I Wrote A Book On The Politics Of War Powers, And Trump’s Attack On Venezuela Reflects Congress Surrendering Its Decision-Making Powers

Congress has been largely absent as President Donald Trump has escalated his verbal and military attacks on Venezuela. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

BY SARAH BURNS

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL 

SCIENCE, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

Americans woke up on Jan. 3, 2025, to blaring headlines: “US CAPTURES MADURO, TRUMP SAYS,” declared The New York Times, using all capital letters. The U.S. had mounted an overnight military raid in Venezuela that immediately raised questions of procedure and legality. Prime among them was what role Congress had – or should have had – in the operation.

Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed political scientist Sarah Burns, author of the book “The Politics of War Powers” and an expert at Rochester Institute of Technology on the historical struggle between Congress and U.S. presidents over who has the power to authorize military action.

Is this a war?

I wouldn’t call it a war. This is regime change, and whether or not it has a positive impact on the United States, whether or not it has a positive impact on Venezuela, I think the likelihood is very low for both of those things being true.

How does Congress see its role in terms of military action initiated by the United States?

Congress has been, in my view, incredibly supine. But that’s not just my word. Having said that, it is true that Congress – in the House, predominantly – tried to pass a war powers act recently, saying that President Donald Trump was not allowed to do any action against Venezuela, and that failed on very close votes.

So you see some effort on the part of Congress to assert itself in the realm of war. But it failed predominantly on party lines, with Democrats saying we really don’t want to go into Venezuela. We really don’t want to have this action. Republicans predominantly were supporting the president and whatever it happens to be that he would like to do. Moderate Republicans and Republicans who are in less safe districts were and are more likely to at least stand up a little bit to the president, but there’s a very small number of them.

So there may be an institutional role for Congress, a constitutional role, a role that has been confirmed by legal opinion, but politics takes over in Congress when it comes to asserting its power in this realm?

That’s a perfect way of putting it. They have a legal, constitutional, one might even say moral, responsibility to assert themselves as a branch, right? This is from Federalist 51 where James Madison says “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” So it should be that as a branch, they assert themselves against the president and say, “We have a role here.”

In the 1940s, presidential scholar Edward Corwin said that in the realm of foreign policy, it is an invitation for Congress and the president to struggle. So it should be that Congress and the president are struggling against each other to assert, “I’m in charge.” “No, I’m in charge.” “No, I’m in charge,” in an effort to create a balance between the two branches and between the two things that each of the branches does well. What you want from Congress is slow deliberation and a variety of opinions. What you want from the president is energy and dispatch.

So certainly, if we have an attack like 9/11, you would want the president to be able to act quickly. And you know, conversely, in situations like the questions around what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela, you want slow deliberation because there is no emergency that requires energy and dispatch and speed. So the president shouldn’t be entirely in the driver’s seat here, and Congress should very much be trying very hard to restrain him.

What power does Congress have to restrain him?

They have to pass legislation. They aren’t particularly well suited right now to passing legislation, so effectively there is not a very clear way for them to restrain the president.

One of the things that members of Congress have attempted to do several times, with very little positive impact, is go to the courts and say, “Can you restrain the president?” And political scientist Jasmine Farrier has written that the courts have regularly said to members of Congress: “You have the power to stop the president, and you are ineffective at that. And so if you want to stop the president, you shouldn’t turn to us. You should work together to create legislation that would restrain the president.”

What would such legislation do? Cut off money for troops? Is it finger-wagging, or is it something really concrete?

There are a few different tiers. Joint resolutions are finger-wagging. They just say, “Bad, Mr. President, don’t do that.” But they have no effect in law.

The War Powers Resolution, first passed in 1973, is a legitimate way of trying to restrain the president. Congress intended to say to presidents, “You cannot start a war and continue a war without our authorization.” But what they said instead was “You could have a small war or a short war – of 60 to 90 days – without our authorization, and then you have to tell us about it.” That just sort of said to presidents the opposite of what they intended. So President Barack Obama took advantage of that with the military engagement in Libya, as well as Trump in his first administration.

This is not a partisan issue. It’s not Republican presidents who do it. It’s not Democratic presidents who do it. It’s every president since the War Powers Resolution was passed, and the only time that Congress has drawn down troops or drawn down money was the Vietnam War.

Other than that disastrous war, we have not seen Congress willing to put themselves on the politically negative side, which is taking money away from the troops. Because if you take away money right now, they’re going to be harmed.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution from 1973, also known as the War Powers Act, was Congress – during the Vietnam War – saying definitively to President Richard Nixon, “You have overstepped your bounds.” They had explicitly said in law, you cannot go into Cambodia. And Nixon went into Cambodia.

So that was their way of trying to reassert themselves very aggressively; as I mentioned before, it didn’t work effectively. It worked insofar as presidents don’t unilaterally start wars that are large scale, the way that World War II was large scale. But they do have these smaller actions at varying levels.

Then we get to 9/11 and we see the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, and the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. The 2001 law authorized going after anyone in al-Qaida and associated with 9/11. The 2002 authorization was directly related to Iraq, saying “There is a problem with Iraq, we have to do something.” Both of them were extremely vague and broad, and that’s why we’ve seen four presidents, including Trump, using the 2001 and 2002 authorizations to carry out all sorts of operations that had very little to do with Saddam Hussein or al-Qaida.

In 2021, senators Mike Lee, Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy collectively got together and tried to create a national security document that would restrain presidential unilateralism. It was a good effort on the part of members of Congress from a variety of different ideological views to attempt to restrain the president. It did not even sort-of pass – it barely got out on the floor.

Since that time, we haven’t seen a lot of efforts from members of Congress. They haven’t really reasserted themselves since the war in Korea, which began in 1950. It’s very clear that ambition is no longer checking ambition the way that it was meant to by the founders.

When you woke up this morning and saw the news, what was your first thought?

