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.

When Socialists Win Democratic Primaries: Will Zohran Mamdani Be Haunted By The Upton Sinclair Effect?

Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, right, and Attorney General of New York Letitia James walk in the NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025, in New York. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova

BY JAMES N. GREGORY

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

It has happened before: an upset victory by a Democratic Socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs – numbering more than 800 by election time – and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a Longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Comparing ICE To The Gestapo Reveals People’s Fears For The US – A Holocaust Scholar Explains Why Nazi Analogies Remain Common, Yet Risky

A Paraguayan woman whose relative was detained by ICE agents scuffles with officers in the halls of an immigration court in New York City on July 16, 2025. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

BY DANIEL H, MAGILOW

PROFESSOR OF GERMAN,

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently sparked controversy by comparing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Nazi Germany’s notorious secret police, the Gestapo.

“Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets,” Walz said during a May 2025 speech at the University of Minnesota Law School’s commencement ceremony.

“They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons, no chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared,” Walz added.

ICE, tasked with enforcing immigration policies, has dramatically increased the number of nationwide arrests of immigrants since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. ICE’s arrests of immigrants have more than doubled in 38 states since then.

In recent months, other Democratic politicians, including U.S Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, have also compared ICE to the Gestapo, or Adolf Hitler’s “secret police,” as Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said in April.

But do ICE’s tactics actually resemble those of the Gestapo?

Because I am a scholar of modern Germany and the Holocaust, people regularly ask me if this analogy is accurate. The answer is complicated.

Understanding the Gestapo

The Nazi regime established the Gestapo, short for the German phrase Geheime Staatspolizei, meaning secret state police, soon after Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Among other responsibilities, the Gestapo was tasked with investigating political crimes and monitoring opposition activity. It later enforced racial laws in Germany and across occupied Europe.

As part of its daily work, the Gestapo identified and monitored the regime’s political enemies. It arrested, interrogated, detained and tortured suspects and sent others to concentration camps. To identify suspects, it often relied on anonymous denunciations that came not only from zealous Nazis, but also from disgruntled neighbors or business competitors who tipped off the Gestapo to Jews and other people.

While the Gestapo was relatively small in terms of personnel, it projected an image of being, as one scholar wrote, “omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

It enforced the regime’s will and suppressed dissent not through sheer manpower but by creating a pervasive sense of fear. This aura of menace and terror has long outlived the Nazi regime itself.

ICE’s operations

ICE, with around 21,000 officers and staff operating in a country of more than 340 million, is smaller both in absolute terms and on a per capita basis. At its height between 1943 and 1945, the Gestapo had between 40,000 and 50,000 personnel in a country of 79 million.

ICE is set to expand its work in the next few years with an additional US$75 billion in funding that Congress appropriated in July as part of Trump’s tax and spending bill.

And while ICE focuses on immigration, the Gestapo had a more expansive role. It was responsible for suppressing all forms of political dissent, not just violations of immigration law.

ICE operates with vastly more advanced technologies that did not exist in the 1940s, including facial recognition and social media monitoring.

There is technically more transparency around ICE’s work than the Gestapo’s, since ICE is a federal agency that is subject to its work and information being reviewed by politicians and the public alike. But in June 2020, the first Trump administration reclassified ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as a “security/sensitive agency.” This designation makes it harder for people to request and receive information about ICE’s work through Freedom of Information Act records requests.

Like the Gestapo, ICE can seem performative in its work, like when it carried out a dramatic July raid of a cannabis farm in California in which balaclava-wearing officers used tear gas against protesters.

The Gestapo in today’s world

Since World War II and the fall of the Nazi regime, the term Gestapo has become shorthand in the United States to describe police repression.

Using the word Gestapo to describe the worst possible authoritarian oppression has been popularized in popular movies in everything from the 1943 film “Casablanca” and “The Black Gestapo” in 1975 to “Inglourious Basterds” in 2009 and “Jojo Rabbit” in 2019.

Walz’s remarks in May, though provocative, were also far from isolated in politics. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, as well as political observers, regularly use Gestapo and Nazi metaphors to attack their opponents.

In 2022, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia famously confused the term Gestapo with gazpacho soup in a gaffe that went viral. “Now we have Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress,” she said.

In 2024, Trump accused President Joe Biden of running a “Gestapo administration” as the Justice Department prosecuted Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Overall, mentions of the word Gestapo in social media increased by 184% between 2017 and 2024, according to the nonprofit group Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is among the organizations that have condemned making comparisons to the Holocaust and the Nazis for many reasons, including their historical inaccuracy and because they are insulting to people whose families remain scarred by the Holocaust.

What historical comparisons really say

Analogies can be useful for clarifying complex ideas. But especially when they stretch across decades and vastly different political contexts, they risk oversimplifying and trivializing history.

I believe that comparing ICE to the Gestapo is less a historical judgment than a reflection of modern anxiety – a fear that the U.S. is veering toward authoritarianism reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

If politicians and other public figures are looking for historical comparisons to modern law enforcement agencies that use severe tactics, there is, unfortunately, no shortage of options: the Soviet Union’s secret police agencies NKVD and KGB, Iran’s former secret police and intelligence agency SAVAK or East Germany’s Stasi, to name just a few. All of those organizations denied suspects due process and grossly violated human rights in order to protect political regimes – but they don’t necessarily easily compare to ICE, either.

