In 2026, the U.S. population is estimated by the Census Bureau at nearly 343 million, about 135 times larger than the population in 1776. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

In 2026, the population of the United States is significantly larger, older, and more diverse than it was 250 years ago when the country declared its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776.

The population of the thirteen British colonies in North America in 1776 is estimated to have been approximately 2.5 million people, or 0.7% of the current size of the United States.

The 1776 estimate included both free inhabitants and enslaved individuals, with around 20% of the population – about half a million people – being enslaved. However, these estimates did not include the indigenous population.

Before the 1770s, the indigenous populations residing in the thirteen colonies of Great Britain had already suffered significant population declines over previous centuries. These declines were the result of diseases brought by Europeans, massacres, displacement from their lands, and continuing conflicts with the colonists over land, water, and natural resources.

Since no census enumerated the indigenous peoples, no official population figures exist for them in 1776. However, modern historical estimates suggest that more than a quarter million indigenous people lived east of the Mississippi River, organized into more than 80 distinct nations and speaking dozens of languages.

Among these indigenous nations were the Wampanoag, Narragansett, Lenni Lenape, Powhatan, Pequot, Mohegan, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, Tuscarora, Susquehannock, Abenaki, Cherokee, Catawba, Muscogee, Yamasee, Lenni, and Chickasaw.

The first population census of the expanded United States, mandated by the Constitution and conducted in 1790, counted nearly 4 million residents, of whom close to 18% were enslaved.

Indigenous people living in the United States were not included in the 1790 census. Historical estimates, however, indicate that the indigenous population within the newly established nation was approximately 600,000.

By 1861, at the start of the country’s civil war, the U.S. population had grown to approximately 31.4 million, of which 13% were enslaved, according to the eighth decennial census, which included 33 states and 10 organized territories.

In 1890, the country’s census attempted to enumerate indigenous people living in the United States. Their population was reported to number around 250,000, which is believed to be a significant undercount of the actual size of the indigenous population. The current estimate for the indigenous population in the United States is between 6.8 million and 9.1 million people, making up approximately 2% to 3% of the total U.S. population.

In 1976, two hundred years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the population of the United States had grown to approximately 218 million. Looking ahead to 2026, the mid-year estimate for the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, is nearly 343 million, which is about 135 times larger than the population in 1776.

According to the Census Bureau’s main series population projections, the U.S. population is expected to reach a peak of nearly 370 million in 2080 before gradually declining to 366 million by 2100 (Figure 1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

International migration played a significant role in the growth of the U.S. population. Without international migration since 1776, the estimated hypothetical population of the United States in 2026 would be approximately 153 million. This figure is roughly 190 million fewer than the actual U.S. population, highlighting the enormous impact migration has had on the country’s demographic development.

While the population of the U.S. is expected to continue growing, it is expected to do so at a slower rate than in recent years. The nation’s growth rate has decreased over the past two decades, going from about 10% growth between 2000 and 2010 to 7.4% between 2010 and 2020 and is predicted to further decline to around 5.5% between 2020 and 2030.

Due to immigration, the U.S. population is expected to continue growing, reaching nearly 370 million by 2080, then slightly declining to 366 million by the end of the century. Without future immigration, the U.S. population is estimated to be 117 million smaller, at 226 million by the end of the 21st century

In the coming decades of the 21st century, the U.S. population will continue to undergo changes due to the three main demographic drivers: births, deaths and migration.

Currently births outnumber deaths, resulting in a positive natural population increase. However, the U.S. fertility rate, which reached lows of 1.63 births per woman in 2024 and 1.57 births per woman in 2025, has been generally below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman since 1971 and consistently below the replacement level since 2007.

Due to the country’s low fertility rates, deaths in the U.S. are expected to outnumber births by 2040 and are projected to continue doing so throughout the rest of the 21st century. By 2080, the Census Bureau expects that the number of deaths will exceed the number of births by approximately one million.

Immigration to the U.S. is still occurring, but at a slower pace compared to recent years, resulting in a decreased rate of population growth.

The Census Bureau’s main series population projection assumes that net international migration will remain close to one million per year for the rest of the 21st century.

Due to immigration, the U.S. population is expected to continue growing, reaching nearly 370 million by 2080, then slightly declining to 366 million by the end of the century. Without future immigration, the U.S. population is estimated to be 117 million smaller, at 226 million by the end of the 21st century.

Another significant change in the U.S. population is demographic ageing.

In 1776, a notable demographic characteristic of the 13 colonies was their young age structure. For example, the median age of this population was estimated to be approximately 16 years.

In the early years of the United States, individuals over 70 years old were relatively uncommon. In the New England colonies, almost one-third of the population was under 21. Life expectancy at birth was low, approximately 35 to 40 years, mainly due to high rates of infant and child mortality. More than two hundred years later, life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is estimated to be approximately 79 years.

In the first U.S. census in 1790, the median age had changed little, remaining at approximately 16 years.

By 1820, the median age had increased to about 16.7 years. By 1860, the estimated median age of the U.S. population had increased to approximately 19 years, reflecting relatively high fertility levels and short life expectancies.

At the start of the 20th century, the median age of the U.S. population had increased slightly to approximately 23 years and reached 35 years at the end of the 20th century. By 2026, the median age is estimated to have reached about 39 years and it is projected to increase to 41 years by 2050 (Figure 2).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

In addition to population growth and demographic ageing, the ethnic composition of the U.S. population has also undergone significant changes. As the country’s composition changes, the major ethnic categories of the U.S. population compiled by the government have also changed.

Since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the population of the United States has significantly increased from several million to 343 million, largely due to immigration.

The proportion of foreign-born individuals in the U.S. has varied considerably over the past several centuries. During the second half of the 19th century, the proportion hit a high of 14.8% in 1890. Throughout the 20th century, the proportion declined to a low of 4.7% in 1970. More recently, the foreign-born proportion reached a historic high in 2024 at 15.6% (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Approximately half of all U.S. immigrants (52%, or 26.7 million people) were born in Latin America, while around a quarter (27%, or 14 million) were born in Asia.

By 2023, the estimated numbers of immigrants from the top five countries, which make up nearly half of the entire foreign-born population, are: Mexico (11.4 million), India (3.2 million), China (3.0 million), the Philippines (2.1 million), and Cuba (1.7 million).

Additionally, the indigenous population in the United States is estimated to be between 7 and 9 million people, including those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with other races. This accounts for approximately 2% to 3% of the total U.S. population.

In summary, since declaring its independence from Great Britain 250 years ago, the population of the United States has grown significantly larger, older, and more diverse.

Much of this population growth is credited to the country’s open door immigration policy, as symbolized by the famous lines at the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

With ongoing immigration to the United States, the current population of about 343 million is projected to continue growing and reach a peak of 370 million by 2080. However, without immigration, the U.S. population is expected to start declining in about twelve years and drop to 226 million by the end of the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

The Federal Reserve Bank’s turn to ‘reserve management’ exposes the limited policy options still available as the US seeks to protect itself against international stagflation stemming from President Trump’s policies.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Reserve management
Successive US administrations have long refused to address the roots of the worsening fiscal and debt problems.

As the US Treasury borrows ever more to continue funding federal government spending with less tax revenue, the accumulated public debt of $39 trillion now costs over a trillion dollars a year to service, even more than 2025 defence spending!

Total Fed losses since 2022 exceed $245 billion! But how does a central bank, that literally creates its own money, lose money?

The losses are blamed on the Fed paying banks over 4% interest on reserves after 2008. However, most Treasury bonds the Fed bought to fund the COVID crisis response yield only 1–2%!

This massive ‘negative carry trade’ is booked as a ‘deferred asset’. Such creative accounting implies the US is technically insolvent. But this is not a problem as long as Wall Street shapes its own narrative.

Nurina Malek

After over a decade of ‘quantitative easing’ (QE), which created money on a large scale, the Fed claimed it was reducing its balance sheet from 2022 to 2025 to curb inflation.

Risk diversification
Finance ministries and central banks worldwide increasingly worry about their vulnerability.

The US decision to freeze about $300 billion of Russian assets held in Western financial institutions is supported by its Western allies. Such actions have triggered broader concerns.

Threatened by the prospect of a softening bond market, the Fed turn to reserve management, which implies it has exhausted other options, including printing money.

Increasingly weaponised in recent years, the dollar is no longer trusted as a neutral reserve asset. Hence, central banks have been diversifying their heavily dollar-denominated reserve assets to reduce vulnerability.

Physical gold has been quietly acquired to change reserve portfolios. Over the past three years, non-US central banks have bought over 1,000 tons of gold annually.

Horns of dilemma
New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh has announced that reducing interest rates and shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet are his policy priorities. Both seem responsible and sensible.

Lowering rates benefits borrowers. But a smaller balance sheet implies less market intervention, requiring greater fiscal discipline and monetary credibility, both of which are desired by markets.

But Warsh’s two goals cannot be realised together in today’s US economy. Over $10 trillion in bonds are maturing and need refinancing over the coming year, as the Treasury borrows ever more to finance its faster-growing fiscal deficit.

The Fed balance sheet cannot be reduced while keeping rates low. The new Fed Chair will also have to choose between printing money and letting the bond market collapse. All his predecessors have chosen to print money.

In 2012, Jerome Powell was sceptical of QE, arguing it would never be enough. But by 2020, Fed chair Powell printed more dollars than ever before.

The Fed has long been expected to buy up Treasury bonds that private interests did not purchase. Increasing the money supply has kept the banking system liquid and depreciated the dollar, as desired by Trump 2.0.

As private investors and foreign central banks lose interest in US Treasury bonds, demand is at its weakest in decades.

Who will buy new US debt if the Fed does not buy Treasury bonds while rates remain low? Outgoing Fed chair Powell came to the rescue.

As ‘reserve management’ requires less market demand, he has given the dollar system an unexpected new lease of life without lowering interest rates, as Trump demanded.

However, the policy change will do little to reverse contractionary and inflationary pressures on the world economy, worsened by Trump’s various policies.

Oil accelerant
The Hormuz oil shock could accelerate this otherwise gradual transition. The slow energy transition away from fossil fuels has increased vulnerability.

In the last half-century, oil price hikes have raised energy costs, exacerbating inflation worldwide. In 1973, the OPEC embargo quadrupled petroleum prices overnight.

Over the following year, the gold price almost doubled. The 1979 Iranian revolution more than doubled crude oil prices, which in turn pushed gold prices even higher.

The conventional central bank response of raising rates to fight inflation could worsen stagflation, as inflation rises while economic growth slows.

Raising interest rates may check some sources of inflation, while increasing borrowing costs, squeezing investment and consumption, and hiking the costs of Treasury debt.

Interest payments on accumulated federal debt will exceed a trillion in 2026. As old debt issued during QE is refinanced at higher rates, fiscal and debt problems will accelerate.

Therefore, the Fed’s turn to reserve management is not merely a minor technical change in balance-sheet bookkeeping. It is trying to address worsening public finances as policy options run out.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Despite the newfound discovery of sexual harassment and the taxpayer-funded settlements, the United States Congress has failed to implement any lasting policy reforms to protect staff from sexual misconduct. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 11 2026 (IPS)

After more than two centuries of independence, it appears that the United States Congress, or at least certain parts of it, has finally discovered the existence of sexual harassment within the institution.

This discovery by Congress is noteworthy in a country where sexual harassment is widespread. Nationally, 81% of women have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment and/or assault in their lifetime. Moreover, as of early 2026, reports indicate that 25% of individuals have witnessed or experienced sexual harassment in the workplace within the past 12 months.

Sexual harassment in Congress is believed to be driven by a combination of interrelated factors. These include extreme power disparities within a hierarchical framework, a decentralized workplace structure, the abuse of position to coerce or manipulate, burdensome reporting processes, the use of taxpayer funds for settlements, fear of retaliation, staff members’ career dependency, gender imbalance, lack of oversight, and a perceived culture of tolerance with a historical lack of accountability.

Despite Congress passing reforms to require sexual harassment training and streamline reporting, the underlying factors and cultural issues continue to pose challenges for ensuring a safe workplace free of sexual misconduct.

Throughout much of its recent history, there have been reported claims and personal accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct in Congress. For example, in the 2010s, there were 16 instances of sexual harassment reported (Figure 1).

Source: GovTrack.US.