Here we go again. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Lots of presidents have made this error, which is that they think if you do this smaller-scale action, you are going to get a positive result for the nation, for the region, for international stability. And very rarely is that the case.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump Tells UN In Speech That It Is ‘Not Even Coming Close To Living Up’ To Its Potential

President Donald Trump walks from Marine One with Col. Christopher Robinson, right, commander of the 89th Airlift Wing, to board Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

BY AAMER MADHANI AND FARNOUSH AMIRI

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Donald Trump castigated the United Nations as a feckless institution in a speech to the world body on Tuesday, praising the turn America has taken under his leadership while warning Europe will be ruined if it doesn’t turn away from a “double-tailed monster” of ill-conceived migration and green energy policies.

His roughly hourlong speech before the U.N. General Assembly was both grievance-filled and self-congratulatory as he used the platform to applaud his second-term achievements and lament that some of his fellow world leaders’ countries were “going to hell.”

The address was the latest reminder for U.S. allies and foes that the United States — after a four-year interim under the more internationalist President Joe Biden — has returned to an unapologetically “America First” posture with an antagonistic view toward the United Nations. Trump also sharply criticized the global body for inaction, saying it was filled with “empty words” that “don’t solve wars.”

“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump said. “The U.N. has such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential.”

Afterward, Trump attempted to assuage fears from some diplomats by assuring the top U.N. leader that the U.S. remained “100%” supportive of the global body despite his earlier criticism.

“I may disagree with it sometimes, but I am so behind it because the potential for peace at this institution is great,” Trump told Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

It was another about-face after Trump offered a weave of jarring juxtapositions in his address to the assembly.

He trumpeted himself as a peacemaker and enumerated successes of his administration’s efforts in several hotspots around the globe. At the same time, Trump heralded his decisions to order the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iran and more recently against alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela and argued that “globalists” are on the verge of destroying successful nations.

Warnings about ‘green scam’ and migration

Trump touted his administration’s policies allowing for expanded drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, and aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration, implicitly suggesting more countries should follow suit.

He sharply warned that European nations that have more welcoming migration policies and commit to expensive energy projects aimed at reducing their carbon footprint were causing irreparable harm to their economies and cultures.

“I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the ‘green energy’ scam, your country is going to fail,” Trump said. “If you don’t stop people that you’ve never seen before that you have nothing in common with, your country is going to fail.”

Trump added, “I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration. This double-tailed monster destroys everything in its wake, and they cannot let that happen any longer.”

Trump makes dramatic shift on Russia-Ukraine war

Trump also addressed Russia’s war in Ukraine, once again threatening to hit Moscow with “a very strong round of powerful tariffs” if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the table to end the war.

He waited until after the speech, and a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to announce a dramatic shift in his position on the war: He said he now believes Ukraine, with the help of NATO, can win back all territory lost to Russia.

Trump wrote in part in his post. “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.”

The strengthened support from Trump, if it sticks, is a huge win for Zelenskyy, who has urged the American president to keep up the pressure on Putin to end his brutal war on Ukraine.

Trump going back to his 2024 campaign insisted that he would quickly end the war. And he’s frequently suggested that U.S. interests in the outcome were limited.

“Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win,” Trump wrote. “This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like ‘a paper tiger.’”

Trump speaks out on Palestinian statehood push

The president also pushed back on longtime American allies who are using this year’s General Assembly to spotlight the growing international campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state, a move that the U.S. and Israel vehemently oppose.

France became the latest nation to recognize Palestinian statehood on Monday at the start of a high-profile meeting at the U.N. aimed at galvanizing support for a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict.

Trump sharply criticized the effort.

“The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists,” Trump said. “This would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including Oct. 7.”

The president also took part in a group meeting with officials from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan for talks focused on ending the Gaza war.

“This is my most important meeting,” Trump said. “But this is the one that’s very important to me because we’re going to end something that should have probably never started.”
Trump pokes at UN for escalator, teleprompter issues

Early in his speech, Trump broke from his prepared remarks to bemoan an inoperable escalator in U.N. headquarters that he happened upon as well as a defective teleprompter.

“These are the two things I got from the United Nations: a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter,” Trump poked, eliciting laughs from delegates and leaders.

A U.N. official said the United Nations understands that someone from the president’s party who ran ahead of him inadvertently triggered the stop mechanism on the escalator. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the White House was operating the teleprompter for the president.

Trump has Oslo dreams

The president again made clear that he wants to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, repeating his spurious claim that he’s “ended seven wars” since he returned to office.

“Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Prize — but for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless wars,” Trump said in his address.

Trump regularly points to his administration’s efforts to end several conflicts around the world, including fighting between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Egypt and Sudan.

“It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them,” Trump said. “Sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help in any of them.”

Although Trump helped mediate relations among many of these nations, experts say his impact isn’t as clear cut as he claims.

Associated Press writers Jamey Keaton in Geneva, Switzerland, Tracy Brown and Darlene Superville in Washington, Bill Barrow in Atlanta, and Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report.

Trump’s Use Of FBI To Target ‘Enemies’ Echoes FBI’s Dark History Of Mass Surveillance, Dirty Tricks And Perversion Of Justice Under J. Edgar Hoover

A letter sent anonymously by the FBI to Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964 urging him to commit suicide. Wikipedia

BY BETTY MEDSGER

PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF JOURNALISM,

SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY

As a candidate last year, Donald Trump promised retribution against his perceived enemies. As president, he is doing that.

At the Department of Justice, a “Weaponization Working Group” has a long list of Trump’s perceived enemies to investigate. At the FBI, director Kash Patel has conducted a political purge, firing the highest officials at the bureau and thousands of FBI agents who investigated alleged crimes by Trump as well as investigated participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots.

It marks the first time since J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year reign as FBI director that the FBI has targeted massive numbers of people perceived to be political enemies.

Trump’s recent fury showed how much he expects top officials in federal law enforcement to carry out his retribution.

He was enraged when Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, decided there was insufficient evidence to charge two people Trump regards as enemies: former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“I want him out,” Trump angrily told reporters on Sept. 19, 2025. Siebert resigned, although Trump claimed he had fired him.

Trump’s most recent demands for retribution came soon after top adviser Stephen Miller’s vow to prosecute leftists in the “vast domestic terror movement” – that the administration blames, without evidence, for Charlie Kirk’s assassination – using “every resource we have.”

As the director of the FBI, Patel will likely be in charge of the investigations of perceived enemies generated by the Department of Justice and the White House. He already has sacrificed the bureau’s independence, making it essentially an arm of the White House.