Still, politicians and political observers alike most often turn to the Gestapo and other Nazi references instead.

Ultimately, the Gestapo, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust serve as a powerful, shared cultural reference point. The catastrophes of World War II epitomize the worst possible outcomes of evil left unchecked.

They have become the master moral paradigm and an ethical compass for the world today. In an age of polarization, World War II and the Holocaust remain the mirror in which Americans examine their present.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

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

Right-Wing Influencers Were Duped To Work For Covert Russian Influence Operation, US Says

BY ALAN SUDERMAN AND ALI SWENSON

NEW YORK (ASSOCIATED PRESS) — They have millions of followers online. They have been major players in right-wing political discourse since Donald Trump was president. And they worked unknowingly for a company that was a front for a Russian influence operation, U.S. prosecutors say.

An indictment filed Wednesday alleges a media company linked to six conservative influencers — including well-known personalities Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson — was secretly funded by Russian state media employees to churn out English-language videos that were “often consistent” with the Kremlin’s “interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition” to Russian interests, like its war in Ukraine.

In addition to marking the third straight presidential election in which U.S. authorities have unveiled politically charged details about Russia’s attempted interference in U.S. politics, an indictment indicates how Moscow may be attempting to capitalize on the skyrocketing popularity of right-wing podcasters, livestreamers and other content creators who have found successful careers on social media in the years since Trump was in office.

The U.S. Justice Department doesn’t allege any wrongdoing by the influencers, some of whom it says were given false information about the source of the company’s funding. Instead, it accuses two employees of RT, a Russian state media company, of funneling nearly $10 million to a Tennessee-based content creation company for Russia-friendly content.

After the indictments were announced, both Pool and Johnson issued statements on social media, which Rubin retweeted, saying they were victims of the alleged crimes and had done nothing wrong.

“We still do not know what is true as these are only allegations,” Pool said. “Putin is a scumbag.”

In his post, Johnson wrote that he had been asked a year ago to provide content to a “media startup.” He said his lawyers negotiated a “standard, arms length deal, which was later terminated.”

Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. They are at large, and it was not immediately clear if they had lawyers.

U.S. officials have previously warned of Russia’s use of unwitting Americans to further influence operations in the 2024 election, but Wednesday’s indictment is the most detailed description of those efforts to date. Intelligence officials have said Moscow has a preference for Trump.

Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized influence operations to help Trump in the 2020 election, while his 2016 campaign benefited from hacking by Russian intelligence officers and a covert social media effort, according to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.

With the decline of traditional media like newspapers and limits on direct advertising on social media platforms, influencers are increasingly playing a key role in politics and shaping public opinion. Both the Republican and Democratic parties invited scores of influencers to their respective national conventions this summer. But with little to no disclosure requirements about who is funding influencers’ work, the public is largely in the dark about who is powering the messaging online.

Though the indictment does not name the Tennessee-based company, the details match up exactly with Tenet Media, an online media company that boasts of hosting “a network of heterodox commentators that focus on Western political and cultural issues.” Tenet’s website lists six influencers who provide content, including Pool, Johnson, Rubin, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen and Matt Christiansen.

Tenet Media’s six main influencers have more than 7 million subscribers on YouTube and more than 7 million followers on X.

Fueled by public outrage and online fandom, the influencers who make up the bench of talent at Tenet Media have amassed millions of loyal followers who agree with their staunch conservatism and brazen willingness to voice controversial opinions. Their channels also have created communities for conservative Americans who have lost trust in mainstream media sources through Trump’s 2020 loss and the COVID-19 pandemic. Several of them have faced criticism for spreading political misinformation.

The indictment shows that some of the influencers were paid handsomely for their work. One unidentified influencer’s contract included a $400,000 monthly fee, a $100,000 signing bonus and an additional performance bonus.

Tenet Media’s shows in recent months have featured high-profile conservative guests, including Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake. The nearly 2,000 videos posted by the company have gotten more than 16 million views on YouTube alone, prosecutors said.

Pool, a journalist-turned-YouTuber who first gained public attention for livestreaming the Occupy Wall Street protests, hosted Trump on his podcast earlier this year.

Johnson is an outspoken Trump supporter and internet personality who was fired from BuzzFeed after the company found evidence he’d plagiarized other works.

Rubin was previously part of the liberal news commentary show “The Young Turks” but has since identified as a libertarian. He boasts the largest YouTube following of Tenet’s influencer roster and hosts a show called “The Rubin Report.”

Tenet Media President Liam Donovan is the husband of Lauren Chen, a Canadian influencer who has appeared as a guest in several Tenet Media videos. Chen is affiliated with the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA and has hosted shows for the right-wing network Blaze Media. RT’s website also lists her as a contributor of several opinion articles from 2021 and 2022.