In addition to the alleged claims and personal accounts, Congress has conducted investigations and awarded settlements for sexual misconduct within the institution. For example, since 2017, the U.S. House Ethics Committee has undertaken 20 investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the House.

However, approximately 80% of the individuals who have reported sexual misconduct to their respective offices about sexual misconduct choose not to report it to the Office of Compliance due to fears of retaliation and negative consequences on their employment and careers.

Many of the settlements involve non-disclosure agreements, which have been criticized for protecting the identities of the perpetrators. Between 1996 and 2018, 349 settlements and awards were made involving 80 House and Senate offices (Table 1).

Source: GovTrack.US.

Despite numerous alleged claims, personal accounts, settlements, and awards, Congress has been hesitant to openly acknowledge the prevalence of sexual harassment within its branch of government.

However, with the recent surge in allegations, high-profile resignations, and investigations into taxpayer-funded settlements, leaders of both parties in the House and Senate are under increasing pressure to address and prevent sexual misconduct. As a result, the U.S. Congress seems to have finally discovered the existence of sexual harassment within its ranks.

With the recent surge in allegations, high-profile resignations, and investigations into taxpayer-funded settlements, leaders of both parties in the House and Senate are under increasing pressure to address and prevent sexual misconduct

Additionally, three Republican women in Congress have recently launched a campaign against sexual harassment. Their main goal is to uncover and hold accountable predators in Congress from all parties. Besides advocating for transparency, they are demanding that members of Congress face consequences for their sexual misconduct.

Furthermore, these women are urging Congressional lawmakers to acknowledge the pervasive culture of sexual harassment and misconduct on Capitol Hill. They are also calling for lawmakers to take action to change the environment where such behavior has been accepted as an unfortunate but unchangeable reality.

One of these Republican lawmakers has claimed that the sexual misconduct in Congress goes much deeper than the public realizes.

Additionally, these Congressional lawmakers are committed to dismantling the unwritten rules of political expediency and tribal loyalty that have historically kept sexual harassment concealed.

One of the lawmakers introduced a resolution (H.Res.1100) directing the committee to preserve and publicly release records and reports on all investigations into Congressional members for sexual harassment. Additionally. these Republican lawmakers are demanding the release of documents detailing any settlements related to sexual harassment involving members of Congress.

However, the party’s male leaders, including the president and top Republican congressional leaders, have chosen to support the accused men whose votes are necessary to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, numerous women in the United States have publicly accused the country’s current president of various acts of sexual misconduct, including rape.

In 2023, a New York jury found the U.S. president civilly liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. Currently, no other person serving in the U.S. federal government has as many credible accusations and a jury conviction for sexual misconduct as the president.

Additionally, in a rare statement, the Congressional House Ethics Committee defended its handling of sexual harassment charges following the resignations of two lawmakers facing sexual misconduct. The committee operates in secrecy and typically takes years to complete its inquiries.

While acknowledging flaws in the reporting process, the committee cited the challenges it faces and urged employees with sexual harassment claims to come forward. However, Congressional staffers are understandably reluctant and afraid to make accusations of sexual harassment against lawmakers to a panel controlled by their peers.

Congressional lawmakers are predominantly men. In 2026, men make up 71% of the House of Representatives and 74% of the Senate (Figure 2).

Source. U.S. Congress. Gov.

In addition to the women in Congress who are objecting to the sexual harassment taking place within Congress, advocacy groups across the country are demanding more transparency and easier reporting processes. They maintain that sexual harassment typically goes undisclosed because of the power dynamics within Congress, with many incidents going unreported because of fear of retaliation.

For example, the National Women’s Defense League reported that there have been fifty-three allegations of workplace sexual harassment made against at least 30 lawmakers in the House and Senate over the past two decades. Nearly all of these documented cases involve men harassing women, with 77% of the allegations involving members of the legislative staff.

Furthermore, the issue of sexual harassment in Congress is bipartisan. Of all the allegations, 60% are made against Republicans and 40% against Democrats. The recent cases of sexual harassment in 2026 have prompted calls for accountability, stricter ethics investigations, and public disclosure of misconduct records.

In April and May 2026, prominent lawmakers, including Rep. Eric Swalwell and Rep. Tony Gonzales, resigned due to allegations of sexual misconduct and ethics violations. In addition, the Ethics Committee is currently investigating Rep. Chuck Edwards for reportedly having an improper relationship with a subordinate and sexually harassing staff.

Moreover, documents released since 2004 reveal that over $338,000 in taxpayer funds have been used to settle confidential sexual harassment claims involving 13 claims against members of Congress. The process of filing complaints in Congress has been criticized for being opaque and largely unknown.

The recent resignations of lawmakers along with the use of taxpayer funds to settle harassment claims have contributed to Congress’s discovery of sexual harassment committed by its members.

It appears that Congress is now beginning to address some of the immediate issues of sexual misconduct taking place within the institution. However, despite the newfound discovery of sexual harassment and the taxpayer-funded settlements, the United States Congress has failed to implement any lasting policy reforms to protect staff from sexual misconduct.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

The January 2026 US National Defense Strategy (NDS) departs significantly from those preceding it, including from Trump’s first term. Is it deliberately misleading? Or is actual policy, including war, being driven by other considerations?

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Much like the latest National Security Strategy (NSS), released by Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio in December 2025, the NDS claims to be about putting ‘America First’.

Both documents promise ‘no more business as usual’. They claim to change decades of strategy, supposedly in the national interest. Unlike earlier US military blueprints, the NDS is filled with vague rhetoric and eschews interventions abroad.

But in Trump 2.0’s first year alone, the US bombed ten countries, threatening at least four more, all in the Americas. Despite scant mention in both documents, the US-Israel war on Iran resumed on 28 February!

Europe
The NDS claims the US is reducing its direct military role in Europe but still wants to be influential.

It pledges to remain central to NATO “even as we calibrate US force posture and activities in the European theater” to meet US priorities.

Nurina Malek

The NDS blows hot and cold on Europe’s aggressive support for Ukraine’s Zelensky, envisaging a reduced troop presence on NATO’s borders with Ukraine.

Many European allies complain the Trump administration has created a ‘security vacuum’ by leaving Europe to confront Russia with uncertain US support.

They also complain about Secretary Pete Hegseth’s insistence on “credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain”. The NDS insists on more than access to Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Issued days after Trump claimed he had a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security with NATO chief Mark Rutte, he insisted it ensured the US “total access” to Greenland, long a territory of NATO ally, Denmark.

However, Danish officials insisted formal negotiations had not yet begun. Trump also threatened European nations opposing his Greenland plan with tariffs.

Western Hemisphere
The NDS supports the NSS and Trump’s ‘Donroe doctrine’ focus on the Western Hemisphere, envisaging the Americas as the US backyard.

In his January Davos speech, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney noted that recent US actions are disrupting established international norms.

The NDS was issued three days later, after a week of tensions between the White House and its Western allies. Cooperation with the Americas, including Canada, is conditional, to “ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests”.

It warns the US will “actively and fearlessly defend America’s interests throughout the Western Hemisphere. And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances US interests.”

Trump had declared the US should retake Panama and its Canal, accusing the government of ceding control to China. Later, however, Trump was more ambiguous about ‘taking back’ both the country and the canal.

Many also doubt Trump’s intentions in kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, ostensibly for trial on drug charges in the US.

Asia-Pacific
The previous NDS, issued in 2022 under then-President Joe Biden, had deemed China the US’s principal threat. Biden also embraced Trump 1.0’s Indo-Pacific alliance to encircle China.

In contrast, the new NDS describes China as an established power in the Indo-Pacific region that only needs to be discouraged from dominating the US and its allies.

The goal “is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them… This does not require regime change or some other existential struggle…President Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China”.

The NDS even proposes “a wider range of military-to-military communications” with Chinese counterparts! The U-turn followed the administration’s retreat from its threatened tit-for-tat tariff escalation after China’s successful retaliation.

Biden’s 2022 NDS promised the US would “support Taiwan’s asymmetric self-defense”. The new NDS offers no such assurances to the self-governing island province of China, which Beijing warns it will take by force if necessary.

The NDS also calls for “a sharp shift – in approach, focus, and tone”, insisting US allies must take more responsibility for countering adversaries such as China, Russia and North Korea.

It insists, “South Korea is capable of taking primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical but more limited US support”.

Cutting costs of empire
Like Trump, the new NDS wants allies to pay much more for US ‘protection’.

It echoes his frequent criticisms of allies for taking advantage of previous administrations to subsidise their defence and being ungrateful for US protection.

But the terms of such subordination remain ambiguous and arbitrary, even extortionate and corrupt. Gulf monarchies may now regret their generous donations to the president, apparently to little avail so far.

Trump’s treatment of allies, the Netanyahu-led war on Iran, and continuing US-led efforts to ‘contain’ China suggest both documents offer poor guidance to knowing and understanding, let alone anticipating, US policies abroad.

Nurina Malek is an economics graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, currently working on policy research at the Khazanah Research Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Frontispiece of Tom Paine’s Common Sense

By Peter Costantini
SEATTLE. USA, Apr 27 2026 (IPS)

This is the third part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3,   Part 2 of 3

Whose head?

In foreign relations, as in immigration, King Don the Con appears to be channeling King John the Bad and often surpassing him.

However, our wannabe monarch should consider one more exemplar, this one fictitious: Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen could be another spiritual ancestor of the Golden Emperor. After all, his Bling Dynasty has been a creature of fiction more than fact.

Carroll wrote in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

“Let the jury consider their verdict.” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

As we’ve seen, King Don has demonstrated a similar disdain for legal niceties. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards” could be the motto of much of his foreign policy as well as immigration enforcement. He often skips indictment, trial, and verdict, and jumps straight from accusation to carrying out the sentence.

There is one striking difference between the two monarchies, though: the Red Queen’s courtiers understood that she was not playing with a full deck, and so they ignored her ranting. The Golden Emperor’s toadies are too cowardly to tell him that he’s acting increasingly unhinged, and have become immune to shame about their North Korea-like sycophancy. A possible exception is “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, who may be even more deranged than his boss. His speeches sound like they’re written by a B-grade action-movie screenwriter torqued on crank. Economist Paul Krugman said in an interview that some people in the Pentagon are calling him the Secretary of War Crimes.

In the summer and fall of 2025, Trump marshalled a massive armada of ships, air power and troops in the southern Caribbean. The official name was Operation Southern Spear, and they were clearly positioned to threaten Venezuela. But while they were waiting to carry out the eventual abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Moros, Trump reportedly ordered them to unleash military strikes against small boats that he said were smuggling drugs.

Instead of ignoring the President, as the Red Queen’s courtiers did, Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio obediently began extrajudicial executions of civilians in small boats. The victims reportedly included sailors, fishermen, bus drivers, laborers, and possibly some small-time smugglers.

The Defense Department reportedly confirmed to Congress that as of March 17 the U.S. military had killed at least 157 people in military strikes on 47 alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. More strikes have allegedly occurred since, raising the death toll to at least 163 people.

As an Elizabethan connoisseur of royal mayhem might have put it: “As flies to wanton boys are we to King Don. He kills us for his sport.”

If Trump had wanted to make a serious case to the world that he was actually combatting drug smuggling, he could have ordered normal policing operations: intercept and impound the boat, display the packets of drugs and weapons captured, perp walk the smugglers and publicize their indictments and convictions. However, the his government has not publicly presented evidence that drugs were being smuggled or that the crews were connected with drug cartels or terrorists.

U.S. forces did not give the boats or crews a chance to surrender. They simply blew them (and any evidence of their alleged crimes) to smithereens. In one case, they reportedly slaughtered two survivors of an initial strike who were still clinging to the wreckage. Some boats were apparently carrying more people than would be needed for a crew, so perhaps some were just passengers. In another strike in which two survivors were rescued, they were not arrested by the U.S., but instead returned to their respective countries, Colombia and Ecuador. This was an improbable outcome if they were in fact smugglers or terrorists.

Here’s the lowdown: regardless of whether the crews or passengers were smuggling anything, they were civilians. Even if a war had been in progress, it would have been illegal under international and U.S. military law to kill non-combatants. But this was not a war with a foreign government, nor an attack on the U.S. by terrorists. Given that many of the strikes killed four or more people, the customary threshold for mass homicide, the operation should be investigated as serial mass murders.

Even before the strikes began, the senior Judge Advocate General (JAG, a military lawyer) at the U.S. Southern Command in Miami questioned the legality of the strikes and voiced concerns that they could amount to extrajudicial killings, NBC News reported. This JAG’s opinion was reportedly overruled by more senior officials.