This isn’t the first time an FBI director has been driven by a desire to suppress the rights of people perceived to be political enemies. Hoover, director until his death in 1972, operated a secret FBI within the FBI that he used to destroy people and organizations whose political opinions he opposed.

A burglary’s revelations

Hoover’s secret FBI was revealed, beginning in 1971, when a group of people called the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office and removed files.

This group suspected Hoover’s FBI was illegally suppressing dissent. Given Hoover’s enormous power, they thought it was unlikely any government agency would investigate the FBI. They decided documentary evidence was needed to convince the public that suppression of dissent – what they considered a crime against democracy – was taking place.

In my book “The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI,” I describe how these eight people decided to risk imprisonment and break into the FBI’s office in Media, Pennsylvania.

The files they stole and made public confirmed the FBI was suppressing dissent. But they revealed much more: Hoover’s secret FBI and the startling crimes he had committed. These secret operations had become so extensive that they eventually diminished the bureau’s capacity to carry out its core mission: law enforcement.

Hoover, one of the most admired and powerful officials in the country, had secretly conducted a wide array of operations directed against people whose political opinions he opposed.

The files revealed that agents were instructed to “enhance paranoia” and make activists think there was an FBI agent “behind every mailbox.” Questioning Vietnam war policy could cause anyone, even a U.S. senator, Democrat J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, to be placed under FBI surveillance.

It was the revelation of Hoover’s worst operations, COINTELPRO – what Hoover called The Counter Intelligence Program – that made Americans demand investigation and reform of the FBI. Until the mid-1970s, there had never been oversight of the FBI and little coverage of the FBI by journalists, except for laudatory stories.

‘Almost beyond belief’

The COINTELPRO operations ranged from crude to cruel to murderous.

Antiwar activists were given oranges injected with powerful laxatives. Agents hired prostitutes known to have venereal disease to infect campus antiwar leaders.

Many of the COINTELPRO operations were almost beyond belief:

"The project conducted against the entire University of California system lasted more than 30 years. Hundreds of agents and informants were assigned in 1960 to spy on each of Berkeley’s 5,365 faculty members by reading their mail, observing them and searching for derogatory information – “illicit love affairs, homosexuality, sexual perversion, excessive drinking, other instances of conduct reflecting mental instability.”

An informant trained to give perjured testimony led to the murder conviction of Black Panther Geronimo Pratt, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He served 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1997 when a judge found that the FBI concealed evidence that would have proved Pratt’s innocence.

· The bureau spied for years on Martin Luther King Jr. After it was announced King would receive the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover approved a particularly sinister plan that was designed to cause King to commit suicide.

What one historian called Hoover’s “savage hatred” of Black people led to the FBI’s worst operation, a collaboration with the Chicago police that resulted in the killing of Chicago Black Panther Fred Hampton, shot dead by police as he slept. An FBI informant had been hired to ingratiate himself with Hampton. He came to know Hampton and the apartment very well. He drew a map of the apartment for the police on which he located “Fred’s bed.” After the killing, Hoover thanked the informant for his role in this successful operation. Enclosed in his letter was a cash bonus.

Actress Jean Seberg was the victim of a 1970 COINTELPRO operation. In a memo, Hoover wrote that she had donated to the Panthers and “should be neutralized.” Seberg was pregnant, and the plot, approved personally by Hoover – as many COINTELPRO plots were – called for the FBI to tell a gossip columnist that a Black Panther was the father. Agents gave the false rumor to a Los Angeles Times gossip columnist. Without using Seberg’s name, the columnist’s story made it unmistakable that she was writing about Seberg. Three days later, Seberg gave birth prematurely to a stillborn white baby girl. Every year on the anniversary of her dead baby’s birth, Seberg attempted suicide. She succeeded in August 1979.

There was wide public interest in these revelations about COINTELPRO, many of which emerged in 1975 during hearings conducted by the Church Committee, the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat.

At this first-ever congressional investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies, former FBI officials testified under oath about bureau policies under Hoover.

One of them, William Sullivan, who had helped carry out the plots against King, was asked whether officials considered the legal and ethical issues involved in their operations. He responded:

“Never once did I hear anybody, including myself, raise the questions: ‘Is this course of action which we have agreed upon lawful? Is it legal? Is it ethical or moral?’ We never gave any thought to that line of questioning because we were just pragmatic. The one thing we were concerned about: will this course of action work, will it get us what we want.”

Ethical? Legal?

The future of the new FBI under Patel and Trump is unclear, especially in light of the president’s known tolerance for lawlessness, even violence. His gifts of clemency and pardons to Jan. 6 rioters are evidence of that.

As for Patel, fired FBI Officials stated in their recent lawsuit over those dismissals that Patel had told one of them it was “likely illegal” to fire agents because of the cases they had worked on, but that he was powerless to resist Trump’s demands.

The recent statements from both Trump and top aide Miller suggest the FBI’s independence, and broader constitutional requirements that the administration remain faithful to the law, are meaningless to them. They suggest that, like Hoover, they would criminalize dissent.

What will happen at the FBI after the internal purge ends? Will retribution fever wane? Will Patel refocus on the bureau’s chief mission, law enforcement? And will the questions asked in Congress in 1975, as the bureau was being forced to reject Hoover’s worst practices, be asked now: Is what we are doing ethical? Is it legal?

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Why Ghana Accepts America’s Migrants Despite 15% Tariff Hit

Ghana President John Dramani Mahama

BY KENT MENSAH

ACCRA (THE AFRICA REPORT) - Ghana’s decision to host US deportees exposes the high-stakes trade-offs between sovereignty, solidarity and survival in a tariff-strained economy.

When President John Mahama confirmed last week that 14 West Africans had landed in Accra after being deported from the US, it sparked uproar and confusion among many Ghanaians.

The deportees – mostly Nigerians and one Gambian – were not Ghanaian nationals but were rerouted through Accra under a bilateral arrangement with Washington.

The development came just months after the US imposed a punitive 15% tariff on Ghanaian exports, in what analysts see as a striking example of the contradictory pressures shaping Accra’s foreign policy.