Suderman reported from Richmond, Virginia. AP reporter Garance Burke contributed from San Francisco and researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed from New York.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Former Aide To 2 New York Governors Is Charged With Being An Agent Of The Chinese Government

By ANTHONY IZAGUIRRE

A former aide to two New York governors was charged Tuesday with acting as an illegal agent of the Chinese government who used her state positions to subtly advance Beijing’s agenda in exchange for financial benefits worth millions of dollars.

Linda Sun, who held numerous posts in New York state government, including deputy chief of staff for Gov. Kathy Hochul and deputy diversity officer for former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, was arrested Tuesday morning along with her husband, Chris Hu, at their $4 million home on Long Island.

Federal prosecutors said Sun, at the request of Chinese officials, blocked representatives of the Taiwanese government from having access to the governor’s office and shaped New York governmental messaging to align with the priorities of the Chinese government, among other things.

In return, her husband got help for his business activities in China — a financial boost that prosecutors said allowed the couple to buy their multimillion-dollar property in Manhasset, New York, a condominium in Hawaii for $1.9 million, and luxury cars including a 2024 Ferrari, the indictment said.

Sun also received smaller gifts, the indictment said, including tickets to performances by a visiting Chinese orchestra and ballet groups and “Nanjing-style salted ducks” that were prepared by the personal chef of a Chinese government official and delivered to Sun’s parents’ home in New York.

If true, the allegations show that Chinese authorities were able to gain influence at the highest levels of state government in New York for nearly a decade.

“As alleged, while appearing to serve the people of New York as Deputy Chief of Staff within the New York State Executive Chamber, the defendant and her husband actually worked to further the interests of the Chinese government and the CCP,” United States Attorney Breon Peace said, using the acronym for the Chinese Communist Party. “The illicit scheme enriched the defendant’s family to the tune of millions of dollars.”

Sun and Hu pleaded not guilty during an initial court appearance on Tuesday afternoon in Brooklyn and will be released on bond. Sun has been barred from having any contact with the People’s Republic of China’s consulate and mission.

Her defense lawyer, Jarrod Schaeffer, said, “We’re looking forward to addressing these charges in court. Our client is understandably upset that these charges have been brought.”

The case is part of a broader Justice Department effort to root out secret agents for the Chinese government operating in the U.S. In recent years, federal authorities have charged Chinese nationals not only with covertly advancing Beijing’s interests but also with harassing and intimidating dissidents on the government’s behalf.

Last year, the Justice Department charged a pair of men with establishing a secret police station in New York City while acting under the direction and control of the Chinese government.

Sun, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in China, worked in state government for about 15 years, holding jobs in Cuomo’s administration and eventually becoming Hochul’s deputy chief of staff, according to her LinkedIn profile. In November 2022, Sun took a job at the New York Department of Labor, as deputy commissioner for strategic business development, but she left that job months later in March 2023, the profile said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Hochul’s office said the administration fired Sun after “discovering evidence of misconduct.”

“This individual was hired by the Executive Chamber more than a decade ago. We terminated her employment in March 2023 after discovering evidence of misconduct, immediately reported her actions to law enforcement and have assisted law enforcement throughout this process,” the statement reads.

The indictment said that, among other things, Sun worked to ensure that representatives of Taiwan’s government couldn’t get meetings with high-ranking New York state officials. The Chinese government considers Taiwan to be part of China.

It also outlined a series of exchanges Sun had with officials in the Chinese Consulate in New York in January 2021, when Cuomo was still governor and Hochul was lieutenant governor. Neither leader is named in the document but are instead referred to as “Politician-1” and “Politician-2.”

After Chinese officials requested a Lunar New Year video from the governor, Sun said Hochul could probably do it and asked for “talking points of things you want her to mention.”

“Mostly holiday wishes and hope for friendship and cooperation / Nothing too political,” an official told her, according to the indictment.

Sun later told a different official that she had argued with Hochul’s speechwriter over the draft, because the speechwriter insisted on mentioning the “Uyghur situation” in China. She promised that she wouldn’t let that happen, and the final speech did not mention the Muslim ethnic minority, according to the indictment.

Sun’s alleged activities in New York paved the way for lucrative business deals for Hu in China, prosecutors said, including discussions about a venture to export frozen seafood to China. Hu then attempted to conceal the earnings through various methods in the U.S., according to the indictment.

At the arraignment, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Solomon said there were a “multitude of shell and business entities” used in the crimes, adding, “This is no ordinary financial fraud.”

The FBI searched the couple’s multimillion home in Manhasset in late July but declined to release details at the time.

Sun is charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, money laundering and helping people commit visa fraud and enter the U.S. illegally. Hu is charged with money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and misuse of means of identification. Neither has been charged with espionage.

Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi downplayed Sun’s reach in the former governor’s administration, saying she “worked in a handful of agencies and was one of many community liaisons who had little to no interaction with the governor.”

Sun and Hu live in a gated community on Long Island called Stone Hill. The couple purchased the house in 2021 but placed it in a trust earlier this year, records show.

Associated Press reporters Michael R. Sisak and Larry Neumeister in New York and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Dow Drops 760 Points, And Japanese Stocks Suffer Worst Crash Since 1987 Amid U.S. Economy Worries

People pass the New York Stock Exchange on July 30, 2024 in New York...(AP Photo/Peter Morgan, File)

BY STAN CHOE

NEW YORK (AP) — Nearly everything on Wall Street is tumbling Monday as fear about a slowing U.S. economy worsens and sets off another sell-off for financial markets around the world.

