore, Mamdani’s record on the Jewish issue did not hurt him in the campaign, but he needs to build bridges to Jewish voters, or he will not be able to govern New York City.

How else did Mamdani appeal to a base of supporters?

He got the support of “limousine liberals” – including rich, high-profile, progressive people. His supporters include Ella Emhoff, a model and the stepdaughter of Kamala Harris, and the actress Cynthia Nixon, but there were many others. Supporting Mamdani became stylish – almost de rigueur – among certain segments of affluent New York.

Mamdani is also a true New Yorker and the voice of a new kind of immigrant. His parents are from Uganda and India. But he is also the child of extreme privilege – his mother, Mira Nair, is a well-known filmmaker, and his father is an accomplished professor. Mamdani went to top schools in New York and knows how to play in elite circles, and with white people. He is a Muslim man whose roots are in the Global South, not threatening because he knows how to speak their language.

But to people of color and immigrants, Mamdani is also one of them. Because of Mamdani’s interesting background, he brought the limousine liberals together with the aunties from Bangladesh.

Finally, on the charisma scale, Mamdani was so far ahead of other Democratic candidates. Who is going to make better TikTok videos – the good-looking, young man whose mother is a world-famous movie producer, or the older guy who is a loving father and husband but gives off dependable dad, rather than hip young guy, vibes?

Is New York City so distinct that you cannot compare politics there to what happens nationwide?

I think that nationwide or at the state level there is a potential for something similar to a Mamdani coalition, but not a Mamdani coalition exactly. But in a place like Oklahoma, there are people who are in bad economic shape and who will also respond positively to an affordability-focused, Democratic political campaign. Mamdani remade a progressive New York coalition for this moment. Other progressives politicians should copy the spirit of that and reimagine a winning coalition in their city, state or district.

When Trump was campaigning, he focused at least on making groceries cheaper. Mamdani is one of the few Democrats who took the affordability issue back from Trump and addressed it head on and in a much more honest and relevant way. Trump has the phrase, “Make America Great Again!” That’s a popular slogan on baseball caps for Trump supporters.

If Mamdani wanted to make a baseball cap, he could just print “Affordability” on it. Boom.

Other Democratic politicians can take that approach of affordability and reframe it in a way that works in Kansas City or elsewhere.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Trump Orders Marines To Los Angeles As Protests Escalate Over Immigration Raids, Demonstrating The President’s Power To Deploy Troops On US Soil

National Guard members watch protests in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

BY WILLIAM C. BANKS
PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS, SYRACUS UNIVERSITY

President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as “increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.”

This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump’s June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city.

Both measures were Trump’s response to what he called “numerous incidents of violence and disorder” by those protesting his administration’s actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area.

State and local officials decried Trump’s actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move “purposefully inflammatory,” as well as “an illegal act.” California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump’s actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president’s power to send American troops to Los Angeles.


Can American troops be used inside the country?

They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance.

Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard.

Why was American law set up this way?

The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs.

The country’s framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the “militia” in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers.

Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city?

Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is “impracticable,” according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order.

In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces.

Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles “insurrectionists,” but has also walked those remarks back and hasn’t made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California’s National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws.

What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles?

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act’s name derives from an arcane Latin term that means “the power of the county.” This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement.

This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law.

So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials?

That’s right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power.

This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different.

Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president’s authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles?

The short answer to this question is no.

Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities?

In many ways that is the main question right now. California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen’t need these military forces. Newsom’s June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, “unless the State requests or consents to federal control.” That has not happened in this case.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 25, 2025

Harvard Fights To Keep Enrolling International Students – 4 Essential Reads About Their Broader Impact

Graduates of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government celebrate during commencement exercises in Cambridge, Mass. AP Photo/Steven Senne, File

BY COREY MITCHELL
EDUCATION EDITOR

INTERVIEWED: BARNET SHERMAN, BERNHARD STREIWIESER, BRIAN MITTENDORF, CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS, DAVID L. DI MARIA AND PHILIP HACKNEY

A federal judge in Boston on May 23, 2025, temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have revoked Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students.

The directive from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resulting lawsuit from Harvard have escalated the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution.

It’s also the latest step in a White House campaign to ramp up vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including students.

Homeland Security officials accused Harvard of creating a hostile campus climate by accommodating “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist agitators.” The accusation stems from the university’s alleged support for certain political groups and their activities on campus.

In early April, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. The database includes country of citizenship, which U.S. school they attend and what they study.

Barring Harvard from enrolling international students could have significant implications for the campus’s climate and the local economy. International students account for 27% of the university’s enrollment.

Here are four stories from The Conversation’s archive about the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard and the economic impact of international students.

1. A target on Harvard

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the university.

The White House has threatened to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and some media outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is taking steps in that direction.

But it is illegal to revoke an entity’s tax-emempt status “on a whim,” according to Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, and Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at Ohio State University.

“Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity,” they wrote. “And it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun.”

Several U.S. senators, all Democrats, have urged the IRS inspector general to see whether the IRS has begun auditing Harvard or any nonprofits in response to the administration’s requests or whether Trump has violated any laws with his pressure campaign.

Hackney and Mittendorf wrote that the Trump administration’s moves are part of a larger push to exert control over Harvard, including its efforts to increase its diversity and its response to claims of discrimination on campus.

2. International students help keep ‘America First’

The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries vie to attract the scholars.

In a recent story for The Conversation, David L. Di Maria, vice provost for global engagement at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, wrote that stepped-up screening and vetting of students could make the U.S. a less attractive study destination.

Di Maria wrote that such efforts could hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.

Trump administration officials have emphasized the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.