“On the one hand, Washington is squeezing Ghana’s economy with tariffs. On the other hand, it is leaning on Ghana to support its deportation regime,” Daniel Amateye Anim-Prempeh, an economist at the Policy Initiative for Economic Development (PIED), tells The Africa Report.

“The inconsistency is glaring, but it also shows how Ghana calculates its long-term interests: maintaining diplomatic capital with the world’s largest economy, even at short-term cost.”
Humanitarian solidarity or sovereignty breach?

The Mahama administration has defended its decision on Pan-African grounds.

Foreign minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa insisted that the arrangement was “not transactional like Rwanda, Eswatini, Uganda or South Sudan” and that Ghana had not received financial compensation.

“Our decision is grounded purely on humanitarian principles…,” Ablakwa told reporters in Accra.

“Since the days of our forebears, Ghana has hosted freedom fighters, welcomed Africans in the diaspora, offered them haven, resources, citizenship and even passports.”


Mahama framed the deal as consistent with the ECOWAS free movement protocol, which allows citizens of member states to enter and reside freely across borders.

“We just could not continue to take the suffering of our fellow West Africans,” Ablakwa said, noting that all 14 deportees had since returned to their home countries.


If Ghana can demonstrate that it is capable of holding its ground economically while still engaging constructively with Washington, it reassures markets that Accra is not isolated

But critics at home disagree. The Minority in parliament accused the government of breaching the Constitution by failing to seek parliamentary ratification.

“This is a clear violation of Ghana’s constitution, sovereignty and foreign policy,” Samuel Jinapor, an opposition lawmaker, tells The Africa Report.

According to him, Ghana risks being branded an enabler of Washington’s “harsh and discriminatory” immigration policies.
The geopolitics of migration diplomacy

Across Africa, Washington has sought willing partners for its third-country deportation programme.


Its best option is to keep the diplomatic channels open, use cooperation on migration as bargaining power, and hope that pragmatism prevails in Washington

Rwanda agreed last month to host up to 250 deportees, while Uganda and Eswatini have also signed on.

Nigeria has flatly refused, citing sovereignty concerns, prompting the US to tighten visa restrictions on Nigerians.

“Ghana’s agreement with the US is more nuanced and less contentious than deals with Rwanda or Uganda, largely due to ECOWAS’ free movement rules,” said Jervin Naidoo, a political analyst with Oxford Economics Africa.

“Nevertheless, the deal is politically sensitive. It signals that President Donald Trump’s administration is using migration diplomacy as a geopolitical tool.”


Naidoo says while Rwanda extracted millions of dollars in funding through its UK and US deals, Ghana has denied receiving cash incentives.

“Even if no money changes hands, Ghana gains diplomatic leverage,” he says. “In a year when the US has raised tariffs, Accra may be calculating that cooperation in one arena could soften Washington’s stance in another.”

Anim-Prempeh agreed that Ghana’s economic calculus is crucial.

“The 15% tariffs are painful – they hurt cocoa, aluminium and manufactured exports. But in the grand scheme, Ghana cannot afford to antagonise the US entirely,” he said.

“By presenting itself as a responsible partner on migration, Accra may hope to reopen trade channels and protect future access to US markets.”
Investor perceptions and African precedent

The optics matter beyond diplomacy. Analysts say foreign investors are closely watching how Ghana manages its balancing act.

“Investors read these signals,” Anim-Prempeh said. “If Ghana can demonstrate that it is capable of holding its ground economically while still engaging constructively with Washington, it reassures markets that Accra is not isolated.”


Shadrach Kundi, an international security analyst, cautions that Africa could be reduced to “a dumping site for deportees“.


July’s tariffs were a slap in the face, but Ghana cannot simply retaliate

Yet he acknowledges that Ghana’s reliance on ECOWAS protocols gives its decision a legal cover. “You could read from Mahama’s statement that it was as a result of some concessions being made. But this is not necessarily out of place when framed as solidarity under ECOWAS.”

The controversy echoes Ghana’s 2016 row over admitting two Yemeni terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay – a move the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional because it bypassed parliament. That precedent still haunts Mahama’s government.
Fragile balancing act

For now, Accra insists that deportations will be limited to West Africans and that each case will be vetted. “We will never compromise the safety and well-being of Ghanaians,” Ablakwa added.

But the clash of narratives – humanitarian solidarity versus sovereignty breach – underscores Ghana’s delicate position.


Accepting deportees helps preserve goodwill with Washington, even as tariffs pinch. Refusing could deepen Ghana’s economic isolation at a time of fiscal stress.

“July’s tariffs were a slap in the face, but Ghana cannot simply retaliate,” Anim-Prempeh says. “Its best option is to keep the diplomatic channels open, use cooperation on migration as bargaining power, and hope that pragmatism prevails in Washington.”

The Orwellian Echoes In Trump’s Push For ‘Americanism’ At The Smithsonian

A screenshot of President Donald Trump’s Aug.19, 2025 Truth Social post about the Smithsonian. Truth Social Donald Trump account

BY LAURA BEERS

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.

It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.

It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.

In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America’s official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, “reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.”

This ambition was manifested in efforts by the Department of Education to eradicate a “DEI agenda” from school curricula. It also included a high-profile assault on what detractors saw as “woke” universities, which culminated in Columbia University’s agreement to submit to a review of the faculty and curriculum of its Middle Eastern Studies department, with the aim of eradicating alleged pro-Palestinian bias.

Now, the administration has shifted its sights from formal educational institutions to one of the key sites of public history-making: the Smithsonian, a collection of 21 museums, the National Zoo and associated research centers, principally centered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

On Aug. 12, 2025, the Smithsonian’s director, Lonnie Bunch III, received a letter from the White House announcing its intent to carry out a systematic review of the institution’s holdings and exhibitions in the advance of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

The review’s stated aim is to ensure that museum content adequately reflects “Americanism” through a commitment to “celebrate American exceptionalism, [and] remove divisive or partisan narratives.”

On Aug. 19, 2025, Trump escalated his attack on the Smithsonian. “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was…” he wrote in a Truth Social post. “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”

Such ambitions may sound benign, but they are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.

Winners write the history

Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a “historical impulse,” or “the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”

But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail.

Truth, Orwell recognized, was best served by free speech and dialogue. Yet absolute power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out.