The S&P 500 was down by 2.1% in midday trading. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was reeling by 763 points, or 1.9%, as of 12:20 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite slid 2.4%.

The drops were just the latest in a global sell-off that began last week. Japan’s Nikkei 225 helped start Monday by plunging 12.4% for its worst day since the Black Monday crash of 1987.

It was the first chance for traders in Tokyo to react to Friday’s report showing U.S. employers slowed their hiring last month by much more than economists expected. That was the latest piece of data on the U.S. economy to come in weaker than expected, and it’s all raised fear the Federal Reserve has pressed the brakes on the U.S. economy by too much for too long through high interest rates in hopes of stifling inflation.

Professional investors cautioned that some technical factors could be amplifying the action in markets, but the losses were still neck-snapping. South Korea’s Kospi index careened 8.8% lower, stock markets across Europe sank more than 2% and bitcoin dropped below $55,000 from more than $61,000 on Friday.

Even gold, which has a reputation for offering safety during tumultuous times, slipped 1%.

That’s in part because traders began wondering if the damage has been so severe that the Federal Reserve will have to cut interest rates in an emergency meeting, before its next scheduled decision on Sept. 18. The yield on the two-year Treasury, which closely tracks expectations for the Fed, briefly sank below 3.70% during the morning from 3.88% late Friday and from 5% in April. It later recovered and pulled back to 3.93%.

“The Fed could ride in on a white horse to save the day with a big rate cut, but the case for an inter-meeting cut seems flimsy,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management. “Those are usually reserved for emergencies, like COVID, and an unemployment rate of 4.3% doesn’t really seem like an emergency.”

Even gold, which has a reputation for offering safety during tumultuous times, slipped 1%.

That’s in part because traders began wondering if the damage has been so severe that the Federal Reserve will have to cut interest rates in an emergency meeting, before its next scheduled decision on Sept. 18. The yield on the two-year Treasury, which closely tracks expectations for the Fed, briefly sank below 3.70% during the morning from 3.88% late Friday and from 5% in April. It later recovered and pulled back to 3.93%.

“The Fed could ride in on a white horse to save the day with a big rate cut, but the case for an inter-meeting cut seems flimsy,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management. “Those are usually reserved for emergencies, like COVID, and an unemployment rate of 4.3% doesn’t really seem like an emergency.”

The U.S. economy is still growing, and a recession is far from a certainty. The Fed has been clear about the tightrope it began walking when it started hiking rates sharply in March 2022: Being too aggressive would choke the economy, but going too soft would give inflation more oxygen and hurt everyone.

Goldman Sachs economist David Mericle sees a higher chance of a recession within the next 12 months following Friday’s jobs report. But he still sees only a 25% probability of that, up from 15%, in part “because the data look fine overall” and he does not “see major financial imbalances.”

Some of Wall Street’s recent declines may also simply be air coming out of a stock market that romped to dozens of all-time highs this year, in part on a frenzy around artificial-intelligence technology and hopes for coming cuts to interest rates. Critics have been saying for a while that the stock market looked expensive after prices rose faster than corporate profits.

“Markets tend to move higher like they’re climbing stairs, and they go down like they’re falling out a window,” according to JJ Kinahan, CEO of IG North America. He chalks much of the recent worries to euphoria around AI subsiding and “a market that was ahead of itself.”

Professional investors also pointed to the Bank of Japan’s move last week to raise its main interest rate from nearly zero. Such a move helps boost the value of the Japanese yen, but it could also force traders to scramble out of deals where they borrowed money for virtually no cost in Japan and invested it elsewhere around the world.

U.S. stocks pared their losses Monday after a report said growth for U.S. services businesses was a touch stronger than expected. Growth was led by businesses in the arts, entertainment and recreation businesses, along with accommodations and food services, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Treasury yields also pared their drops following the better-than-expected data.

Still, stocks of companies whose profits are most closely tied to the economy’s strength took sharp losses on the fears about a slowdown. The small companies in the Russell 2000 index dropped 2.8%, further dousing what had been a revival for it and other beaten-down areas of the market.

Making things worse for Wall Street, Big Tech stocks also tumbled as the market’s most popular trade for much of this year continued to unravel. Apple, Nvidia and a handful of other Big Tech stocks known as the “ Magnificent Seven ” had propelled the S&P 500 to records this year, even as high interest rates weighed down much of the rest of the stock market.

But Big Tech’s momentum turned last month on worries investors had taken their prices too high and expectations for future growth are becoming too difficult to meet. A set of underwhelming profit reports that began with updates from Tesla and Alphabet added to the pessimism and accelerated the declines.

Apple fell 3.7% Monday after Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway disclosed that it had slashed its ownership stake in the iPhone maker.

Nvidia, the chip company that’s become the poster child of Wall Street’s AI bonanza, fell even more, 6%. Analysts cut their profit forecasts over the weekend for the company after a report from The Information said Nvidia’s new AI chip is delayed. The recent selling has trimmed Nvidia’s gain for the year to nearly 104% from 170% in the middle of June.

