Showing posts with label Q&A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Q&A. Show all posts

Monday, July 06, 2026

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

Tucker Carlson - Wikipedia

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

BY AMOS BARSHAD


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

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

Do you still speak to Trump?

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

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

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

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

Are you surprised to find yourself in this position?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, a costume? What kind of a costume?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And when you say do everything you can—

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

Would you be a candidate for this third party?

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 24, 2026

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

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

BY JIA B. KANGBAI
SENIOR LECTURER, 
NJALA UNIVERSITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

late detection and insecurity

misdiagnosis

cultural factors

shortage of global health funds.

Late detection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misdiagnosis

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

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

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

Cultural factors

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

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

Shortage of global health funds

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

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

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

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

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

What’s needed

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

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

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

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Interview conducted by Sydney Pappas.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 17, 2026

A Football World Cup Is A Global Cultural Exchange. How Will That Work In Trump’s America?

The FIFA 2025 Peace Prize was awarded to President Donald Trump ahead of a divisive World Cup outing. Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images


BY CHUKA ONWUMECHILI
PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATIONS,
HOWARD UNIVERSITY

The most culturally diverse men’s football World Cup in history is taking place in the United States at a time when foreign nationals feel less and less welcome in the country.

The 2026 competition kicks off on 11 June with games in Canada, Mexico, and the US. The US will host by far the largest number of matches, including the championship game. The 2026 cup is also hosting the largest number of competing teams in history – 48.

Over its near century-long history, the competition has remained the premier sporting event, attracting the largest number of travellers. Some spend huge sums of personal savings to be at the matches to cheer on their country and favourite teams.

Held every four years, the International Federation of Association Football (Fifa) World Cup is a mega sporting event that serves as a large avenue for cultural meetings and exchanges.

The 2022 World Cup in Qatar attracted 1.4 million visitors to a country of slightly over 2 million people. The number of travellers for the 2026 World Cup is expected to drop to 1.2 million due in part to the activities of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Still, the number remains significant.

As a professor of intercultural communication, with decades of research connecting culture to communication, I have found the World Cup of particular interest. The number of global travellers to the World Cup brings with it cultural communication exchanges that cannot be overstated.

Intercultural communication involves contact between people with differing beliefs, values and norms. Cultural communication theorists define such exchanges over a short period as the earliest stages of acculturation, called the honeymoon stage.

It is an important stage of cultural encounter that helps advance social comfort and learning. It eases anxiety in a different cultural environment. These encounters go beyond the stadiums that will host games. They include encounters in neighbourhood stores, transport systems, bars and hotels, among others. Even for those watching remotely.

Matches on the field have the power to rise above the politics of the day and bring cultural unity.
Football and cultural exchange

Cultural encounters at previous World Cups have led to the spread of fan culture across the world. Think of the spread of the stadium wave or use of the vuvuzela, a coloured plastic horn.

The wave involves sections of fans in a stadium standing up by turns. This provides a spectacle that is believed to have spread to most of the world after magnificent wave scenes at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

At the 2010 World Cup, a South African fan tradition of blowing the vuvuzela spread to the rest of the world. There were vigorous attempts to clamp down on it because it was so noisy. But a few fans have kept the tradition alive.

Cultural exchange remains a critical aspect of a World Cup. The 2026 event will be no different. While most media reports focus on the vivid exchanges like the wave and vuvuzela, there are others that happen at the interpersonal and small group levels. Those exchanges can be just as long lasting. They include friendships, cultural learning, and the countering of cultural loathing and stereotyping.

How will that work in the US?

The US is a strong location for such cultural exchange. The country has historically accepted the largest number of migrants in the world and the resulting interactions have led to indelible cultural impact over generations. There is, for instance, a large Asian population in the north-west parts of the country and a large Mexican population in the south.

Yet, in 2026, the US has created an unwelcome situation for potential travellers. ICE raids on suspected migrant populations have dominated the news for months. This has an impact on numbers.