As Orwell wrote in “1984,” his final, dystopian novel, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Historian Malgorzata Rymsza-Pawlowska has written about America’s bicentennial celebrations that took place in 1976. Then, she says, “Americans across the nation helped contribute to a pluralistic and inclusive commemoration … using it as a moment to question who had been left out of the legacies of the American Revolution, to tell more inclusive stories about the history of the United States.”

This was an example of the kind of productive dialogue encouraged in a free society. “By contrast,” writes Rymsza-Pawlowska, “the 250th is shaping up to be a top-down affair that advances a relatively narrow and celebratory idea of Americanism.” The newly announced Smithsonian review aims to purge counternarratives that challenge that celebratory idea.

The Ministry of Truth

The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith’s job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in “1984.”

The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South.

Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is.

The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or “thought crime,” is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present.

But it also controls the past. As the party’s protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down “memory holes,” where they are “wiped … out of existence and out of memory.”

At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole.

The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past.

Down the memory hole

Even before the Trump administration announced its review of the Smithsonian, officials in departments across government had taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation’s official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes.

Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to “gay” and LGBTQ+ content on government websites.

Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life ofHarriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom.

Public outcry led to the restoration of most of the deleted content.

Over at the Smithsonian, which earlier in the year had been criticized by Trump for its “divisive, race-centered ideology,” staff removed a temporary placard with references to President Trump’s two impeachment trials from a display case on impeachment that formed part of the National Museum of American History exhibition on the American presidency. The references to Trump’s two impeachments were modified, with some details removed, in a newly installed placard in the updated display.

Responding to questions, the Smithsonian stated that the placard’s removal was not in response to political pressure: “The placard, which was meant to be a temporary addition to a 25-year-old exhibition, did not meet the museum’s standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation.”

Repressing thought

Orwell’s “1984” ends with an appendix on the history of “Newspeak,” Oceania’s official language, which, while it had not yet superseded “Oldspeak” or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect.

According to the appendix, “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: “The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds.’ … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.”

The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future.

If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change.

It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it.

As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.

This story is an updated version of an article originally published on June 9, 2025.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

By Firing The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Chief, The Trump administration Raises Concerns That It May Further Restrict The Flow Of Essential Government Information

BY SARAH JAMES

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE, GONZAGA UNIVERSITY

President Donald Trump’s firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Aug. 1, 2025, after an unfavorable unemployment report has been drawing criticism for its potential to undercut the agency’s credibility. But it’s not the first time that his administration has taken steps that could weaken the integrity of some government data.

Consider the tracking of U.S. maternal mortality, which is the highest among developed nations. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has administered the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System to better understand when, where and why maternal deaths occur.

In April 2025, the Trump administration put the department in charge of collecting and tracking this data on leave.

So far, there are no indications that any BLS data has been deleted or disrupted. But there have been reports of that occurring in other agencies of all kinds.

The White House is also collecting less information about everything from how many Americans have health insurance to the number of students enrolled in public schools, and making government-curated data of all kinds off-limits to the public. President Donald Trump is also trying to get rid of entire agencies, like the Department of Education, that are responsible for collecting important data tied to poverty and inequality.

His administration has also begun deleting websites and respositories that share government data with the public.

Why data is essential for the safety net

I study the role that data plays in political decision-making, including when and how government officials decide to collect it. Through years of research, I’ve found that good data is essential – not just for politicians, but for journalists, advocates and voters. Without it, it’s much harder to figure out when a policy is failing, and even more difficult to help people who aren’t politically well connected.

Since Trump was sworn in for a second time, I have been keeping an eye on the disruption, removal and defunding of data on safety net programs such as food assistance and services for people with disabilities.

I believe that disrupting data collection will make it harder to figure out who qualifies for these programs, or what happens when people lose their benefits. I also think that all this missing data will make it harder for supporters of safety net programs to rebuild them in the future.

Why the government collects this data

There’s no way to find out whether policies and programs are working without credible data collected over a long period of time.

For example, without a system to accurately measure how many people need help putting food on their tables, it’s hard to figure out how much the country should spend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, known as WIC, and related programs. Data on Medicaid eligibility and enrollment before and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 offers another example. National data showed that millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage after the ACA was rolled out.

Many institutions and organizations, such as universities, news organizations, think tanks, and nonprofits focused on particular issues like poverty and inequality or housing, collect data on the impact of safety net policies on low-income Americans.

No doubt these nongovernmental data collection efforts will continue, and maybe even increase. However, it’s highly unlikely that these independent efforts can replace any of the government’s data collection programs – let alone all of them.

The government, because it takes the lead in implementing official policies, is in a unique position to collect and store sensitive data collected over long periods of time. That’s why the disappearance of thousands of official websites can have very long-term consequences.

What makes Trump’s approach stand out

The Trump administration’s pausing, defunding and suppressing of government data marks a big departure from his predecessors.

As early as the 1930s, U.S. social scientists and local policymakers realized the potential for data to show which policies were working and which were a waste of money. Since then, policymakers across the political spectrum have grown increasingly interested in using data to make government work better.

This focus on data grew starting in 2001, when President George W. Bush made holding government accountable to measurable outcomes a top priority.

He saw data as a powerful tool for reducing waste and assessing policy outcomes. His signature education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act, radically expanded the collection and reporting of student achievement data at K-12 public schools.

How this contrasts with the Obama and Biden administrations

Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden emphasized the importance of data for evaluating the impact of their policies on low-income people, who have historically had little political clout.

Obama initiated a working group to identify ways to collect, analyze and incorporate more useful data into safety net policies. Biden implemented several of the group’s suggestions.

For example, he insisted on the collection of demographic data and its analysis when assessing the impacts of new safety net policies. This approach shaped how his administration handled changes in home loan practices, the expansion of broadband access and the establishment of outreach programs for enrolling people in Medicaid and Medicare.

Why rebuilding will be hard

It’s harder to make a case for safety net programs when you don’t have relevant data. For example, programs that help low-income people see a doctor, get fresh food and find housing can be more cost-effective than simply having them continue to live in poverty.