Because the Magnificent Seven companies are the market’s biggest by market value, the movements for their stocks carry much more weight on the S&P 500 and other indexes.

Worries outside corporate profits, interest rates and the economy are also weighing on the market. The Israel-Hamas war may be worsening, which beyond its human toll could also cause sharp swings for the price of oil. That’s adding to broader worries about potential hotspots around the world, while upcoming U.S. elections could further scramble things.

Wall Street has been concerned about how policies coming out of November could impact markets, but the sharp swings for stock prices could affect the election itself.

The threat of a recession is likely to put Vice President Kamala Harris on the defensive. But slower growth could also further reduce inflation and force former President Donald Trump to pivot from his current focus on higher prices to outlining ways to revive the economy.

AP Business Writers Elaine Kurtenbach, Matt Ott and Christopher Rugaber contributed.

NRA Loses New York Corruption Trial Over Squandered Funds – Retired Longtime Leader Wayne LaPierre Must Repay Millions Of Dollars

BY SARAH WEBER AND ELIZABETH SCMIDT

A New York jury found on Feb. 23, 2024, that the National Rifle Association and three of its current and former officials had broken the state’s laws by misusing charitable assets. It also determined that two of the officials should repay the gun group millions of dollars.

The verdict followed a six-week corruption trial that came nearly four years after New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the NRA and almost five years after investigative journalists reported that the group’s leaders, vendors and contractors had improperly spent the nonprofit’s funds on lavish travel and other personal expenses. The NRA responded to the verdict by saying it had been “victimized by certain former vendors and ‘insiders’ who abused the trust placed in them by the Association” and listing steps it had already taken to get its house in order.

The Conversation asked Sarah Webber and Elizabeth Schmidt, experts on nonprofit accountability at the University of Dayton and UMass Amherst, to answer questions about the complicated case.

What does this verdict mean for the defendants?

The jury evaluated evidence regarding the NRA and three individual defendants in the case: Wayne LaPierre, the longtime head of the NRA; its former treasurer and chief financial officer Wilson Phillips; and John Frazer, who is still serving as the group’s corporate secretary and general counsel.

The jury found that all three defendants had violated state nonprofit statutes and breached their fiduciary duties.

It also found that the NRA had ignored whistleblower complaints and retaliated against the whistleblowers, submitted false filings and failed to properly oversee its charitable funds. The NRA was found liable for making false statements in mandatory regulatory filings, as was Frazer.

The jury determined that LaPierre, who announced his retirement days before the trial began and officially stepped down while it was underway, had “violated his statutory obligation to discharge the duties of his position in good faith.”

LaPierre was ordered to repay the NRA US$5.4 million. Because he has already repaid over $1 million following an internal NRA investigation, he will only have to pay back $4.35 million, James announced.

Since the jury said that LaPierre should be removed from his job, from which he had already resigned, it’s possible that he will be barred from ever returning.

Phillips was ordered to pay $2 million back to the NRA. Although the jury did not find that there was enough evidence against Frazer to remove him from his current position as corporate secretary, it did find both Frazer and Phillips had violated their duties as corporate officers of the NRA.

Another defendant, LaPierre’s former chief of staff Joshua Powell, settled the case against him on the eve of the trial and agreed to testify against his former employer, the NRA. Powell must repay the NRA $100,000 and is permanently barred from serving in any fiduciary capacity at charitable organizations in New York state.

What’s wrong with what these NRA leaders did?

The NRA was chartered in 1871 as a nonprofit in New York. It’s therefore subject to that state’s laws.

New York requires three duties of top nonprofit executives, such as the defendants in this case: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty and the duty of obedience. That means they must care for the NRA and its mission, keep the NRA’s interests ahead of their own and obey, or further, the NRA’s mission while obeying the law.

According to the jury, the defendants breached all three duties.

Asking the NRA to pay for lavish personal trips, flights aboard private jets and helicopters, expensive clothes and hair styling and makeup for LaPierre’s wife – all of which came up during the trial – could not be considered fair to the organization.

“In New York, you cannot get away with corruption and greed, no matter how powerful or influential you think you may be,” James posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Everyone, even the NRA and Wayne LaPierre, must play by the same rules.”

What will this mean for the NRA?

Charitable downgrades are now likely by rating organizations. For example, Charity Watch has issued a “?” rating for the NRA due to “concerns about this organization” and its “nondisclosure of financial information.”

Repayment by LaPierre and his former colleague will depend on whether or not they file an appeal, and it is unclear whether they can afford to pay the millions of dollars they owe the NRA. LaPierre’s attorneys have indicated that they plan to appeal.

Further, in defending the case, the NRA is likely incurring significant legal fees.

And the NRA relies on dues payments for much of its budget. It has reportedly lost 1 million members out of the estimated 5 million that belonged to it before reports of improper spending patterns arose.

What’s next?

There will be another trial to determine whether any “non-monetary” punishment is appropriate for the NRA or the individual defendants, James said.

One key issue the judge will decide is whether independent monitors and experts should review and assess whether the NRA is now spending its money appropriately. The monitor would report to the court on its observations.