Hotel bookings are far below expectation in 11 US host cities. One report claims there is a booking pace “below expectations, trailing even a typical June or July without any major events”. Human Rights Watch has urged Fifa to pressure the US government to establish an “ICE Truce” during the competition.

An expensive trip

Fans hoping to attend the World Cup are also reportedly concerned about ticket and transport prices. Recently, Fifa’s marketplace, which serves as a resale platform, advertised “four tickets to the final at a cost of $2.3 million each”. While Fifa does not control pricing on its resale site, it takes 15% of the purchase fee from the buyer and 15% from the seller. This means Fifa would make US$690,000 if just one of the tickets sold at that price. It’s a staggering sum for a football match.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino defended the high cost of tickets by claiming it was the cost of doing business in the US market. Yet, such prices are nearly five times higher than the last World Cup in Qatar.

The New Jersey transport system eventually set train roundtrip transport at US$105 after a public outcry after an initial plan to increase the fare to US$150. The fare normally costs US$18.

The high costs and hyper immigration control associated with attending the World Cup in the US are likely responsible for the dampened hotel bookings.

Global broadcasts

There are even concerns with global broadcasts of games. China and India, the two most populated countries in the World Cup, may not often reach the final stages, but they are avid viewers of the games. Neither has access as Fifa has yet to reach TV and digital coverage agreements with providers in those countries. At the 2022 World Cup, the two countries reportedly accounted for 22.6% of total global TV reach. China alone accounted for 49.8% of viewing hours on digital and social platforms. The dispute involves the huge sums Fifa is asking for broadcast rights.

There are cultural exchanges that the World Cup provides even for those who watch from home in different parts of the world. While not as powerful as cultural learning through in-person contacts, there are still opportunities to learn, depending on the focus of the media coverage.

The men’s World Cup, which celebrates 100 years in 2030 and is co-hosted by an African country (Morocco), remains a key event in fostering cultural understanding and exchange. While the 2026 World Cup will do this, it has also brought to the fore the event’s ability to create division.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Monday, September 22, 2025

Six World Leaders On Navigating Climate Change, Without The US

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

BY DAVID GELLES

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

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

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

Kenya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finland

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

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

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

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

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

The Marshall Islands

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

What do developed nations owe countries like the Marshall Islands? 

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

What specific steps are you taking in the Marshall Islands? 

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

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

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

Do you think your country will survive? 

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

Bangladesh

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

How is Bangladesh experiencing climate change right now? 

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

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

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

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

READ BORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

Toxic Fungus From King Tutankhamun’s Tomb Yields Cancer-Fighting Compounds – New Study



BY JUSTIN STEBBING
PROFESSOR OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES,
ANGLIA RUSKIN UN IVERSITY

In November 1922, archaeologist Howard Carter peered through a small hole into the sealed tomb of King Tutankhamun. When asked if he could see anything, he replied: “Yes, wonderful things.” Within months, however, Carter’s financial backer Lord Carnarvon was dead from a mysterious illness. Over the following years, several other members of the excavation team would meet similar fates, fuelling legends of the “pharaoh’s curse” that have captivated the public imagination for just over a century.

For decades, these mysterious deaths were attributed to supernatural forces. But modern science has revealed a more likely culprit: a toxic fungus known as Aspergillus flavus. Now, in an unexpected twist, this same deadly organism is being transformed into a powerful new weapon in the fight against cancer.

Aspergillus flavus is a common mould found in soil, decaying vegetation and stored grains. It is infamous for its ability to survive in harsh environments, including the sealed chambers of ancient tombs, where it can lie dormant for thousands of years.

When disturbed, the fungus releases spores that can cause severe respiratory infections, particularly in people with weakened immune systems. This may explain the so-called “curse” of King Tutankhamun and similar incidents, such as the deaths of several scientists who entered the tomb of Casimir IV in Poland in the 1970s. In both cases, investigations later found that A flavus was present, and its toxins were probably responsible for the illnesses and deaths.