Blocking data collection may also make restoring government funding after a program gets cut or shut down even more challenging. That’s because it will be more challenging for people who in the past benefited from these programs to persuade their fellow taxpayers that there is a need for investing in a expanding program or creating a new one.

Without enough data, even well-intended policies in the future may worsen the very problems they’re meant to fix, long after the Trump administration has concluded.

This article was updated on Aug. 4, 2025, with the BLS news.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Donald Trump Cannot Make The Epstein Files Go Away. Will This Be The Story That Brings Him Down?

BY EMMA SHORTIS

ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW, SCHOOL OF

GLOBAL, URBAN AND SOCIAL STUDIES,

RMIT UNIVERSITY, MELBORNE, AUSTRALIA

Conspiracy theories are funny things.

The most enduring ones usually take hold for two reasons: first, because there’s some grain of truth to them, and second, because they speak to foundational historical divisions.

The theories morph and change, distorting the grain of truth at their centre beyond reality. In the process, they reinforce and deepen existing divisions, encouraging hateful blindness.

US President Donald Trump is perhaps the most successful conspiracy trafficker in modern American history.

Trump built his political career by trading on conspiracy. These have included a combination of racist birther conspiracies about former president Barack Obama, nebulous ideas about the “Deep State” that conspired against the interests of regular Americans, and nods to a more recent online universe centered on QAnon that alleged a Satanist ring of “elite” pedophiles involving Hillary Clinton was trafficking children.

These theories all had their own grain of truth and tapped into deep-seated historical fears. For example, Obama does have Kenyan heritage, and his Blackness threatened many white Americans’ sense of their own power.

Revelations about disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein’s trafficking in children and the way in which that implicated the “elite” of New York seemed to confirm at least parts of the final theory. It tapped into the belief – one that does have some basis in reality – that America’s elite play by rules of their own, above justice and accountability.

In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Trump increasingly engaged with this online universe. He seemed to quietly enjoy suggestions that he might be “Q” – the anonymous leader who, according to the theory, was going to break the paedophile ring wide open in a “day of reckoning”.

Many of Trump’s perennially online supporters based their championing of him around these conspiracy theories. QAnon believers were among those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 2021. A core section of Trump’s base continues to believe his promises that he would at last reveal the truth – about John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Deep State, and Epstein.

That it has long been public knowledge that Trump and Epstein had a longstanding friendship did not impinge on these beliefs.

Conspiracy theories have swirled around Epstein since at least his first arrest nearly two decades ago, in 2006. After allegations of unlawful sex with a minor, Epstein was charged with soliciting prostitution. This elicited suggestions he was receiving special treatment because of his elite status as a New York financier and philanthropist.

That pattern continued over the next decade as accusations multiplied, culminating in his arrest in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking, including to a private island. The allegations touched the global elite, including former president Bill Clinton, the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew, and Trump. In August 2019, Epstein was found dead in his cell, allegedly by suicide – adding further fuel to the already intense conspiracy fire.

Epstein’s arrest and death occurred during the first Trump administration. Since then, there has been a steady trickle of accusations and revelations that have increased pressure on the administration to declassify and release material relating to the case. Many of Trump’s most loyal supporters, including a set of influential podcasters and influencers, have built their audiences around Epstein and the insistence that the truth be revealed.

Early in the life of the current administration, Attorney-General Pam Bondi – whom Trump is wont to treat as his personal lawyer – said she was reviewing the Epstein “client list”.

In the past few weeks, however, the administration has indicated it will not release the list or other materials relating to the case. At the same time, more information about Trump’s relationship with Epstein has trickled out, including more photos of the two together. It’s hard to deny the sense there is more to come.

Trump’s posting about the issue, despite his apparent wish to divert from it, seems only to compel more interest. Sections of his online conspiracy base, including vocal supporters such as Tucker Carlson, are outraged at what they see as a betrayal. Reports suggest a significant rift developing between Trump and key backer Rupert Murdoch over the issue. Democrats, rightly, sense weakness.

Loyal Republicans seem rattled enough that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called an early summer recess, sending congresspeople home in an apparent effort to avoid any forced vote on the issue.

The obvious inference – though it is inference only – is that Trump and Republicans are so worried about what is in the Epstein material they would rather cop strong backlash from the base, looking scared and weak, than release the information. If nothing else, that is a guaranteed way to fuel an already raging fire.

Trump’s tanking approval rating and the salience of this issue lead to an obvious question: is this going to be the thing that finally scratches the Teflon president? Will his base turn on him at last?

If history is anything to go by, that seems unlikely. Trump is remarkably resilient, using crises like this to consolidate his power. Trump commands loyalty, and he has it from Bondi, Johnson and others in this weakened and increasingly ideologically driven federal government. And his conspiracy-fuelled base is in so deep that turning on the president now is not just a question of admitting error, but one of core identity.

US mainstream media has long pursued a “gotcha” approach to Trump, driven by a model of journalism that still seeks out smoking guns and dreams of Watergate. Not unlike the conspiracy theories it reports on, this framing hopes for a neat, clear resolution to the story of US politics. But politics doesn’t work like that – especially not for Trump.

From the outside, Trump’s attempts to pivot on the issue and build on his existing conspiracies around Obama and Hillary Clinton might look feeble, but they are tried and true. Trump is now focused on fanning theories around Obama and Clinton, broadening them to include accusations of “treason”. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went so far as to claim Obama had “manufactured […] a years-long coup against President Trump”. Even reporting on these claims with rightful incredulity adds fuel to the raging fire.

In the personality cult of an authoritarian leader, conspiracy is easily weaponised against enemies, perceived and real. In the febrile environment of US politics, these conspiracy theories tap into and encourage a long vein of white supremacy and racial revanchism that has shaped American politics since even before the nation’s founding.

Trump can morph and change conspiracy theories like no one else, building on fears and deepening existing divisions. He understands the power of pointing to “enemies from within”, and just how well that reinforces the narrative he has already so successfully ingrained in US political culture. We underestimate him, and the power of conspiracy theory, at our peril.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump Free To Begin Gutting Department Of Education After Supreme Court ‘Shadow’ Ruling − 5 essential Reads

Changes at the Department of Education will have a big impact on students across the country. skynesher/E+ via Getty Images

BY BRIAN KEOGH

MANAGING EDITOR,

THE CONVERSATION

The Trump administration was given the green light by the Supreme Court on July 14, 2025, to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education – part of a wider plan to dismantle the agency. In doing so, the conservative majority on the bench overruled a lower court judge that had blocked the move.