Many other military lawyers and other officials also voiced concerns about the strikes’ legality up their chains of command. The “Former JAGs Working Group”, formed by victims of Hegseth’s earlier mass firings of JAGs, issued a statement that it “unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”

Questions about the operation’s legality also apparently troubled the head of the U.S. Southern Command. Admiral Alvin Holsey abruptly announced that he would step down from his post in December, without offering any explanation for his decision. But the New York Times reported that Holsey, too, had expressed concern about the legality of the killings. This brought him into conflict with Hegseth and the White House. Ultimately, Hegseth pushed out the Admiral.

Six Democratic members of Congress who are veterans made a video that simply told serving military members: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.” This is advice commonly given to soldiers. Trump responded hysterically on Truth Social: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”, and reposted another user: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” [Buchanan 11/20/2025]

Trump reserved his nastiest blast of vitriol for the only U.S. senator in the group, Mark Kelly of Arizona, a retired Navy combat pilot and astronaut. Defense Secretary Hegseth moved to demote and censure Kelly and reduce his retirement pay. In February, a federal judge temporarily blocked the demotion and criticized Hegseth for trying to punish a veteran and member of Congress for First Amendment-protected speech. Ironically, the attacks on Kelly seem to have supercharged his political fund-raising and helped establish him as a credible Democratic presidential candidate for 2028.

The rationales for killing civilians on small boats followed an opportunistic trajectory: first frame the strikes as tools to intimidate Maduro, then claim to be interdicting drug smuggling to save American lives. Next up the ante to fighting narco-terrorists. Finally, admit that the main goal of the whole operation was to take back oil from Venezuela that somehow belonged to the U.S.

After the abduction of Maduro, the usefulness of boat strikes to intimidate the now deposed president, if it ever existed, should have expired. But since then, Trump has continued to claim he is protecting U.S. citizens from “narco-terrorists” by destroying small boats.

The U.S. Southern Command claims with each strike that it is targeting boats along “known smuggling routes” that U.S. intelligence has identified. But it has yet to provide evidence that these boats were actually carrying drugs – perhaps because it is hard to collect it when the boat is blown to bits remotely from the air. And whether or not smuggling goes on along those routes, people living on the coasts of Latin America use small boats for public transportation, carrying legal goods, fishing, and many other purposes. Unsurprisingly, some may follow the same routes that smugglers use (as I have witnessed traveling in a small passenger panga on the Caribbean).

As the case of the Venezuelan deportees established, Venezuela is not a major drug producer; it serves primarily as a conduit for illicit substances produced elsewhere in South America and bound for European markets, not the U.S. Furthermore, in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, the main drug being moved is cocaine, which is rarely fatal for users. The fentanyl that Trump flagged as responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. is produced almost exclusively in Mexico and smuggled into the U.S. from there.

As a congressional interrogator at a hearing on the strikes asserted, any amounts of drugs the strikes may have destroyed were insignificant, and are having no impact on the volume or price of drugs entering the U.S.

Furthermore, small boats are only one of numerous modes of drug transport from South to North America and Europe. Drug enforcement has been playing Whac-A-Mole for a half-century with submersibles, commercial shipping, air freight, small planes, drones, tunnels, parcel post, package express, U.S. citizen travelers, and the list goes on. Despite high-profile drug seizures, arrests of drug lords, and spasms of violence, drug markets keep calm and carry on. Meanwhile, fatal overdoses, almost exclusively from fentanyl, spiral upward.

And narco-terrorism? Sorry, but in the non-fiction world, organized crime and terrorism are fundamentally different beasts.

Big drug cartels resemble legal transnational corporations in many ways. Their main purpose is to make money – and then they have to launder it, which also requires business acumen. They have vast decentralized networks that include voluntary and involuntary sub-contractors and investors. They spin off subsidiaries in different countries. They can be very violent when competing over plazas, treating migrants as a profit center, or responding to attacks by governments, but usually they want to run their businesses without visibility or drama. The most successful organized crime executives have been the cagey facilitators and deal-makers.

Occasionally, when the gangs have become stronger than the police forces, governments have had to use the military to confront them. But only patient use of law enforcement tools like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and socio-economic programs to offer foot soldiers ways to get out of the life can ultimately disentangle their roots from society.

On the other hand, organizations that practice terrorism use violence or the threat of it for political, social, or ideological purposes. They want to visibly menace and destroy their enemies, and they are not primarily concerned with making money.

Many political movements from the American Revolution onward have practiced terrorism – in that case against Tory sympathizers with the British crown. And as in most wars, the British army also practiced terrorism against civilian colonists. Whether a given armed group is classified as terrorists or freedom-fighters generally depends on which side of the conflict the observer stands.

Organized crime may sometimes pursue socio-political objectives, and terrorists may sometimes use illicit activities to fund themselves. But defending against each phenomenon requires very different approaches. The Global War on Terror and the War on Drugs have both been long-running failures because neither terrorism nor organized crime can be eliminated militarily.

When King Don calls an organization “narco-terrorists”, he is simply slapping a label on it that gives him legal cover for using military force to blow things up and kill innocent bystanders. (“Oopsie!”, as his buddy Bukele might say with a smirk.) And as a bonus, the violence may distract his followers from his rich stew of corruption, juicy emoluments and tender pardons garnished with a soupçon of Epstein.

Despite the smoke screens, international efforts to hold Trump responsible for serious human rights violations have begun in a few venues.

A panel of experts convened by the United Nations Human Rights office in September 2025 concluded that the boat strikes violated the right to life under international law and the law of the sea. Their statement asserted: “International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers. Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”

The U.S. had accused the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua of mounting “an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ of the U.S., at the behest of the Venezuelan Government.” But the experts found that “There is no evidence that this group is committing an armed attack against the U.S. that would allow the U.S. to use military force against it in national self-defence.”

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an organ of the Organization of American States, also held a hearing on the boat strikes in March. It heard testimony from several human rights organizations and the U.S. government. “We are doing everything in our power to hold the Trump administration responsible for its egregious violations of both U.S. and international law”, Jamil Dakwar of the ACLU testified. “These extrajudicial killings,” said Angelo Guisado of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “were poorly veiled cover to justify the illegal overthrow of the Venezuelan government, as admitted by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.” A State Department spokesman responded: “The IACHR lacks the competence to review the matters at issue.” He also accused the Commission of interfering in domestic litigation.

The Trump administration has not released the names of the slain. But a few families have come forward to identify their loved ones. Human rights groups are representing two of them seeking redress from the government.

Although we have focused on the boat strikes as Trump’s most literal implementation of “Off with their heads!”, the operation that they were supposedly a warm-up for – the ousting of Venezuela’s president – also resulted in pointless and illegal bloodshed.

On January 3, 2026, Trump cried “Havoc!” and let slip the dawgs of Delta Force. The U.S. invaded Venezuela, abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro, and charged him in a U.S. court with heading a drug-smuggling cartel and illegally possessing firearms. During the operation, U.S. officials estimated that at least 75 people were killed by U.S. forces. The Venezuelan defense minister later said that 83 were killed and more than 112 injured by U.S. forces. He confirmed that the operation killed 47 of its personnel, and the Cuban government said that 32 of the dead were Cuban citizens. Some reports have suggested that additional civilians may have been killed.

As mentioned previously, an investigation by U.S. intelligence services had already found that the Venezuelan government did not direct or cooperate with Tren de Aragua, and was instead generally hostile towards the gang. So whatever his other faults, Maduro was evidently not a drug lord.

These charges also beg the question of how a president who is the commander-in-chief of an army and under protection of a presidential guard can be guilty of illegally possessing firearms. Stay tuned to Maduro’s trial in federal court in New York City for more details.

In any case, just for the record, it is generally illegal under international law for one country to invade another, kill its citizens, and capture or assassinate its leaders.

To understand Operation Southern Spear, it may help to compare the capture and abduction of Maduro with Trump’s pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who was convicted in a U.S. court of large-scale drug trafficking and imprisoned. His brother Tony had already suffered the same fate.

Trump’s pardoning of JOH at the same time he was detaining Maduro on similar charges was widely seen as contradictory. But on the contrary, the message was eloquent: the law means nothing, and King Don the Con doesn’t care if friends break it. All that matters, even if you’re a convicted narco, is that you shamelessly genuflect to him and declare undying fealty.

Despite U.S. criticism of the Maduro government, the abduction of the Venezuelan president left his vice-president in charge as the temporary president, and did not remove any other high officials from the existing Venezuelan government. So much for régime change.

In an outburst of candor, Trump confirmed afterwards that his main motivation was to force Venezuela to give back “our oil” to the United States. This was apparently done under what he calls the “Donroe Doctrine”. The reality was that since long before Maduro, Venezuela had expropriated the assets of some foreign oil corporations, as many developing countries have done. But Trump conveniently omits the backstory that foreign oil companies had originally expropriated Venezuela’s oil from Venezuela. This was fueled by concessions from dictators in the first half of the 20th Century. [Wolfe 1/9/2026]

Treachery, lechery, mendacity and cruelty? Sorry, King John the Bad: in immigration, foreign policy and many other domains, King Don the Con has elevated those qualities far above your crude medieval badassery.

Kings and laws

When the New York Times asked Trump if there were any limits on his global powers, he replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. … I don’t need international law.”

It is true that Trump has a finely calibrated moral compass. The problem is that it always points to himself.

Conservative jurist J. Michael Luttig laid out the challenge starkly: “Once more, we must ask, as Lincoln did, whether a nation so ‘conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,’ can long endure. …We have been given the high charge of our forebears to ‘keep’ the republic they founded a quarter of a millennium ago. If we do not keep it now, we will surely lose it.”

The millions of partisans of No Kings and other resistance initiatives are working overtime to organize the massive and diversified political insurgency necessary to throw King Don the Con into the toxic waste dump of history and to re-establish something resembling the rule of law. Some of the political opposition seems to be slowly awakening from its torpor and showing signs of life. However, if the MAGA fever has not broken by 2028, I fear that our democracy and human rights will be languishing in hospice.

The last word goes to Tom Paine, the sharp-tongued English pamphleteer who lit a fire under colonial revolutionaries in 1776 with Common Sense: “[A]s in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

This is the third part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3, Part 2 of 3

About the author

Sign at No Kings demonstration. Credit: Peter Costantini

By Peter Costantini
SEATTLE. USA, Apr 24 2026 (IPS)

This is the second part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3 to start from the beginning. Part 3 of 3

Habeas tattoo?

Among Trump’s most outrageous assaults on the rule of law has been an array of legal wrecking balls demolishing due process, habeas corpus, related foundational rights, and the separation of powers in the bargain.

For many years, his target of choice for these efforts has been immigrants. But in his second term, not only has he escalated his persecution of those with and without protected immigration status, he has also increasingly attacked the rights of U.S. citizens to free speech, assembly, the press, due process, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The targets have included journalists and news sources, academics and universities, state and local governments, corporate officials, military officers, Federal employees, and members of Congress.

One operation of Trump’s mass deportation machine stands out as a template for negating the rule of law: the summary removal, without anything resembling due process, of 261 mainly Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo – Terrorism Confinement Center). They were given no prior notice of their deportation and were not told their destination. For 137 Venezuelans, The Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) which, it claimed, allowed summary deportations without recourse to habeas corpus or other due process. The other 101 Venezuelans and 23 Salvadorans were also summarily deported, under uncertain statutory authority. Once in CECOT, many were disappeared indefinitely without appeal, held incommunicado without contact with families or attorneys, and routinely tortured.

The Alien Enemies Act allows nationals of enemy countries during wartime to be summarily expelled or detained. It was last invoked during World War Two to imprison American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, an injustice for which the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 formally apologized.

President Trump justified the use of the AEA because, he claimed, the Venezuelans were members of Tren de Aragua (TdA – Train of Aragua), a metastasized former prison gang. He claimed that TdA was a “narco-terrorist” organization controlled by the Venezuelan government that had invaded the U.S. and was in a state of war with this country. He used these assertions to justify invoking the AEA, posting on Truth Social: “These are the monsters sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats. How dare they! Thank you to El Salvador and, in particular, President Bukele, for your understanding of this horrible situation.” In effect, Trump was trying to outsource his violations of constitutional rights to a small friendly dictatorship.