Despite its deadly reputation, Aspergillus flavus is now at the centre of a remarkable scientific finding. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have discovered that this fungus produces a unique class of molecules with the potential to fight cancer.

These molecules belong to a group called ribosomally synthesised and post-translationally modified peptides, or RiPPs. RiPPs are made by the ribosome – the cell’s protein factory – and are later chemically altered to enhance their function.

While thousands of RiPPs have been identified in bacteria, only a handful have been found in fungi – until now.

The process of finding these fungal RiPPs was far from simple. The research team screened a dozen different strains or types of aspergillus, searching for chemical clues that might indicate the presence of these promising molecules. Aspergillus flavus quickly stood out as a prime candidate.

The researchers compared the chemicals from different fungal strains to known RiPP compounds and found promising matches. To confirm their discovery, they switched off the relevant genes and, sure enough, the target chemicals vanished, proving they had found the source.

Purifying these chemicals proved to be a significant challenge. However, this complexity is also what gives fungal RiPPs their remarkable biological activity.

The team eventually succeeded in isolating four different RiPPs from Aspergillus flavus. These molecules shared a unique structure of interlocking rings, a feature that had never been described before. The researchers named these new compounds “asperigimycins”, after the fungus in which they were found.

The next step was to test these asperigimycins against human cancer cells. In some cases, they stopped the growth of cancer cells, suggesting that asperigimycins could one day become a new treatment for certain types of cancer.

The team also worked out how these chemicals get inside cancer cells. This discovery is significant because many chemicals, like asperigimycins, have medicinal properties but struggle to enter cells in large enough quantities to be useful. Knowing that particular fats (lipids) can enhance this process gives scientists a new tool for drug development.

Further experiments revealed that asperigimycins probably disrupt the process of cell division in cancer cells. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably, and these compounds appear to block the formation of microtubules, the scaffolding inside cells that are essential for cell division.

Tremendous untapped potential

This disruption is specific to certain types of cells, so this may in turn reduce the risk of side-effects. But the discovery of asperigimycins is just the beginning. The researchers also identified similar clusters of genes in other fungi, suggesting that many more fungal RiPPs remain to be discovered.

Almost all the fungal RiPPs found so far have strong biological activity, making this an area with tremendous untapped potential. The next step is to test asperigimycins in other systems and models, with the hope of eventually moving to human clinical trials. If successful, these molecules could join the ranks of other fungal-derived medicines, such as penicillin, which revolutionised modern medicine.

The story of Aspergillus flavus is a powerful example of how nature can be both a source of danger and a wellspring of healing. For centuries, this fungus was feared as a silent killer lurking in ancient tombs, responsible for mysterious deaths and the legend of the pharaoh’s curse. Today, scientists are turning that fear into hope, harnessing the same deadly spores to create life-saving medicines.

This transformation, from curse to cure, highlights the importance of continued exploration and innovation in the natural world. Nature has in fact provided us with an incredible pharmacy, filled with compounds that can heal as well as harm. It is up to scientists and engineers to uncover these secrets, using the latest technologies to identify, modify and test new molecules for their potential to treat disease.

The discovery of asperigimycins is a reminder that even the most unlikely sources – such as a toxic tomb fungus – can hold the key to revolutionary new treatments. As researchers continue to explore the hidden world of fungi, who knows what other medical breakthroughs may lie just beneath the surface?
READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Friday, June 27, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How else did Mamdani appeal to a base of supporters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Can American troops be used inside the country?

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

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

Why was American law set up this way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The short answer to this question is no.

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

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

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, May 25, 2025

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

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

BY COREY MITCHELL
EDUCATION EDITOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A target on Harvard

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. International students help keep ‘America First’

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

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

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

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

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

3. A boost to local economies

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

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

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

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

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

4. Rising number of international students

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

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

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

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

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

KNOCK, KNOCK

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