While the court didn’t explain its decision – and didn’t rule on the merits of the case – Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberal justices who objected, issued a strongly worded dissent: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”

The Conversation has been following the administration’s efforts to take apart the Department of Education since President Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. Here are a few stories from our archives that explain the executive order targeting the department, why the agency has been in the crosshairs of conservatives, and some of the impacts of carrying out the order.

1. Hollowing out education

Trump has promised to eliminate the Department of Education since at least September 2023. What started out as a campaign promise eventually became the executive order he issued on March 20, 2025, released shortly after the administration announced plans to lay off about 1,300 of the 4,000 employees in the department.

“Although the president has broad executive authority, there are many things he cannot order by himself,” wrote Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University. “And one of those is the dismantling of a Cabinet agency created by law. But he seems determined to hollow the agency out.”

And that’s what the Supreme Court says he can do while the case plays out in lower courts. Ultimately, Trump’s order creates a lot of “legal and policy uncertainty around funding for children in local schools and communities.”

2. What the education secretary normally does

The person directed to actually carry our the president’s order is the education secretary, Linda McMahon. She has called dismantling the department its “final mission.”

But the secretary – and the department – have many other missions, such as managing students loans and administering Title I funding to help schools serving low-income students obtain an equitable education regardless of their socioeconomic status.

“Every child in the United States is required to attend school in some capacity, and what happens at the federal level can have real-world impacts on students ranging from preschool to grad school,” wrote Dustin Hornbeck, a scholar of educational policy at the University of Memphis.

In his article, Hornbeck explored the key duties of the education secretary and the role of the federal government in education, which he argued will continue even if the Education Department is abolished.

3. Why MAGA targeted the department

So why did Trump decide getting rid of the Education Department was a top priority and worth the legal risks?

Fighting what he perceived as “wokeness” was likely one reason, wrote Alex Hinton, an anthropologist who has been studying U.S. political culture at Rutgers University − Newark.

“First and foremost, Trump and his supporters believe that liberals are ruining public education by instituting what they call a ‘radical woke agenda’ that they say prioritizes identity politics and politically correct groupthink at the expense of the free speech of those, like many conservatives, who have different views,” he explains.

Trump’s battle against DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – is of course a big part of that, but so too are what he and his supporters call “radical” race and gender policies.

Hinton goes on to describe three other reasons – including supposed “Marxist indoctrination” and school choice – he argues that the MAGA faithful want to eliminate the Department of Education.

4. It didn’t begin with Trump

But conservative efforts to gut the department didn’t begin with Trump or MAGA. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, which created the Project 2025 blueprint for remaking the federal government, has been trying to limit or end its role in education since at least 1981 – just two years after the Department of Education was created.

“In its 1981 mandate, the Heritage Foundation struck now-familiar themes,” including closing the Department of Education and ending funding for disadvantaged students, wrote Fred L. Pincus, a sociology professor focused on diversity and social inequality at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “And the Heritage Foundation called for ending federal support for programs it claimed were designed to ‘turn elementary- and secondary-school classrooms into vehicles for liberal-left social and political change.’”

The conservative think tank struck similar themes in its Project 2025 playbook, though it went even further in calling out “leftist indoctrination” and “gender ideology extremism,” Pincus noted.

5. Impact on most vulnerable students

After all the already planned layoffs go into effect, the Department of Education will have roughly half the staff it started the year with. That will have a significant impact on its ability to carry out its many tasks, such as managing federal loans for college and tracking student achievement.

The department also enforces civil rights for schools and universities, and that office has been hit especially hard by the job cuts, wrote education professors Erica Frankenberg of Penn State and Maithreyi Gopalan of the University of Oregon.

“The Office for Civil Rights has played an important role in facilitating equitable education for all students,” they wrote. “The full effects of these changes on the most vulnerable public school students will likely be felt for many years.”

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump Promises West African Leaders A Pivot To Trade As The Region Reels From Sweeping Aid Cuts

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House, Tuesday, July 8, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

BY MONIKA PRONCZUK AND DARLENE SUPERVILLE

WASHINGTON (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS) — President Donald Trump promised West African leaders a pivot from aid to trade during a White House meeting Wednesday as the region reels from the impact of sweeping U.S. aid cuts.

Trump said he sees “great economic potential in Africa” as the leaders of Liberia, Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau boasted of their countries’ natural resources and heaped praise on the U.S. president, including their thanks for his help in settling a long-running conflict between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Trump described the nations represented at the meeting as “all very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, and great oil deposits, and wonderful people” — a definite shift from his first term, when he used a vulgar term to describe African nations.

The meeting comes amid a shift in U.S. global and domestic priorities under Trump’s leadership. Earlier this month, U.S. authorities dissolved theU.S. Agency for International Development and said it was no longer following what they called “a charity-based foreign aid model” and instead would focus on partnerships with nations that show “both the ability and willingness to help themselves.”

The five nations whose leaders were meeting Trump represent a small fraction of U.S.-Africa trade, but they possess untapped natural resources. Senegal and Mauritania are important transit and origin countries when it comes to migration and along with Guinea-Bissau are struggling to contain drug trafficking, both issues of concern for the Trump administration

In their speeches, each African leader adopted a flattering tone to commend Trump for what they described as his peace efforts across the world and tried to outshine one another by listing the untapped natural resources their nations possess

“We have a great deal of resources,” said Mohamed Ould Ghazouani, president of Mauritania, listing rare earths, as well as manganese, uranium and possibly lithium. “We have a lot of opportunities to offer in terms of investment.”

Last month, the U.S. administration facilitated a peace deal between Rwanda and Congo to help end the decadeslong deadly fighting in eastern Congo, while enabling the U.S. to gain access to critical minerals in the region. But analysts said it won’t end the fighting because the most prominent armed group said it does not apply to it.

During the meeting, Trump described trade as a diplomatic tool. Trade “seems to be a foundation” for him to settle disputes between countries, he said.

“You guys are going to fight, we’re not going to trade,” Trump said. “And we seem to be quite successful in doing that.”