Research shows that international students launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their U.S.-born peers. Roughly 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by former international students, Di Maria noted.

3. A boost to local economies

Indeed, international students have a tremendous economic impact on local communities.

If these global scholars stay home or go elsewhere, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States, wrote Barnet Sherman, a professor of multinational finance and trade at Boston University.

With the money they spend on tuition, food, housing and other other items, international students pump money into the local economy, but there are additional benefits.

On average, a new job is created for every three international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created, Sherman wrote.

In Greater Boston, where Harvard is located, there are about 63,000 international students who contribute to the economy. The gains are huge – about US$3 billion.

4. Rising number of international students

The rising number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has long led to concerns about U.S. students being displaced by international peers.

The unease is often fueled by the assumption that financial interests are driving the trend, Cynthia Miller-Idriss of American University and Bernhard Streitwieser of George Washington University wrote in a 2015 story for The Conversation.

A common claim, they wrote, is the flawed assumption that “cash-strapped public universities” aggressively recruit more affluent students from abroad who can afford to pay rising tuition costs. The pair wrote that, historically, shifting demographics on college campuses result from social and economic changes.

In today’s context, Miller-Idriss and Streitwieser maintain that the argument that colleges prioritize international students fails to account for the global role of U.S. universities, which help support national security, foster international development projects and accelerate the pace of globalization.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Thursday, May 22, 2025

WHO Is Finalizing A New Treaty That Prepares For The Next Pandemic − But The US Isn’t Signing

The 78th World Health Assembly is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland, from May 19-27, 2025. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

BY NICOLE HASSOUN
PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY,
BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY, STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

On March 20, 2025, members of the World Health Organization adopted the world’s first pandemic agreement, following three years of “intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The U.S., however, did not participate, in part because of its intention to withdraw from the WHO.

Global health experts are hailing the agreement as a historic moment.

What does the agreement mean for the world, and how can it make everyone safer and more prepared for the next pandemic?

The Conversation asked Nicole Hassoun, a professor at Binghamton University and executive director of Global Health Impact, to explain the pandemic accord, its prospects for advancing global health, and the significance of the U.S.’s absence from it.

What will the pandemic agreement do?

The accord will bolster pandemic preparation within individual countries and around the world.

Countries signing onto the agreement are committing to improve their disease surveillance and grow their heath care workforces, strengthen their regulatory systems and invest in research and development. It encourages countries to strengthen their health regulations and infrastructure, improve communication with the public about pandemics and increase funding for preparation and response efforts.

It also includes new mechanisms for producing and distributing vaccines and other essential countermeasures. Finally, it encourages countries to coordinate their responses and share information about infectious diseases and intellectual property so that vaccines and other essential countermeasures can be made available more quickly.

The agreement will take effect once enough countries ratify it, which may take several years.
Why isn’t the US involved?


The Biden administration was broadly supportive of a pandemic agreement and was an active participant in negotiations.

Prior to Donald Trump’s reelection, however, Republican governors had signed a letter opposing the treaty, echoing a conservative think tank’s concerns about U.S. sovereignty.

The U.S. withdrew from negotiations when President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw from the WHO on the day he was inaugurated for his second term.

Why could the lack of US involvement be beneficial for the world?

The lack of U.S. involvement likely resulted in a much more equitable treaty, and it is not clear that countries could have reached an agreement had the U.S. continued to object to key provisions.

It was only once the U.S. withdrew from the negotiations that an agreement was reached. The U.S. and several other wealthy countries were concerned with protecting their pharmaceutical industry’s profits and resisted efforts aimed at convincing pharmaceutical companies to share the knowledge, data and intellectual property needed for producing new vaccines and other essential countermeasures.

Other negotiators sought greater access to vaccines and other treatments during a pandemic for poorer countries, which often rely on patented technologies from global pharmaceutical companies.

While most people in wealthy countries had access to COVID-19 vaccines as early as 2021, many people in developing countries had to wait years for vaccines.

How could the agreement broaden access for treatments?

One of the contentious issues in the pandemic agreement has to do with how many vaccines manufacturers in each country must share in exchange for access to genetic sequences to emerging infectious diseases. Countries are still negotiating a system for sharing the genetic information on pathogens in return for access to vaccines themselves. It is important that researchers can get these sequences to make vaccines. And, of course, people need access to the vaccines once they are developed.

Still, there are many more promising aspects of the agreement for which no further negotiations are necessary. For instance, the agreement will increase global vaccine supply by increasing manufacturing around the world.

The agreement also specifies that countries and the WHO should work together to create a mechanism for fairly sharing the intellectual property, data and knowledge needed to produce vaccines and other essential health products. If financing for new innovation requires equitable access to the new technologies that are developed, many people in poor countries may get access to vaccines much more quickly in the next pandemic. The agreement also encourages individual countries to offer sufficient incentives for pharmaceutical companies to extend access to developing countries.

If countries implement these changes, that will benefit people in rich countries as well as poor ones. A more equitable distribution of vaccines can contain the spread of disease, saving millions of lives.

What more should be done, and does the US have a role to play?

In my view, the best way to protect public health moving forward is for countries to sign on to the agreement and devote more resources to global health initiatives. This is particularly important given declining investment and participation in the WHO and the contraction of other international health initiatives, such as USAID.

Without international coordination, it will become harder to catch and address problems early enough to prevent epidemics from becoming pandemics.

It will also be imperative for member countries to provide funding to support the agreement’s goals and secure the innovation and access to new technologies. This requires building the basic health infrastructure to ensure shots can get into people’s arms.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

KNOCK, KNOCK

By issuing subpoenas to five Times journalists, the Trump administration reveals its first response to unwanted national security coverage: ...