On March 15, 2025, the date the removal flights were scheduled to take the detainees to El Salvador, the non-governmental American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency petition in federal court to stay the removals. Federal Judge James Boasberg, a George W. Bush appointee, immediately ordered the deportations paused. All the deportees, he ruled, had to be brought back to the U.S. and offered due process to defend themselves against removal.

Although Boasberg demanded that even planes already in the air be turned around, the Trump administration said that the orders came too late and it couldn’t recall the planes. It also claimed to have no control over El Salvador, although it had paid that country at least $6 million to imprison the men. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, the self-described “world’s coolest dictator”, posted sardonically on X: “Oopsie!” The court rejected all of these arguments, but nevertheless the planes delivered the deportees to the Salvadoran mega-prison.

Later in March, Boasberg told the government that it must prove that those targeted for removal are in fact “alien enemies” and allow them to challenge the designation before deporting them. The Trump administration ignored the court’s ruling, and went on expelling more Venezuelans and Salvadorans to El Salvador, arguing that courts had no jurisdiction over what it called foreign policy.

In this stalemate, some observers questioned whether the executive branch was effectively placing itself above constitutional restraints such as habeas corpus by intentionally ignoring valid orders from the judiciary.

Trump and Congressional Republicans bitterly attacked Judge Boasberg and called for his impeachment. This prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to issue a rare rebuke, reminding them that impeachment is not an “appropriate response” when disagreeing with a judicial decision.

An appeals court ruled in March that the Trump administration was denying the detainees’ due process. “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act,” commented one judge.

In April, the Supreme Court allowed the government to continue deportations on the technicality that the detainees had filed for relief against summary removal in the wrong court. But it also affirmed that “an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute [the AEA] is entitled to ‘judicial review’” and advance notice.

Outside of the courts, the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch accused the U.S. and Salvadoran governments of “enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention” of the Venezuelan deportees. “These enforced disappearances are a grave violation of international human rights law,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at HRW. “The cruelty of the US and Salvadoran governments has put these people outside the protection of the law and caused immense pain to their families.”

Several news organizations investigated the alleged criminal records and gang affiliations of the Venezuelan men, and found them mostly non-existent. The New York Times reported that “most of the men do not have criminal records in the United States or elsewhere in the region, beyond immigration offenses” and “very few of them appear to have any clear, documented links to the Venezuelan gang.”

The ACLU filed Homeland Security’s “Alien Enemies Act Validation Guide” as an exhibit in a lawsuit. Verónica Egui Brito of the Miami Herald analyzed this “scorecard”, which the agency had used to determine whether the accused were members of Tren de Aragua.

It turned out that two of the criteria that supposedly indicated gang membership were certain tattoos and “urban street wear” such as jerseys and sneakers featuring basketball great Michael Jordan and his Chicago Bulls. But experts on Latin American gangs pointed out that TdA did not use specific tattoo images to identify its members. USA Today reported that internal Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Homeland Security documents have for years questioned the validity of using tattoos to identify TdA members. As to the Jordan and Bulls merch, it has long been among the most popular street fashions in much of the world, and could probably be used to falsely accuse thousands of young men in most cities of gang membership.

The whole “validation guide” appeared less a serious tool for criminology than the Trumpian equivalent of a Dick Tracy Magic Decoder, designed to help immigration “crimestoppers” detain anyone whose markings, clothing, accent, or skin tone struck them as suspicious.

Some of the men’s families also challenged the deportations, denying that the men were gang members or criminals at all. A few deportees became causes célèbres.

Most notoriously, the U.S. government admitted that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man with a U.S.-citizen wife and child, had been removed by mistake. The Supreme Court ordered that the government bring him back to the U.S. Yet even after that, the Trump administration tried to prevent Abrego Garcia from returning, and at first Bukele flatly refused to let him go. After Abrego Garcia was finally repatriated, the Trump administration tried to charge him with an unrelated minor infraction, then to deport him to one of several African countries. Costa Rica offered to take Abrego Garcia and he accepted, but the Trump administration refused. In February 2026, a judge ruled that ICE could not re-detain him. But the government continues to litigate his case.

In the face of strong exculpatory evidence for most of the deportees, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem opined: “They should stay there [in the Salvadoran prison] for the rest of their lives.”

Finally, after four months of imprisoning the Venezuelans in CECOT under its proprietary interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration abruptly sent most of them back to Venezuela in a swap of prisoners.

In December 2025, Judge Boasberg rejected most of the government’s arguments on the merits of the case, including Trump’s premises for invoking the AEA, and found that the U.S. denied the men due process. Finally in February, he issued an order that any of the deported Venezuelans who still wanted to challenge their removal had to be allowed to return to the U.S., with travel expenses paid by the U.S. government, to continue their immigration cases in court. The judge and the Venezuelans’ counsel, however, recognized that only a few of the men were likely to accept the offer.

In the emerging reality, there was a remarkable lack of evidence that any of the 200-plus deportees were actually members of Tren de Aragua, or that more than a handful had committed any serious crime. Beyond that, the Trump administration’s cases rested on a series of evidentiary dominos that cascaded down with a few pushes from legal and journalistic investigations.

In presidential debates during 2024, Trump falsely claimed that members of Tren de Aragua had “taken over” Aurora, Colorado, and other U.S. cities.

In fact, it turned out that a small number of armed young men, whom the police had not linked to TdA, had committed burglaries and firearm offenses against the residents of a couple of run-down apartment complexes with some Venezuelan residents. One of them, and nine others suspected of ties with the gang, were arrested by the police. The Aurora police chief told USA Today that “the city is not taken over by gangs”, and that, as in most other metropolitan areas, there were gangs there before any Venezuelans moved in.

Further investigations by several news organizations found that TdA is not a major drug smuggling enterprise, just a former prison gang that was evicted from prison and spread out to prey largely on Venezuelan refugees in South America. Around 90 percent of the nearly 8 million Venezuelans who have left their country went elsewhere in Latin America; only about 10 percent came to the U.S. A national survey by USA Today of federal, state and local law enforcement found that, despite claims of thousands of TdA gangsters, authorities had arrested fewer than 135 confirmed members. These have mainly committed petty street crimes such as purse-snatching, retail theft, and jewelry store robberies, many against other Venezuelans.

TdA bears little resemblance to the major cartels and maras of Mexico and Central America. These operate more like big transnational corporations heavy with advanced armaments, lawyers, and accountants. They are the ones who produce and smuggle most of the drugs entering the U.S., particularly fentanyl, the most deadly. The small gangs of Venezuelan petty thieves in a few cities were well within the capabilities of local law enforcement to dismantle with normal police work.

A key element of White House arguments for invoking the Alien Enemies Act was that Tren de Aragua was controlled by the Venezuelan government. However, this claim was also contradicted in an internal assessment by an elite forum of U.S. spy agencies. The National Intelligence Council concluded in a “Sense of the Community Memorandum”: “ [T]he Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.”

Joe Kent, Trump’s former head of counterterrorism, asked the Council to reconsider these findings. It did so, and came back with the same conclusions. Not long after, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard removed Michael Collins, a veteran intelligence analyst, from his post as acting chair of the Council.

The affair suggested that Kent, Gabbard, White House advisor Steven Miller, and their crew were trying to provide Trump with bespoke intelligence, custom tailored to fit whatever fabricated casus belli he was trying to invent. But some career intelligence professionals pushed back, calling bullshit on their manipulations.

Other dominos fell as more Trump claims were discredited by well-established geopolitical realities. The President claimed that he had saved tens of thousands of lives by dismantling Tren de Aragua and keeping drugs out of the U.S. However, the only drug responsible for large numbers of overdose deaths in the U.S. is fentanyl, a powerful opioid, which is almost exclusively produced in and exported from Mexico.

Venezuela reportedly plays little to no role in the fentanyl trade. Nor is it a major producer of cocaine or other drugs. It is mainly a trans-shipment corridor for cocaine from other South American countries headed for Europe, not the U.S.

In the end, the courts upheld the rights of some of the Venezuelan detainees trampled by Trump. But the long delays and tortures they suffered made those rights seem more aspirational than enforceable.

Beyond the Venezuelans, the rejection by the Trump administration of immigrants’ rights to habeas corpus and due process has been pandemic across the U.S.

An investigation by Reuters found that since October 2025, hundreds of judges have ruled more than 4,400 times that the government is unlawfully detaining immigrants, yet the government has continued the illegal detentions undeterred. This ignoring of or delay in complying with court orders has also made a travesty of the separation of powers, which requires that the executive branch respect the rulings of the judiciary.

A federal judge ordered the release of one such detainee, writing: “It is appalling that the Government insists that this Court should redefine or completely disregard the current law as it is clearly written.”

Many of these attacks on immigrants seem to be obvious violations of U.S. and international immigration laws. While some have been successfully remedied in court, they may also be a disturbing test run: the President has openly floated the idea of deporting U.S. citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes to El Salvador and imprisoning them there indefinitely without due process.

He has also tried to criminalize assistance to immigrants by arresting and, in a few notorious cases, killing or gravely injuring U.S. citizens who were trying to defend their neighbors against violence and harassment by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration agencies.

“The path to authoritarianism is being built on the backs of immigrants”, asserted Kiko Matos, President of the National Immigration Law Center, in TIME magazine. “While [the Trump administration is] ostensibly targeting immigrants, what is being constructed is both the infrastructure and compliance that will facilitate a broader loss of rights for all Americans.”

There’s a familiar progression that Trump and his cadre have inflicted on their shifting scapegoats. They start by branding immigrants as dangerous individual criminals, a go-to move of nativists for centuries. Then they escalate to alleging that they are gangsters working for foreign cartels. Then they try to link those cartels to an enemy government and declare them “narco-terrorists”.

Moving on to other targets, it’s easy to apply this field-tested stratagem to those who Trump calls “the enemy within”. And so protesters, activists, civil society groups, opposition politicians and other critics end up labeled “domestic terrorists”.

A similar public-relations gambit was used against the crews and passengers of small boats in the Caribbean north of Venezuela and the eastern Pacific.

This is the second part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3 to start from the beginning. Part 3 of 3

About the author

Frames from White House video. Original video: https://telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/10/19/king-trump-bombs-protesters-with-brown-liquid-in-ai-video

By Peter Costantini
SEATTLE. USA, Apr 23 2026 (IPS)

This is the first part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 2: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 2 of 3,   Part 3 of 3

After Donald Trump’s second election as president in November 2024, he said coyly that he wanted to be a dictator … but just for a day. On his first day in office, his sharpie signed an impressive pile of presidential orders, many of dubious legality. The next day he continued to govern like a DIY duce. He has not stopped since.

He has brought family members, incompetent political boot-lickers, and fellow kleptocrats into what is looking less like an administration and more like the Bling Dynasty, ruled by the Golden Emperor, Donald Khan. He continues to troll his opponents by hinting at a third term, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

A far-flung grassroots opposition coalition has adopted the motto “No Kings”, which has resonated across a wide political spectrum. After all, British subjects began a war of independence 250 years ago to liberate their colonies from the vagaries of the reputedly bipolar King George III of England.

So far, No Kings has held three spirited days of national action, the last of which reportedly attracted some eight million people to thousands of locations across all 50 states. Many demonstrators carried homemade signs taking the piss out of Trump on a great variety of issues. One favorite read, “Sorry world, grandpa’s gone off his meds again”; another, “Fight Truth Decay”. Big inflatables of Trump as a baby in diapers, penguins, frogs, and other fanciful creatures abounded. Also very visible in Seattle-area demonstrations were Vietnam -era military veterans and American flags.

The movement has been broadened by a wide range of other constituencies challenging mass persecution and deportation of immigrants, defending laid-off public employees, trying to reinstate devastating Medicaid (public health insurance) cuts, opposing military intervention abroad and at home, and getting up in Trump’s face on other critical issues.

In response to the October 18th No Kings rallies, Trump posted what looks like an artificial intelligence-generated video on Truth Social, his personal social media platform. It features a cartoonish figure of him wearing a golden crown, flying a jet fighter that drops massive amounts of excrement on demonstrators in city streets below. It’s the kind of dreck that a troubled third grader addicted to AI might come up with if left unsupervised. (Apologies to the many third-graders who are much more mature than that).

Nevertheless, barring some deus ex machina, the world is stuck with Donald Trump for at least three more years. So as he reinvents royalty as reality show, whom could he adopt as a model and inspiration?