He added, addressing the African leaders: “There is a lot of anger on your continent.”

As he spoke, the U.S. administration continued sending out notifications to developing countries about higher tariff rates effective from August 1. The five Western African nations were not among them.

The portion of the lunch meeting that was open to the press didn’t touch much on the loss of aid, which critics say will result in millions of deaths.

“We have closed the USAID group to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse,” Trump said Wednesday. “And we’re working tirelessly to forge new economic opportunities involving both the United States and many African nations.”

West African countries are among the hardest hit by the dissolution of USAID. The U.S. support in Liberia amounted to 2.6% of the country’s gross national income, the highest percentage anywhere in the world, according to the Center for Global Development.

Liberian President Joseph Nyuma Boakai in a statement “expressed optimism about the outcomes of the summit, reaffirming Liberia’s commitment to regional stability, democratic governance and inclusive economic growth.”

During the meeting, Trump reacted with visible surprise to Boakai’s English-speaking skills, which he praised. English is the official language of Liberia, which was established in the early 1800s with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and free-born Black citizens from the United States.

Gabon, Liberia, Mauritania and Senegal are among 36 countries that might be included in the possible expansion of Trump's travel ban.

Experts said that the meeting highlighted the new transactional nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Africa.

“We are likely to see a trend where African countries will seek to leverage resources such as critical minerals, or infrastructure such as ports, to attract US commercial entities in order to maintain favourable relations with the current US administration,” aid Beverly Ochieng, an analyst at Control Risks, a security consulting firm. “Each of the African leaders sought to leverage natural resources in exchange for US financial and security investments, and appeared to view the U.S. intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo as a model to further cooperation.”

Pronczuk reported from Dakar, Senegal.

From West Africa To Washington: A Spotlight On Leaders That Will Attend Trump’s White House Summit

BY JAHEIM T. TUMU

WASHINGTON (FRONT PAGE AFRICA) - When five African presidents board flights bound for Washington this week, they carry more than protocol briefings and tailored suits. Behind the ceremonial optics of the upcoming White House summit with President Trump lies a deeper story — one of political survival, economic aspiration, and a recalibration of Africa–U.S. relations.

The leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal represent countries at crossroads, where old orders are being rewritten and reformist ambitions are clashing with entrenched realities. Their meeting with Trump is not just about photo-ops; it is a high-stakes bid for investment, legitimacy, and long-term alignment with a new U.S. foreign policy paradigm built on trade, not aid.

Here’s a closer look at the leaders setting off for Washington and the stories they carry.

Guinea-Bissau’s President Umaro Sissoco Embaló arrives with a history as turbulent as his nation’s coastline. After a contentious 2019 election, Embaló’s self-inauguration ignited a political storm, including repeated dissolutions of parliament and what critics labeled constitutional power grabs. But the former general turned president has crafted a unique political doctrine—“Embaloism”—built on the pillars of order, discipline, and national renewal. His international overtures have taken him as far as the Kremlin, where he joined the 2023 Russia–Africa Summit and engaged directly with Vladimir Putin. At home, his government has prioritized fiscal discipline, infrastructure modernization, and private sector expansion, while struggling to break Guinea-Bissau’s deep-rooted dependence on cashew exports and drug trafficking routes. Despite an earlier pledge to serve only one term, Embaló announced in 2024 that he will run for re-election, betting that his vision for the country still resonates.

In Mauritania, President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani brings a quieter, more calculated approach to reform. A former defense minister, Ghazouani transitioned into civilian leadership with a 2019 election victory that was lauded by some as the beginning of a more open era. His administration has rolled out measured reforms, including proportional representation and a restructured electoral commission, but critics point to the continued dominance of his party, El Insaf, and the growing repression of opposition voices and journalists. Ghazouani’s anti-corruption campaign has raised eyebrows, with opponents accusing him of using it to sideline political rivals—chief among them, his predecessor Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz. Yet, his ability to maintain stability in a country that straddles the volatile Sahel and Maghreb makes him a strategic asset in Washington’s eyes, particularly as the U.S. looks to counter extremist threats and geopolitical incursions from rival powers.

Then there is Gabon’s Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, the former intelligence chief who led the coup that ended the Bongo family’s 55-year grip on power. Sworn in as transitional president in September 2023 and elected in March 2025 with a staggering 90 percent of the vote, Oligui now faces the daunting task of translating military legitimacy into democratic trust. His administration has pledged to diversify Gabon’s oil-heavy economy, expand access to clean water and electricity, and invest in youth employment and anti-corruption efforts. But for all his reformist language, the challenge remains enormous. Gabon is burdened by failing infrastructure, growing debt, and a population that has grown wary of promises from power. The Trump administration’s willingness to engage with Oligui reflects a pragmatic turn in U.S. foreign policy: stability and economic alignment may now outweigh procedural legitimacy.

Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, elected in 2024 at just 44 years old, is arguably the summit’s most ideologically driven attendee. Emerging from prison into the presidency, Faye has championed a Pan-Africanist and decolonial agenda that seeks to reduce French influence, abandon the CFA franc in favor of a national currency, and restore indigenous languages and identity in governance. He has moved quickly to shrink presidential powers, reform the judiciary, and renegotiate mining and energy contracts in favor of national interests. His foreign policy orientation has raised eyebrows in the West, but it has also struck a chord with a younger generation across the continent demanding sovereignty and accountability. In brokering a peace agreement to end the decades-long Casamance insurgency, Faye has already demonstrated that idealism and diplomacy can coexist. Washington may see in him both a challenge and a potential partner in shaping a new generation of African leadership.

Liberia’s President Joseph Nyuma Boakai Sr. offers a contrast in tone and tempo. A political elder statesman and longtime vice president under Africa’s first female president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Boakai’s return to power in 2023 was framed as a call to national healing. His governance motto, “Think, Love, Build Liberia,” echoes his belief in unity and post-conflict reconstruction. Though not a reformist in the mold of Faye or Oligui, Boakai commands deep respect for his steady hand and moral authority. His White House visit may be less about bold proclamations and more about securing support for infrastructure and education—areas where U.S. investment could have immediate, stabilizing impact in Liberia’s fragile democracy.