The judge could also find that an independent governance expert, which would also report directly to the court, should be appointed. But that person would focus on whether the NRA should reform its procedures and policies related to how the organization spends its money and how the board approves management decisions.

The judge will also rule on whether LaPierre and Phillips should be barred from any future appointments as officers at the NRA or other charitable organizations in New York, and if Frazer will be barred from collecting or requesting donations for any charity operating in New York.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

As The World’s Problems Grow More Challenging, The Head Of The United Nations Gets Bleaker

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres acknowledges the audience applause after addressing the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Mary altaffer)

BY BEDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — At the annual meeting of world leaders last year, the U.N. chief sounded a global alarm about the survival of humanity and the planet. This year, the alarm rang louder and more ominously, and the message was even more pressing: Wake up and take action — right now.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ assessment, delivered in his no-nonsense style, aimed to shock. We are becoming “unhinged,” he said. We are inching closer to “a great fracture.” Conflicts, coups and chaos are surging. The climate crisis is growing. Divides are deepening between military and economic powers, the richer North and poorer South, East and West. “A new Rubicon” has been crossed in artificial intelligence.

Guterres has spoken often on all these issues. But this year, which he called “a time of chaotic transition,” his address to leaders was tougher and even more urgent. And looking at his previous state-of-the-world speeches, it seems clear he has been headed in this direction for quite some time.

In his first address to world leaders in 2017 after taking the helm of the 193-member United Nations, Guterres cited “nuclear peril” as the leading global threat. Two years later, he was warning of the world splitting in two, with the United States and China creating rival internets, currency, trade, financial rules “and their own zero-sum geopolitical and military strategies.” He urged vigorous action “to avert the great fracture.”

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. The global response Guterres called for never happened; richer countries got vaccines and poorer ones were left waiting. At last year’s leaders’ gathering, his message was almost as dire as this week’s: “Our world is in peril and paralyzed,” Guterres said. “We are gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction.”

This year, his message to the presidents and prime ministers, monarchs and ministers gathered in the vast General Assembly hall was unambiguous and stark.

“We seem incapable,” Guterres said, “of coming together to respond.”

THE WORLD’S FUTURE, AND THE UN’S

At the heart of Guterres’ many speeches this week is the very future of the United Nations, an institution formed immediately after World War II to bring nations together and save future generations from war. But in a 21st-century world that is far more interconnected and also more bitterly divided, can it remain relevant?

For Guterres, the answer is clear: It must.

The Cold War featured two superpowers — the capitalist United States and the communist Soviet Union. When it ended, there was a brief period of U.S.-dominated unipolarity after the breakup of the Soviet Union and its dissolution into a dominant Russia and smaller former republics. Now it is moving to a more chaotic “multipolar world” — and creating, Guterres says, new opportunities for different countries to lead.

But Guterres’ key argument is rooted in history. He says it teaches that a world with many power centers and small groups of nations can’t solve the challenges that affect all countries. That’s why strong global institutions are needed, he told leaders on Thursday, and “the United Nations is the only forum where this can happen.”

The big question, upon which Guterres is now laser-focused, is whether an institution born in 1945 — a time when the tools to address chaos and fragmentation were more rudimentary — can be retooled and updated to tackle today’s challenges.

“I have no illusions,” he said. “Reforms are a question of power. I know there are many competing interests and agendas. But the alternative to reform is not the status quo. The alternative to reform is further fragmentation. It’s reform or rupture.”

That is the conundrum sitting in the U.N. chief’s lap: Can 193 nations with competing agendas undertake major reforms?

To meet the challenge, Guterres has called on world leaders to attend a “Summit of the Future” at next September’s U.N. global gathering, and in the coming, year to negotiate a “Pact for the Future.” At a meeting Thursday to prepare, he told ministers that the pact “represents your pledge to use all the tools at your disposal at the global level to solve problems – before those problems overwhelm us.”

The secretary-general said he knows reaching agreement will be difficult. “But,” he said, “it is possible.”

A SENSE THAT THINGS ARE ‘FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN’

Time, Guterres says, is against the United Nations and countries that support the return of united global action. Perhaps that is why his words grow more dire each year.

He points to new conflicts like Ukraine, more intense geopolitical tensions, signs of “climate breakdown,” a cost-of-living crisis and the debt distress and default that is bedeviling more countries than ever.

“We cannot inch towards agreement while the world races towards a precipice,” Guterres said. “We must bring a new urgency to our efforts, and a shared sense of common purpose.”

That’s easier said than done, as this week’s high-level meetings — and the priorities and problems they raise — make clear.

Can all the U.N.'s far-flung nations unite behind a common purpose? Whether that happens in the next 12 months remains to be seen. Certainly there is support. Consider Bahamas Foreign Minister Frederick Audley Mitchell, addressing the global gathering Friday night. “Now, more than ever, we need the United Nations,” he said.

Richard Gowan, the U.N. director for the International Crisis Group, said Guterres’ state-of-the-world speech spoke “truth to power” and was an especially blunt and bleak assessment.