Which king?

There have certainly been constitutional monarchs who served their countries honorably in ceremonial and advisory roles. Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands earned widespread respect by supporting the resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II. King Juan Carlos I of Spain played a key role in guiding his country back to democracy in the 1970s after decades under Generalísimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde’s fascist dictatorship.

But this does not seem to be the sort of reign Trumpísimo has in mind.

In a more colonialist and mercantilist vein, there’s always el Rey Fernando II of 15th and 16th Century Spain. With la Reina Isabel, he completed the Reconquista, expelling Jews and Muslims from Al-Andalus (an early foreshadowing of Trump’s Muslim Bans). His reign unleashed the mind-bending tortures of Torquemada and the Holy Inquisition (so much more imaginative than the ham-handed bludgeoning at Trump’s Salvadoran rent-a-gulag). Fernando’s conquistadores plundered the gold (so much sexier than tariffs), demolished the temples, and subjugated the peoples of the ancient civilizations of the Americas with sword and cross. Trump is off to a slow start with his incoherent threats and clumsy aggressions against Iran, Venezuela, Greenland, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Canada, and Palestine.

For sheer absolutist excess, don’t forget Louis XIV of France. His little country place at Versailles throws shade all over Mar-a-Lago. Whereas Lou could rock a moniker like “le Roi Soleil” (the Sun King), Trump will have to settle for “the Tanning Bed King” or perhaps “the Drill Baby Drill King”. And how about “L’état, c’est moi” (The state is me)? Sorry, but does the Donald have anything punchier than “I’d like you to do me a favor, though”? Or “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” (Unfortunately, his supine Supreme Court majority has his back on this one.) Then there’s “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the President.” Sounds like a third-grade class president throwing a tantrum. (Again, apologies to the many third graders who would never behave this boorishly.)

Compared to these historical peers, Trump comes out more mafioso than monarch.

But fear not. British historian Marc Morris has highlighted a promising spiritual forefather for the Trump monarchy.

King John, also known as John Lackland, ruled England from 1199 until his death in 1216. He came to be nicknamed Bad King John for his treachery, lechery, mendacity and cruelty. Morris quotes a contemporary chronicler, Anonymous of Béthune: “He was a very bad man, more cruel than all others. He lusted after beautiful women and because of this he shamed the high men of the land, for which reason he was greatly hated. Whenever he could he told lies rather than the truth … He was brim-full of evil qualities.” Remind you of anyone?

Troubadour Bertran de Born piled on: “No man may ever trust him, for his heart is soft and cowardly.”

“He was a total jerk,” wrote Morris. “He didn’t just kill, he was sadistic. He starved people to death. And not just enemy knights, but once a rival’s wife and son.” In another incident, John locked 22 noble prisoners of war in a castle and left them to die of starvation.

In 1215, the English barons (the most powerful nobles) rebelled against King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta. This historic accord established a prototype for the rule of law in the English-speaking world. It evolved to apply to kings and paupers, although at the time it was mainly an agreement between the monarchy and the nobility.

“For the first time Magna Carta established publicly the principle that the king was subject to the law,” wrote historian Nick Higham. “It also led indirectly to the development of a new kind of state, in which the money to govern the country came from taxation agreed by parliament.” (Russell Vought take note.)

Article 39 articulated the legal concept of habeas corpus (“you have the body” in Latin), which established freedom from arbitrary detention by the government without just cause. This became a keystone of due process under the law. The Magna Carta also established that the king could levy taxes only with the approval of a council of nobles. This evolved into the first parliament fifty years later.

The Magna Carta was intended to resolve conflicts between the Crown and the barons. But within a few weeks, John disowned it and failed to honor his commitments. The document specified that the remedy for non-compliance was that the nobles could go to war again against the king, which they did. France then invaded England in support of the rebels, and the barons invited the French Prince Louis to assume the throne of England.

When John died of dysentery in 1216, he was widely reviled. Chronicler Matthew Paris wrote an epitaph for the king: “Foul as it is, Hell itself is made fouler by the presence of John.” But after his death, Louis was chased out of England and the Magna Carta was eventually revived again.

As a poster prince for unbridled monarchical power, then, John ended up leaving a mixed legacy from a MAGA point of view. On the downside, Trump might consider him “a loser” because he signed away the unlimited divine right of kings. But on the upside, he rapidly reneged on the Magna Carta and duked it out with the nobles and France until the end.

All told, King John the Bad checked most of the boxes for an early political progenitor of King Don the Con.

The Con?

Did you catch the clever double entendre? The President is a felon, convicted on 34 counts of “fraudulently falsifying business records” by concealing a $130,000 payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 elections. He is also a world-class con artist, snagging a $400 million Boeing 747 as an emolument from Qatar. It will initially serve as Air Force One, but the sweet part is that after he leaves office, the “flying palace” will be housed in the lobby of his presidential library and hotel in Miami.

And let’s not forget that Don was also found liable for sexual assault and defamation in a civil lawsuit. A jury awarded plaintiff E. Jean Carroll a settlement of $83.3 million dollars, of which $65 million was for punitive damages. An appeals court upheld the judgement, finding that: “The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that ‘the degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented”.

On the policy front, the title of the second Trump administration’s master plan, Project 2025, apparently contained a typo: it should have been called Project 1214. In practice, it has become a blueprint for rolling back human rights, democracy and good government to pre-Magna Carta irrelevance, unleashing the king’s unchecked power, and disemboweling essential government functions.

Clearly, in many domains of regal malfeasance, King Don has already surpassed King John. He has made so many efforts to demonstrate that the rule of law does not apply to him that we can only consider a few of the most egregious here.

His pièce de résistance remains his efforts to declare the 2020 presidential election invalid and to overturn the outcome by a violent coup d’état on January 6, 2021. The details have been replayed endlessly: more than 60 lawsuits in nine states against the election, all thrown out of court as baseless; Trump’s speech spurring on the armed, violent mob; the rioters at the Capitol, equipped with gallows and noose, chanting “Hang Mike Pence” (the Vice President responsible for certifying the count of the electoral results); their violent incursion into the Capitol in an effort to stop the electoral process; a rioter defecating on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s desk; the killing and maiming of police trying to protect lawmakers. All this took place in front of the entire nation in newscasts and congressional hearings for long afterwards.

Perhaps the most stunning outcome, however, is that Trump, the MAGA movement, and most of the Republican Party have never acknowledged that in 2020 the electorate told the President, “You’re fired.” Instead, he tethered his return to office in 2024 to a dark-matter constellation of lies about the elections. He called J6 “a day of love”, and pardoned some 1,500 convicted members of the most dangerous rabble of terrorists to attack this country since 9/11. He continues to force gutless Republicans to drink the same Kool Aid for many years after his story has been thoroughly discredited.

Don the Con also has doubled down on other debunked lies about the 2020 election, such as widespread electoral corruption and voting by non-citizens. Using these falsehoods, he is pushing to take control of elections and voter rolls away from the states, to whom the Constitution grants these powers, and give them to himself. He is also trying to make voting harder for lower-income and elderly people with ploys like requiring proof of citizenship to vote – such as a birth certificate or passport – which has never before been a requisite.

Trump’s power to negate the rule of law by spawning alternative realities is one that King John might have envied.

Modern communications technologies give Trump the means to corrode our shared understandings that were inconceivable 800 years ago. The President assaults social and news media like a “leaf blower”, as satirist Stephen Colbert put it, deafeningly flooding the zone with simple, mendacious messages. Don will probably not perish from dysentery as John did, but he has infected global political spaces with informational dysentery. His propaganda machine serves as a disinformation sump pump that sucks out poison from MAGA cesspools and inundates physical and virtual public squares.

During Trump’s first term, the Washington Post counted 30,573 false or misleading claims, around 20 per day. In his second term, the pace seems to have picked up.

Veteran White House correspondent Peter Baker wrote a New York Times piece headlined “Trump’s Wild Claims, Conspiracies and Falsehoods Redefine Presidential Bounds”. He observed, “Truth is not always an abundant resource in the White House under any president, but never has the Oval Office been occupied by someone so detached from verifiable facts.”

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former White House communications director, told Baker that Trump has completed “50 years of distorting things and telling lies and … 50 years of getting away with it, so why wouldn’t he make the lies bigger and more impactful in this last stretch?”

In one case, Trump accused the United States Agency for International Development of sending $50 million worth of condoms to the Palestinian organization Hamas. After journalists debunked the original story, Trump continued to repeat it, but increased the alleged total to $100 million.

“What were dubbed ‘alternative facts’ in his first term,” wrote Baker, “have quickly become a whole alternative reality in his second.”

This is the first part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 2: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 2 of 3,   Part 3 of 3

About the author

The GEF actively supports climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods in Zanzibar, with a specific focus on the seaweed farming sector, which is crucial for over 20,000 farmers—mostly women—in the region. Here a woman identified as Jazaa is pictured working as a seaweed farmer. She carefully attaches little seaweed seedlings to the rope that she will harvest after two months. Credit: Natalija Gormalova/Climate Visuals Countdown

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Apr 16 2026 (IPS)

The Global Environment Facility, widely known as the GEF, plays a central role in financing environmental protection across the world. It supports developing countries in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, pollution, and threats to ecosystems.

Since its establishment in the early 1990s, the GEF has grown as a multilateral environmental fund, supporting projects in more than 170 countries.

Over time, the GEF has evolved into what it calls a “family of funds”, each targeting a specific global environmental challenge while operating under a shared strategic framework.

This explainer looks at how the GEF funding works, the origins of its financing model, and the role of six major funds that channel resources toward global environmental goals.

While the GEF predates the 1992 Rio ‘Earth’ Summit, its importance as a financial mechanism grew after the summit. Here UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opens the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection. Credit: Michos Tzavaras/UN Photo

Origins of the GEF Funding Model

The GEF was created in 1991, before the Rio ‘Earth’ Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection; however, its importance grew after the summit.

The Rio Summit produced three major environmental conventions. These were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and, later in 1994, the Convention to Combat Desertification. The GEF became the financial mechanism for these agreements, meaning it mobilises and distributes funds to help countries implement them.

Over the past 35 years, the GEF has expanded its mandate. Today it supports multiple conventions and environmental initiatives through a structured set of trust funds. This architecture allows the facility to coordinate funding across different environmental priorities while maintaining specialised programs for each global commitment.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is now focusing on solving environmental problems together instead of separately. It looks at climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution as connected issues and works with governments, international groups, civil society, and businesses to address them.

The GEF Trust Fund was initially created to support multiple environmental agreements simultaneously. Over time, countries preferred more specific funding for their particular needs.

Because of these changes, the GEF now has different funds, each designed for different purposes and methods of giving money.

Some funds – like the Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and part of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) – use a system that helps countries know in advance how much funding they can expect.

The GEF Trust Fund

The Global Environment Facility Trust Fund is the main source of funds for the GEF. It provides grants to support environmental projects in developing countries.

The Trust Fund finances activities across several environmental areas.

These include

• Biodiversity conservation,
• Climate change mitigation,
• Land degradation control,
• International waters management, and
• Chemicals and waste reduction.

Countries receive funding through a system known as the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources, or STAR, which distributes funds based on their environmental needs and eligibility.

Projects funded by the Trust Fund often focus on creating global environmental benefits. These may include:

• Protecting endangered species,
• Restoring ecosystems,
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
• Improving pollution management systems.

The Trust Fund operates through periodic “replenishment” cycles. Donor countries pledge new contributions every four years, which allows the GEF to finance programs during the next funding period. For example, the GEF-9 cycle will cover the period from July 2026 to June 2030 and focus on scaling up environmental investments while mobilising private capital and strengthening country ownership of environmental policies.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has created Integrated Programs. These are special programs designed to address multiple environmental goals at the same time in a more coordinated and efficient way.

For example, the Food Systems Integrated Program does not fund separate projects for climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation. Instead, it combines them into one unified project, which helps achieve stronger and longer-lasting results while making better use of funding.

The GEF helps fund biodiversity across the globe, helping to create conditions to prevent the further endangerment of species like the Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo abelii). Credit: Thomas Gabernig/Unsplash

Global Biodiversity Framework Fund

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund is a relatively new component of the GEF family of funds. It was created to help countries implement the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was adopted in 2022 under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The biodiversity framework sets ambitious targets for protecting nature by 2030. Its most prominent targets include the “30 by 30” target, which calls for protecting at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean areas by the end of the decade.  The Framework also sets a 30 percent target for the restoration of ecosystems and a target of mobilising 30 billion dollars in international financial flows to developing countries for biodiversity action.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund supports actions that help countries meet these targets.

Actions that are supported include the following:

• Expanding protected areas,
• Restoring degraded ecosystems,
• Protecting endangered species, and
• Strengthening biodiversity monitoring.

Another important focus is the integration of biodiversity into economic planning. Many projects supported by this fund work with governments and businesses to match financial flows with biodiversity goals. This means reducing financial support for activities that damage the environment and encouraging more sustainable farming, forestry, and fishing practices.

By providing targeted financing for biodiversity commitments, the fund helps translate global agreements into practical actions at the national and local levels.

It is also important to highlight that the fund sets a target of providing at least 20% of its resources to support actions by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This form of direct financing is unique for a multilateral environmental fund.  To date, this target has been exceeded and mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility are considering replicating this approach.

GEF-9 biodiversity investments will bring together four interconnected pathways:

• Scaling up financial flows to close the nature financing gap,
• Embedding environmental priorities in national development strategies,
• Mobilising private capital through blended finance, and
• Empowering Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and civil society as active conservation partners.

“A renewed emphasis on the Forest Biomes Integrated Program will continue directing investment into the landscapes most critical for achieving 30×30 – ensuring that GEF financing remains focused where the stakes are highest,” said Chizuru Aoki, the head of the GEF Conventions and Funds Division.

Medicinal and aromatic plant species, such as the baobab, are often exploited; however, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing aims to ensure fair use of the planet’s genetic resources and secure benefits for Indigenous knowledge holders. Credit Noah Grossenbacher/Unsplash

Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund

The Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund supports countries in implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. This international agreement, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, aims to make sure that the genetic resources of the planet are used fairly and equitably, with benefits shared with those who provide them.

Genetic resources include plants, animals, and microorganisms that are used in research and commercial products such as medicines, cosmetics, and agricultural technologies. Historically, many developing countries have expressed concerns that companies and researchers benefit from these resources without sharing profits or knowledge.

The Nagoya Protocol fixes these issues by requiring users to do the following:

• Get permission from the country providing the resources, and
• Agree on how benefits (like money or knowledge) will be shared.

The fund supports countries by helping them:

• Create laws and rules for using genetic resources,
• Improve monitoring systems, and
• Build skills among researchers and policymakers.

Projects funded also support Indigenous peoples and local communities, who often hold traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. Protecting this knowledge and ensuring fair compensation is a key objective of the Nagoya framework.

Least Developed Countries Fund

The Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on supporting climate adaptation in the world’s most vulnerable nations. These countries often face severe environmental risks but lack the finances and systems to respond efficiently.

The fund supports the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action and National Adaptation Plans. These are country-specific strategies that identify the most urgent climate risks facing each country and outline measures to reduce vulnerability.

Typical projects include the following:

• Strengthening climate-resilient agriculture,
• Improving water management systems,
• Protecting coastal zones, and
• Building early warning systems for extreme weather events.

Because many least developed countries face multiple environmental issues at once, the fund often supports integrated projects that address climate change alongside biodiversity conservation and land management.

This funding system makes sure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries get the help they need to deal with climate change, even though they did very little to cause it.

Villagers in Nyamisati, Rufiji District, wade through muddy tidal flats to plant mangrove seedlings—part of a grassroots effort to curb saline intrusion that has begun to poison nearby rice paddies as saltwater seeps underground. The initiative reflects growing local responses to environmental degradation driven by human activity along Tanzania’s coast. The GEF supports projects like these that help mitigate the impacts of climate change. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Special Climate Change Fund

The Special Climate Change Fund supports climate action in developing countries and works alongside the Least Developed Countries Fund.

While the Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on the poorest nations, this fund helps other developing countries that are also affected by climate change.

It supports projects that:

• Help countries prepare for climate impacts,
• Include climate planning in development and infrastructure,
• Improve water management and agriculture.
• Reduce disaster risks, and
• Promote environmentally friendly technologies.

The SCCF also, in some cases, supports mitigation efforts, particularly when they involve innovative technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By financing both adaptation and mitigation initiatives, the fund contributes to global efforts to stabilise the climate system.

Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund

The Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund supports countries in implementing transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement.

Under this agreement, countries must regularly report their greenhouse gas emissions and track their progress on climate goals. However, many developing countries do not have the tools or skills to do this properly.

This fund helps by supporting:

• Training for government officials,
• Creation of national emissions data systems, and
• Better monitoring and reporting methods.

Strong reporting systems are important because they:

• Help track climate progress,
• Build trust between countries, and
• Ensure countries meet their commitments.

The fund helps developing countries improve their climate reporting so they can fully take part in global climate efforts.

How the “family of funds” works together

One of the defining features of the GEF funding model is that each part speaks to the others.

Think of it like a team of funds working together, rather than separate, isolated programs.

These funds are coordinated so they can:

• Support the same project from different angles,
• Avoid duplication (no overlapping funding for the same purpose), and
• Align with global environmental agreements.

For example:

• A biodiversity project might use:
  • The main GEF Trust Fund
  • Plus the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund
• A climate adaptation project could combine:
  • Least Developed Countries Fund
  • Special Climate Change Fund

This ‘family’ structure improves:

• Coordination, so different funds work in sync,
• Efficiency, so funds work with less waste and duplication, and
• Flexibility, so projects can tap into multiple funding sources.

Environmental problems are interconnected. A single project (like forest conservation) can:

• Reduce carbon emissions,
• Protect biodiversity,
• Improve water systems, and
• Avoid land degradation.

Because of the integrated funding system, the GEF can support all these goals at once, rather than funding them separately.

The “family of funds” is a coordinated funding system that allows the GEF to:

• Combine resources;
• Support complex, multi-sector projects; and
• Maximise environmental impact

The Future of GEF Financing

As global environmental crises grow, so does the demand for money and resources to meet climate and biodiversity needs. International assessments suggest that hundreds of billions of dollars are needed each year.

The GEF aims to play a “catalytic” role in closing this gap – in short, the GEF acts as a “catalyst” or tool for using limited public funds to unlock much larger investments.

Its funding model mobilises additional resources from

• Governments,
• Development banks, and
• Private investors.

“In practical terms, the mechanisms being supported in GEF-9 include debt-for-nature and debt-for-climate swaps, green bonds, pooled investment vehicles, and outcome-based financing structures. Each of these can serve a different purpose depending on the context – but the common thread is that they allow the GEF to use its resources strategically to unlock much larger pools of capital from the private sector, multiplying the environmental impact that public funding alone could achieve,” Aoki said.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres visiting a shelter hosting displaced people from areas affected by the ongoing conflict in the Dekwaneh area of Beirut during his visit to Lebanon in March 2026. Credit: UN Photo/Haider Fahs

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 9 2026 (IPS)

On April 8, Israeli military forces launched the deadliest series of airstrikes on Lebanon since hostilities escalated in early March, resulting in the deaths of at least 254 civilians. This latest incident threatens to further complicate humanitarian efforts in Lebanon that are already under immense pressure.

This latest escalation occurred just as a two-week ceasefire deal between the United States and Iran was announced the night prior on April 7, more than a month after the United States, Iran and Israel began engaging in military strikes against each other, which also led to Arab States in the Gulf getting caught in the crossfire. The parties targeted military bases and civilian infrastructure in Iran and Gulf states allied with the United States. Israeli and Lebanese armed forces exchanged fire across borders, which has resulted in a new wave of civilian casualties and mass displacement in a continuation of the conflict between the Israeli military and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Israeli strikes on Lebanon have resulted in nearly 1,530 deaths since March 2, including more than 100 women and 130 children.

While the temporary ceasefire was welcomed, including by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, questions were raised about where it extended, even among major players in the negotiation process. Iran and Pakistan, a mediator in the peace negotiations, have stated that the deal includes Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israeli leadership initially claimed that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon and that the airstrikes specifically targeted Hezbollah-owned strongholds. Wednesday’s airstrikes targeted residential and commercial neighborhoods in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon.

Humanitarian actors expressed concern and alarm over the airstrikes and urged the parties involved to consider the safety and dignity of civilians in Lebanon.  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was “outraged” by the “devastating death and destruction” in Lebanon.

Displaced families at a makeshift shelter in a parking lot in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Credit: WFP Arete/Ali Yunes

Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar welcomed the news of a ceasefire but said in a statement that until there was an end to the hostilities across the entire region, “no one will feel truly safe.”

“This pause must become a stepping stone for wider peace,” Behar said.

The war in Iran and the Middle East has put greater strain on humanitarian aid workers on the ground, including UN agencies.

Imran Riza, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon, explained that even before the latest escalation, the UN and its partners were aiming to support 1.5 million vulnerable people and that they have been forced to scale up their response with fewer resources than in previous years.

Less than a third of the emergency flash appeal for USD 308 million has been funded as of now. Yet despite these challenges, the UN and its partners have been able to provide more than four million meals and distribute more than 130,000 blankets and 105,000 mattresses to shelters. Multi-purpose cash assistance has also been provided to households as well.

Briefing reporters virtually from Beirut mere hours after the airstrikes, Riza commented on how civilians reacted to the news of a ceasefire.

“This morning, many people across Lebanon were cautiously optimistic about returning home—some even began to move. The events of the past hours, however, are likely to have triggered further displacement,” said Riza.

Also briefing from Lebanon was UNFPA Arab Regional Director Laila Baker, who described how the city of Beirut slowed to a standstill in the wake of the airstrikes. Cars are lining the streets while tents spread across the city as families seek shelter, she noted. She warned that the initial sense of unity that the Lebanese government and its partners had been working towards was now under threat due to the month-long “devastating aggression” from military forces.

“The risk is not only humanitarian collapse but also renewed fragmentation at a time when unity is most needed,” said Baker.

Displacement is already at an “unprecedented scale”, Riza said, as more than 1.1 million people—or one in five people in Lebanon—are internally displaced. More than 138,000 civilians, of which a third are children, are sheltering in 678 collective sites. The majority are dispersed across informal settings and host communities, which Riza noted leaves them with limited access to basic services. Overcrowding in shelters and limited sanitation services will likely lead to increased health risks.

The health system has also been overwhelmed and “under severe pressure.” Many facilities have been forced to close or have been damaged. Riza reported at least 106 attacks on healthcare, which have resulted in more than 50 deaths and 158 injuries among health workers.

Women and children are particularly vulnerable in this situation. Baker estimates that at least 620,000 women and girls have experienced displacement. Among them are at least 13,500 pregnant women who have been cut from essential maternal health services. At least 200 pregnant women will be delivering babies without essential support from midwives or nurses or with access to maternal and neonatal healthcare.

More than 52 primary healthcare facilities are no longer facilities and are forced to close. Among the six hospitals forced to close, five of them had maternity wards.

“These are not just statistics. They are grave violations of international humanitarian law – direct assaults on life, health, and dignity,” said Baker. “This is not only a humanitarian crisis – it is a crisis of humanity. It is a crisis of trust in the international system and in the principles meant to protect civilians.”

The UN and other humanitarian agencies urge for a permanent end to the fighting and call for international law to be upheld by all parties. Under the ceasefire agreement, all parties are urged to pursue diplomatic dialogue and work toward a long-term solution to the war.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: US Department of Defense / Wiki Commons

By Herbert Wulf
Apr 6 2026 (IPS)

 
Donald Trump ran on a platform of ending wars. After his success in Venezuela, he is intoxicated by his military achievements and is banking on regime change in several countries.

In a swift and decisive move, US forces abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife to the United States. The current government in Caracas has little choice but to largely submit to Washington’s dictates. Trump’s motives for the war against Iran remain unclear, partly because the US president has cited various reasons: to finally destroy the Iranian nuclear program, to end the Iranian threat to the Middle East, to support the Iranian people, and to overthrow the terrible regime in Tehran. He remains vague about his reasoning and seems to make off the cuff suggestions for regime change. Trump had a lofty idea at how he envisions the end of this war. He has suggested “unconditional surrender,” followed by his personal involvement in the selection of a successor: I must be involved in picking Iran’s next leader.