“He really seems to think that the multilateral system is fundamentally broken,” Gowan said. The secretary-general seems frustrated after years of difficult dealings with the divided U.N. Security Council, Gowan said, alluding to the United States and its Western allies increasingly clashing with Russia and China.

“Sometimes it feels like Guterres no longer believes in the institution he leads,” Gowan said.

For Guterres, then, the Summit of the Future presents an opportunity but also a possible demarcation point — between a brighter future and a more desolate one, between a chance at progress and the prospect of a closing door. To Gowan, it will be “a last chance for U.N. members to get their act together and rethink how the multilateral system could work.”

And that could present a potentially insurmountable peak for the world’s most senior diplomat to scale. Mark Malloch-Brown, president of the Open Society Foundations and a former U.N. deputy secretary-general, pronounced Guterres’ keynote speech to world leaders “a brave and frank admission that the U.N. is broken — no longer fit for purpose.”

“The problem is that precisely because of that, nobody may hear him,” Malloch-Brown said. “He may be speaking to an empty room.”

Edith M. Lederer, chief U.N. correspondent for The Associated Press, has been covering international affairs for more than 50 years.

The US Marks 22 Years Since 9/11 With Tributes And Tears, From Ground Zero To Alaska

People pray before the commemoration ceremony on the 22nd anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on Monday, September 11, 2023. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

BY JENNIFER PELTZ AND KAREN MATTHEWS

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans looked back Monday on 9/11 with moments of silence, tearful words and appeals to teach younger generations about the terror attacks 22 years ago.

“For those of us who lost people on that day, that day is still happening. Everybody else moves on. And you find a way to go forward, but that day is always happening for you,” Edward Edelman said as he arrived at New York’s World Trade Center to honor his slain brother-in-law, Daniel McGinley.

President Joe Biden, speaking at a military base in Anchorage, Alaska, urged Americans to rally around protecting democracy. His visit, en route to Washington from a trip to India and Vietnam, is a reminder that the impact of 9/11 was felt in every corner of the nation, however remote.

“We know that on this day, every American’s heart was wounded,” Biden said. “Yet every big city, small town, suburb, rural town, tribal community — American hands went up, ready to help where they could.”

Nearly 3,000 people were killed when hijacked planes crashed into the trade center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, in an attack that reshaped American foreign policy and domestic fears.



On that day, “we were one country, one nation, one people, just like it should be,” Eddie Ferguson, the fire-rescue chief in Virginia’s Goochland County, said by phone before the anniversary.

The predominantly rural county of 25,000 people has a Sept. 11 memorial and holds two anniversary commemorations, one focused on first responders and another honoring all the victims.

At ground zero, Vice President Kamala Harris joined other dignitaries at the ceremony on the National Sept. 11 Memorial plaza. Instead of remarks from political figures, the event features victims reading the names of the dead and delivering brief personal messages.

Some included patriotic declarations about American values and thanked first responders and the military. One lauded the Navy SEALs who killed al-Qaida leader and 9/11 plotter Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. Another appealed for peace and justice. One acknowledged the many lives lost in the post-9/11 “War on Terror.” And many shared reflections on missing loved ones.

“Though we never met, I am honored to carry your name and legacy with me,” said Manuel João DaMota Jr., who was born after his father and namesake died.

To Gabrielle Gabrielli, reading names “is the biggest honor of my life.” She lost her uncle and godfather, Richard Gabrielle.

“We have to keep the memory of everybody who died alive. This is their legacy,” Gabrielli said, heading into the ceremony.

Biden, a Democrat, became the first president to commemorate Sept. 11 in the western U.S. He and his predecessors have gone to one or another of the attack sites in most years, though Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama each marked the anniversary on the White House lawn at times, and Obama also visited Fort Meade in Maryland.

Warning of a rise in extremism and political violence, Biden told service members and their families that that “every generation has to fight” to preserve U.S. democracy.

“That’s why the terrorists targeted us in the first place – our freedom, our openness, our institutions. They failed. But we must remain vigilant,” he said.

First lady Jill Biden laid a wreath at the 9/11 memorial at the Pentagon, where a giant American flag hung over the side of the building. Earlier, bells tolled, and musicians played taps at 9:37 a.m., the time when one of the hijacked jets hit the military headquarters.

“As the years go by, it may feel that the world is moving on or even forgetting what happened here on Sept. 11, 2001,” but the Defense Department will always remember, Secretary Lloyd Austin said. He deployed to Iraq in the war that followed the attack.

Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, laid a wreath at the Flight 93 National Memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where another plane crashed after passengers tried to storm the cockpit. Earlier Monday at the memorial, a rabbi from Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, where a gunman killed 11 worshippers in 2018, called for ensuring that younger people know about 9/11.

“With memory comes responsibility, the determination to share our stories with this next generation, so that through them, our loved ones continue to live,” Rabbi Jeffrey Myers said. The memorial is offering a new educational video, virtual tour and other materials for classroom use.

Many Americans did volunteer work on what Congress has designated both Patriot Day and a National Day of Service and Remembrance. Others gathered for anniversary events at memorials, firehouses, city halls, campuses and elsewhere.