The swift victory against Iran failed to materialize, an end to the war is not in sight, and a new leader has been chosen without Trump’s involvement. The structures of the mullah regime appear so entrenched that the anticipated regime change following the rapid decapitation of the leadership did not occur. Yet Donald Trump had proclaimed: “What we did in Venezuela is, in my opinion, the perfect, the perfect scenario.” The Atlantic calls this attitude a “hostile corporate takeover of an entire country”. Now the US government expects Cuba to surrender. “I think I could do anything I want” with Cuba, Trump declared, now that the island is virtually cut off from energy supplies and its economy is in ruins. He is demanding the removal of Cuban President Diaz-Canel.

In the business world hostile corporate takeovers sometimes work, sometimes they fail. Similarly with Trump’s idea of swift government surrenders. In the case of Iran, he was misguided by the Wall Street playbook. Irresponsibly, he called on Iranians to overthrow the government before the bombing campaign started. Regime change in Iran has now been forgotten and Trump is agnostic about democracy. He is interested to get the oil price down and the stock market up.

Lessons from the past

The concept of regime change—replacing the top of the government to install one more agreeable to the US—is not new to US foreign policy. Proponents of regime change usually point to Japan and Germany as positive examples of successful democratization. Often, however, the goal is not, or at least not primarily, democratization, but rather the installation of a government that is ideologically close to the US or amenable to them. But the “Trump Corollary”, as explicitly stated in the National Security Strategy to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, is not new either. In reality, it was already the Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush doctrine.

Both Trump’s idea of regime change and his rigorously pursued territorial ambitions (Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal) are reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, particularly the version of this doctrine expanded by President Roosevelt in 1904. This doctrine legitimized American interventions in Latin America. At the beginning of the 20th century, the US intervened in numerous Latin American countries in ‘its backyard’, using military and intelligence means: in Colombia, to support Panamanian separatists in controlling the Panama Canal; repeatedly in the Dominican Republic; they occupied Cuba from 1906 to 1909 and intervened there repeatedly afterward; in Nicaragua during the so-called ‘Banana War’, to protect the interests of the US company United Fruit; in Mexico, as well as in Haiti and Honduras.

The New York Times recently suggested that Trump’s current enthusiasm for regime change is most comparable to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower. During his two terms in office from 1953 to 1961, the once coldly calculating general allowed himself to be seduced into a downward spiral from one coup to the next. In 1953, the US succeeded in overthrowing the elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with Operation Ajax. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the British-owned oil industry. The coup succeeded with CIA support. The US installed the Shah as its puppet. He ruled with absolute power until the so-called Iranian Revolution and the dictatorship of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. After the successful overthrow of the government in Iran, Eisenhower decided to intervene in Guatemala. The elected president, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, who initiated far-reaching land reform laws, was overthrown in a coup d’état in 1954 and replaced by the pro-American colonel, Castillo Armas.

During this period, the US government also formulated the so-called domino theory, which aimed to prevent governments, particularly in Asia, from aligning themselves with the Soviet Union. The assumption was that if one domino fell, others would follow. It was during this time that the costly war in Korea ended in an armistice. Therefore, countries like Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Indonesia, and others were on Eisenhower’s domino list. However, the destabilization campaigns carried out by the CIA sometimes had the opposite effect. Governments in Indonesia and Syria emerged strengthened from the interventions. Eisenhower left Kennedy with the loss of American influence in Cuba. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, intended to overthrow Fidel Castro, was the starting point for the decades-long blockade of Cuba, which Trump is determined to end now through regime change.

The most dramatic example of failed regime change in recent history is undoubtedly the Iraq War, which began in 2003 under President George W. Bush. The stated goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The war led to the overthrow of the regime. The United Nations and US teams found no weapons of mass destruction despite intensive on-site investigations. Attempts to establish an orderly state in Iraq failed. These experiences, and especially the disastrous outcome of two decades of military intervention in Afghanistan, discredited the concept of regime change.

What are the implications?

The most important lesson taught by efforts to affect externally forced regime change is that interventions often lead to crises that were ostensibly meant to be prevented or solved. The temptation was too great for Trump to miss the opportunity to depose the despised Maduro government.

Scholarly studies of the numerous attempted regime changes and democratization efforts reveal three key findings. First, simply removing the government from power (whether through assassination, as in the case of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or now in Iran, or through kidnapping as in Venezuela) is insufficient, as such actions often lead to chaos, state collapse, or even civil war. Thus, it will be interesting to watch further developments in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.

A second lesson from empirical studies of regime change is that democratization is more likely to succeed if democratic experience already existed in the country. However, this is often not the case.

Finally, if the real goal is democratization (and not just to secure spheres of influence or oil supplies etc.), it is far more promising not only to hold elections (as in Afghanistan, for example), but to renounce violence and initiate a long-term program with development aid and support for civil society.

Whether the US government will be impressed by these findings, or even acknowledge them, is doubtful. Currently, the American president is euphoric, despite the strong reaction from the Iranian government which he, surprisingly, did not expect. His promises to end the senseless wars and not start any new ones, however, seem to have been forgotten.

Related articles:
The US: Good at Starting but Bad at Ending Wars
Failure of US–Iran Talks Was All Too Predictable — But Turning to Military Strikes Creates Dangerous Unknowns
The ‘Donroe Doctrine’
The Return of the Ugly American

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

From George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2024, each U.S. president has left their mark on the nation and the world in various ways. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 17 2026 (IPS)

Throughout its 250-year history, following the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the United States has elected 47 presidents. From George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2024, each U.S. president has left their mark on the nation and the world in various ways.

Some presidents are celebrated for their foresight, character, and achievements, while others are criticized for their negligence, immorality, and failures during their time in the White House. Ranking these 47 presidents is a worthwhile endeavor as it contributes to an understanding of the past and also provides insight into the current and likely near-term policies and actions of the United States.

Three presidents have been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives: Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1998), and Donald Trump (2019 and 2021). All three were acquitted by the U.S. Senate and remained in office. However, Trump is the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice, first for his dealings with Ukraine and second for the incitement of insurrection.

According to rankings by presidential historians, political scientists, scholars, and other experts based on a president’s achievements, leadership qualities, and failures during their presidential tenure, the top five presidents on the list are: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt (Table 1).

Source: According to various surveys, including the Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll, “American Presidents: Greatest and Worst”, C-Span 2021 Survey, U.S. News & World Report 2024 surveys, and Yahoo/YouGov Poll.

The five U.S. presidents consistently ranked at the bottom of the list are: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Donald J. Trump.

Routinely ranking at the bottom of the list of the worst presidents is Donald Trump. His lowest ranking is largely due to his presidency challenging democratic institutions and breaking longstanding constitutional norms, particularly the peaceful transfer of power, a U.S. precedent that had not been broken since George Washington first set it.

Routinely ranking at the bottom of the list of the worst presidents is Donald Trump. His lowest ranking is largely due to his presidency challenging democratic institutions and breaking longstanding constitutional norms, particularly the peaceful transfer of power, a U.S. precedent that had not been broken since George Washington first set it

A major factor contributing to Trump’s ranking as the worst president is his efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome, including pressuring election officials and spreading false claims of widespread fraud. This culminated in the January 6, 2021 mob attack or insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, which aimed to prevent the certification of the 2020 election results.

Other major factors contributing to Trump’s continued low ranking include three notable abuses: 1. violation of his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution; 2. using the power of the federal government to threaten and punish his critics; and 3. shocking corruption and lack of moral authority.

Furthermore, other important factors include his failure to unite the country, his politicization of government, use of inflammatory rhetoric, especially against political opponents, his incompetent handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, his weakening of international alliances, alienation of close allies, and conflicts of interest with the use of the presidency to enrich himself. Additionally, his xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic remarks and tweets have been widely criticized.

The troubling statements made by the presidency include: suggesting people should inject bleach to cure Covid-19; claiming windmills cause cancer; stating that climate change is a hoax invented by China; and asserting that Tylenol use in pregnancy causes autism.

Also among the explanatory factors for his ranking include Trump’s vilification of immigrants as violent criminals, his self-promotion, and his normalization of dishonesty with 30,573 reported false and misleading statements during his first presidential term. These statements are believed to have significantly damaged public trust in democratic institutions.

His most recent claim during his 2026 State of the Union address that his second term as president should be his third term has also drawn criticism. Moreover, Trump’s quantitative claims not only push the limits of factual truth but also of mathematical possibility.

Additionally, Trump will be remembered for leaving the country worse off than he found it and rewriting the rules of the liberal international order that the U.S. itself created. In particular, as a result of his policies and actions, the populations of the closest allies of the U.S. have lost faith in the country. Pluralities in Germany and France, as well as a majority of Canadians, view the U.S. as creating more problems than solving them (Figure 1).

Source: Politico Poll with Public First.

Trump continues to insist incorrectly that tariffs are not primarily paid by importers and consumers, but by foreign governments. He has also claimed that his tariffs and related efforts have generated $18 trillion in new investments in the U.S. This highly exaggerated figure amounts to approximately 59% of the country’s gross domestic product in 2025 of $30.6 trillion U.S. dollars. This represents a rate of economic growth that surpasses the greatest periods of post-World War II expansion in the U.S. (Figure 2).

Source: New York Times.

In a national survey conducted by Quinnipiac University in 2018, U.S. adults were asked to identify who they believed were the worst presidents since World War II. Out of the 13 presidents who have served since the end of World War II, Donald Trump was found to be the worst. Similarly, in 2024, an expert survey conducted by the American Political Science Association (APSA) also ranked Donald Trump in last place among U.S. presidents.

According to an NPR/Marist poll in 2026, Trump’s approval rating is low, with only 39% of U.S. adults in the national survey saying they approve of the job he is doing overall, while 51% strongly disapprove. Additionally, the incomes of Trump’s working-class MAGA supporters have stagnated, while the wealthy have seen exponential returns on their investments.

A majority of U.S. voters oppose the actions of the Trump administration, particularly in areas such as the economy, foreign policy, and immigration enforcement. According to the NPR/Marist poll, two-thirds of those surveyed believe that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has exceeded its authority.

While it is possible for Donald Trump to achieve success in his remaining three years in office, this outcome seems unlikely based on his past and current policies, actions, and behavior. A more probable outcome is that at the end of Trump’s second presidential term, he will continue to be viewed as the worst president in U.S. history.

In summary, out of the 47 U.S. presidents, the top five according to scholarly rankings, presidential historians, and expert opinions are: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. The bottom five presidents are: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Donald J. Trump, with the lowest ranking among the five being Donald J. Trump.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

As US President Donald Trump pushes the world to war, arms spending has been rising worldwide. Wars secure more budgetary allocations, mainly benefiting the US-dominated military-industrial complex.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

In 2024, the US accounted for over 36% of the world’s military spending of $2.7 trillion! This exceeded the total expenditure of the next nine biggest spenders – China, Russia, Germany, India, UK, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, and Japan!

China’s military budget for 2025 was $250-300 billion. Most others are US allies who have pledged to increase war spending from under 2% of GDP to 5%!

The US and its allies will be even further ahead despite pushing friends and foes to spend more. Fortune magazine projects that US spending will exceed that of the next 35 highest-spending countries combined!

Despite its huge economic costs, the hike is being justified as helping to achieve ‘peace through strength’. After all, bombing ten nations in Trump 2.0’s first year did not incur any significant American military casualties.

Borrowing for war
Early this year, Dean Baker warned that President Trump was planning to increase annual military spending by $600 billion. Just under 2% of GDP, the spending increase would be massive.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

As Trump is more committed to cutting taxes than the US federal public debt, the “$600 billion increase in annual taxes would come to $6 trillion, roughly $45,000 per household” over the next decade.

The independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects federal debt for military spending will increase by $5.8 trillion over the next decade!

Trump has long promised to cut US public debt, which is already equivalent to 120% of annual output, and not to increase the deficit! But this would require massive tax increases, impossible to raise with tariffs alone.

Worse, federal government debt, which Trump promised to cut, will rise. Meanwhile, 94% of his Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) tax cuts benefit the top 60%, with only 1% trickling down to the poorest fifth.

The top fifth nominally gets 69%, but only the top 5% will actually pay less! The bottom 95% will pay more tax, with low-income households paying relatively more for tariffs!

Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, was supposed to cut federal government fraud, waste, and debt, but instead cut US growth in 2025’s last quarter.

While the BBB cut $186 billion of food aid for poorer Americans, rising war spending will mainly benefit US military-industrial complex cronies.