In Iowa, a march set off at 9:11 a.m. Monday from suburban Waukee to the state Capitol in Des Moines. In Columbus, Indiana, observances include a remembrance message sent to police, fire and EMS radios. New Jersey’s Monmouth County, which was home to some 9/11 victims, this year made Sept. 11 a holiday for county employees so they could attend commemorations.

Pepperdine University’s campus in Malibu, California, displayed one American flag for each victim, plus the flags of every other country that lost a citizen on 9/11. Reflecting the tragedy’s scope, U.N. General Assembly President Dennis Francis exhorted world nations Monday to counter extremism, build tolerance, “join hands and say never again.”

Fenton, Missouri, is more than 650 miles (1,050 kilometers) from the attack sites. But the St. Louis suburb, population 4,000, holds an anniversary ceremony at a memorial that includes steel from the World Trade Center’s fallen twin towers and a plaque honoring Jessica Leigh Sachs, a 9/11 victim with relatives in town.

“We’re just a little bitty community,” Mayor Joe Maurath said ahead of the anniversary, but “it’s important for us to continue to remember these events. Not just 9/11, but all of the events that make us free.”
___

Associated Press journalists Julie Walker and Deepti Hajela in New York; Seung Min Kim in Anchorage, Alaska; Tara Copp in Washington and Michael Rubinkam in northeastern Pennsylvania contributed to this report.

US Regulators Might Change How They Classify Marijuana. Here’s What That Would Mean

FILE - Marijuana plants are seen at a growing facility in Washington County, N.Y., May 12, 2023. The Health and Human Services Department has recommended removing marijuana from a category of drugs deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The agency advised moving pot from that “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.” The decision is up to the Drug Enforcement Administration. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)

BY JENNIFER PELT

NEW YORK (AP) — The news lit up the world of weed: U.S. health regulators are suggesting that the federal government loosen restrictions on marijuana.

Specifically, the federal Health and Human Services Department has recommended taking marijuana out of a category of drugs deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The agency advised moving pot from that “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

So what does that mean, and what are the implications? Read on.

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED? WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Technically, nothing yet. Any decision on reclassifying — or “rescheduling,” in government lingo — is up to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which says it will take up the issue. The review process is lengthy and involves taking public comment.

Still, the HHS recommendation is “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” said Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

It came after President Joe Biden asked both HHS and the attorney general, who oversees the DEA, last year to review how marijuana was classified. Schedule I put it on par, legally, with heroin, LSD, quaaludes and ecstasy, among others.

Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. “That is why it is important for this independent review to go through.”

SO IF MARIJUANA GETS RECLASSIFIED, WOULD IT LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL POT NATIONWIDE?

No. Schedule III drugs — which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations — are still controlled substances.

They’re subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission. (Even under marijuana’s current Schedule I status, federal prosecutions for simply possessing it are few: There were 145 federal sentencings in fiscal year 2021 for that crime, and as of 2022, no defendants were in prison for it.)

It’s unlikely that the medical marijuana programs now licensed in 38 states — to say nothing of the legal recreational pot markets in 23 states — would meet the production, record-keeping, prescribing and other requirements for Schedule III drugs.

But rescheduling in itself would have some impact, particularly on research and on pot business taxes.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR RESEARCH?

Because marijuana is on Schedule I, it’s been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies that involve administering the drug. That has created something of a Catch-22: calls for more research, but barriers to doing it. (Scientists sometimes rely instead on people’s own reports of their marijuana use.)

Schedule III drugs are easier to study.

In the meantime, a 2022 federal law aimed to ease marijuana research.

WHAT ABOUT TAXES (AND BANKING)?

Under the federal tax code, businesses involved in “trafficking” in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can’t deduct rent, payroll or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, at least some cannabis businesses, particularly state-licensed ones, do pay taxes to the federal government, despite its prohibition on marijuana.) Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more.

The deduction rule doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would cut pot companies’ taxes substantially.

They say it would treat them like other industries and help them compete against illegal competitors that are frustrating licensees and officials in places such as New York.

“You’re going to make these state-legal programs stronger,” says Adam Goers, an executive at medical and recreational pot giant Columbia Care. He co-chairs a coalition of corporate and other players that’s pushing for rescheduling.

Rescheduling wouldn’t directly affect another pot business problem: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, because the federally regulated institutions are wary of the drug’s legal status. The industry has been looking instead to a measure called the SAFE Banking Act. It has repeatedly passed the House but stalled in the Senate.

ARE THERE CRITICS? WHAT DO THEY SAY?

Indeed, there are, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS recommendation “flies in the face of science, reeks of politics” and gives a regrettable nod to an industry “desperately looking for legitimacy.”

Some legalization advocates say rescheduling weed is too incremental. They want to keep focus on removing it completely from the controlled substances list, which doesn’t include such items as alcohol or tobacco (they’re regulated, but that’s not the same).

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Deputy Director Paul Armentano said that simply reclassifying marijuana would be “perpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.” Minority Cannabis Business Association President Kaliko Castille said rescheduling just ”re-brands prohibition,” rather than giving an all-clear to state licensees and putting a definitive close to decades of arrests that disproportionately pulled in people of color.

“Schedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,” he said.

___ Associated Press writer Colleen Long contributed from Washington.