US consumers will pay more
Increased tariff rates would have to be impossibly high. And these would need to be even higher if exemptions are granted. Imports would fall sharply with such high tariffs.

Trump claimed additional tariff revenue would cover half a trillion dollars of additional military spending. He has long claimed other countries pay for tariffs.

With deindustrialisation over the past half-century, consumers have been buying more imports, paying for most tariff revenue.

Imports would fall sharply with such high tariffs. As many imports are intermediate goods used in manufacturing, high tariffs would hurt the industries Trump is claiming to promote.

High tariffs will raise consumer prices sharply. Cost-of-living increases would be unaffordable to many, including in Trump’s political base.

Before the 20 February Supreme Court decision declaring them unconstitutional, the tariffs were only expected to raise $300 billion in the first year.

Revenue was expected to fall as consumers bought more domestically produced goods instead of imports.

As many intermediate goods for manufacturing are imported, higher tariffs would hurt the very industries Trump claims to be helping. Thus, high tariffs will sharply raise consumer prices for both imports and US-made substitutes.

Also, massively increasing military spending will divert resources, including labour, away from more productive uses.

Military industrial cronies
US military contracts mainly went to five corporate groups even before Trump 2.0. While projects are worth more, beneficiaries are fewer, reflecting lobbying efforts.

More government military spending is unlikely to increase jobs in the long run, as jobs have decreased drastically since the 1980s due to greater automation.

Military contractors pass the costs of R&D and capital expenditures onto taxpayers, freeing revenue to pay for cash dividends and stock buybacks.

In 2024, the Pentagon’s leading contractor, Lockheed Martin paid out $7 billion for stock buybacks and dividends.

Although Trump once offered to work with China and Russia to cut the trio’s military spending by half, it was difficult to take his offer seriously given his other pronouncements and actions.

US military spending will continue to rise, driven by the same interests and impulses behind the recent massive hikes.

Military expenditure needs wars to secure yet more allocations for buying more military equipment, to the beat of war drums.

The actual political and business relationships are complex and ever-changing. As Walter Scott observed in 1808:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

President Donald Trump has shaken up the world economy and the rule of international law in the first year of his second term – ostensibly to make America great again, particularly by reviving US manufacturing jobs.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Tariffs
Trump’s 2nd April 2025 Liberation Day tariffs were ostensibly his primary means for generating manufacturing employment.

When the US Supreme Court overruled him on 20 February, he responded by imposing a 10% tariff on all imports, raised to 15% the next day!

The tariffs are a blunt means for reviving US manufacturing jobs. The policy assumes US manufacturing jobs have been mainly lost due to what the White House deems ‘unfair’ competition from cheap imports.

Undoubtedly, US and other transnational corporations have relocated production and generally sourced imports from abroad to reduce import costs.

Imposing tariffs on imported goods to raise their prices is supposed to induce manufacturers to relocate production and jobs to the US.

Higher tariffs were imposed on countries with larger goods trade surpluses with the US. This ignores the services trade balance, generally more favourable to the US.

Tariff threats are now among the Trump administration’s choice weapons or means of economic coercion, including sanctions, to advance and secure its interests.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

But only $264 billion was collected during Trump 2.0’s first year, much higher than before, but still less than 1% of US federal debt.

Tariff revenue peaked in October 2025 at $31.35 billion, well below expectations, months before the Supreme Court decision.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy found only 4% of tariffs ‘absorbed’ by foreign exporters losing some export earnings. US importers paid the 96% balance of $264 billion in tariffs, weakening the impact of Trump’s business tax cuts.

But Trump’s tariffs have not reduced the US trade deficit, not even for manufactures; this rose to $1 trillion in 2025, as $3.15 trillion in imports exceeded $2.15 trillion in exports.

Although mortgage and loan interest rates have not fallen, inflation continues. The additional tariff revenue would not even have covered the extra military budget Trump has promised.

Congress could have reclaimed its tariff authority, though the current Trump-dominated House of Representatives has not tried.

But with the November midterm elections looming, Forbes reported that the president’s disapproval rating rose to 55% in mid-February, as fewer are confident his administration prioritises curbing inflation.

Financialisation
The US federal debt, around $39 trillion, now requires over $1 trillion in annual debt servicing from the $7 trillion annual budget.

Growing by $1.5-2.0 trillion annually, this unrepayable debt is being ‘rolled over’ for ever-shorter maturities. Hedge funds now hold 27% of US Treasuries, while foreigners, who held half in 2015, now have only 30%.

Treasury bond repurchase – or repo – agreements provide about $4 trillion in financing daily for derivatives speculation. Another financial crash can wipe out many more trillions of often dubious ‘value’.

While the US economy, productive employment, and research funding diminish, various bubbles of unrepayable debt are growing rapidly. Worse, so-called stablecoins and cryptocurrencies have infiltrated financial markets.

Meanwhile, some US mortgage delinquency rates have reached levels worse than in 2007-08. By the end of 2025, financial news agencies were publishing ominous reports of financial vulnerabilities.

Hundreds of billions of promised investments, coerced from other nations using tariff and other threats, will be invested in US financial asset markets but little of this will create manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing comeback
Trump has promised to make the US a manufacturing superpower once again, leading the world in technology, computing power and military weaponry. But China leads in many – if not most – areas of recent technological advancement.

Dean Baker found the US labour market weakening over Trump 2.0’s first year. Overall, and manufacturing jobs growth both declined from Biden’s last year.

US manufacturing jobs have long been threatened by transnational corporate globalisation and labour-saving technical change, especially automation.

US policy in recent decades has left the private sector responsible for ensuring US industrial technology leadership and progress. Meanwhile, problems, such as poor infrastructure, remain unaddressed.

Trump’s tariffs may also inadvertently reduce US jobs. Many industrial processes require imported parts, with the tariffs proving disruptive.

Trump’s policies have not created enough manufacturing jobs. The president fired his Labor Department’s statistics head in mid-2025 for not reporting enough job growth.

Nonetheless, it reported only 584,000 net new jobs for all of 2025, compared to 1.6 million in 2024, for the US labour force of 165 million!

The Wall Street Journal noted, “The manufacturing boom President Trump promised … is going in reverse”.

The Trump administration could still use the Supreme Court’s ruling to change its strategy to make America great again by drawing better lessons from US economic history and adopting a more pragmatic approach. But so far, it seems unlikely to do so.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Jewel City, a newly developed mixed-use precinct situated in the heart of the Johannesburg CBD is meant to create a safe, green and energetic place for people in the city. Credit: Gulshan Khan / Climate Visuals

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

Our food, fuel, and fortunes come from nature, but as these resources are turned into profits, the balance between exploiting and replenishing the planet is ever more precarious.

Global businesses impact nature through mining, manufacturing, processing and retail operations. At the same time, nature impacts business operations because there is a loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and high temperatures.

How global business is affecting nature and vice versa is the focus of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to be launched next week as part of the 12th session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

IPBES is the global science-policy body tasked with providing the best-available evidence to decision-makers for people and nature. IPBES assessment reports respond directly to requests from governments and decision-makers, making them immediately relevant around the world.

The plenary session got underway earlier today (February 3, 2026) with a keynote address from Emma Reynolds, MP, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and remarks by Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Kaveh Zahedi, FAO director of the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment; IPBES chair Dr. David Obura; and IPBES executive secretary Dr. Luthando Dziba.

“This week you will work to agree on the business and biodiversity assessment; I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private sector finance,” King Charles said.

Reynolds sounded an optimistic note.

“Around the world, momentum is building. Countries are restoring wetlands and forests. Communities are reviving degraded landscapes. Businesses are discovering that investing in nature delivers real returns. The tide for nature is beginning to turn. But we cannot afford to slow down. The window to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum—and we need to do it now. That is why platforms like IPBES matter more than ever. At a time when some are stepping back from international cooperation, the rest of us must step forward. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity; it’s essential for our security, our economy, and our future.”

Obura said the plenary in Manchester was symbolic, as it had been at the forefront of historical and business transformation.

“This is especially important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.”

Dziba said IPBES was on course.

“IPBES is therefore on track to deliver—over the coming years—crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.”

Professor Ximena Rueda-Fajardo, Co-chair of the BizBiodiversity Assessment. Credit: IPBES

The Business and Biodiversity Assessment report, the first of its kind, presents scientific evidence on how global business depends on and affects nature. Aimed at governments, businesses, financial institutions, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities, the assessment will provide key insights and options for businesses and financial institutions to derive better outcomes for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

After three years of work by 80 of the world’s leading experts from science, the private sector, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities across 35 countries, the assessment will help promote business accountability and transparency while improving producer and consumer knowledge of their impacts and dependencies on nature. The Business and Biodiversity Assessment was completed in a shorter time than other IPBES assessments, which typically cover four years. It was completed in two years at a total cost of more than USD 1.5 million.

Why the Assessment on Business and Biodiversity?

The assessment comes at a time scientists are warning of a climate crisis, as we are off track to reducing carbon emissions and slow progress on phasing out fossil fuels. Global business has a complex link with nature, which provides resources that drive industry, yet nature  impacts global business too.

Speaking to IPBES’s Nature Insight Speed Dating with the Future podcast, co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment, Professor Ximena Rueda Fajardo, says engaging with nature is not a business option but a necessity.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

IPBES highlights that over half of global GDP (USD 117 trillion of economic activity in 2025) is generated in sectors that are moderately to highly dependent on nature.

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report. Credit: Anastasia Rodopoulou ENB/IISD

Business and nature depend on each other. However, there are opposing views between those who advocate for nature and those involved in business on the relationship between the two. But science has found that there are interdependent linkages between nature and business.

More than half of the global economy is dependent on nature through the goods and services it provides, known as ecosystem services.

According to the World Economic Forum, biodiversity is shrinking faster than at any point in human history, and if left unchecked, up to 50 percent of all species may be lost by mid-century. In the last 50 years, land and sea-use change, climate change, natural resource use and exploitation, pollution and invasive alien species have been the major drivers of over 90 percent of the loss of biodiversity.

While it is difficult to quantify ecosystem services like food, medicines, clean air, disease control and climate regulation, they are estimated to be worth more than USD 150 trillion a year. Conservative estimates suggest that the loss of nature could cost the global economy at least USD 479 billion per year by 2050.

The Nature of Business Is Not Always Nature Friendly

Business operations have had a profound impact on nature, from pollution of the environment to waste and loss of biodiversity as a result of manufacturing and processing activities. What’s more, the current use of fossil fuels in powering industries has contributed to the rise in carbon emissions. Should businesses be adopting a new economic model that protects and preserves nature?

The rapid expansion of economic activity, without proper attention to its negative side effects, has taken its toll on nature, which in turn poses serious threats to business, IPBES found.

Engaging with nature is not optional for business but a necessity, says  Ximena Rueda, Co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment Fajardo and Professor at the School of Management at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

A Map for Business To Impact Biodiversity and Nature

The IPBES methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is expected to be approved at the 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, which opened in Manchester, United Kingdom, this week.

According to IPBES, the assessment categorizes dependencies and impacts of businesses and financial institutions on biodiversity and  nature’s contributions to people. The assessment will further highlight collaborations needed between governments, the financial sector, consumers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and civil society. It will also, through recommendations, strengthen efforts by businesses to achieve the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030 and the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Expected Impacts

The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report will provide critical information to governments, businesses and the financial sector to best measure the dependencies and impacts of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will also inform more integrated business and financial decisions and actions to simultaneously achieve the SDGs, the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report, is convinced that there is no business that doesn’t depend on biodiversity. For example, do hairdressers depend on biodiversity?

“There are so many personal care products. There are so many things to do with shampoos that are derived from botanicals, which are derived from the natural world. A huge amount of their value chain is actually contingent on people being able to access products that are naturally derived. Think about it. You look at the adverts for these products. How often are they somebody in a waterfall or somebody in a forest… So even a hairdresser, where you go to get your haircut, absolutely depends on nature.”

Jones notes that the economic system encourages businesses to extract resources from nature. It is almost by default that business will have an impact on nature.

“As soon as you start talking about nature loss and the dependency that businesses have, the conversation changes,” he said. “What we found after people started understanding the risk to the business from nature loss was actually that the level of the conversation fundamentally changed. A business doesn’t just impact nature, but it depends on it.”

“And those interactions, they all create risk to the business if we see nature continuing to decline.”

Conservative estimates suggest that a collapse of essential ecosystem services, including pollination, marine fisheries and timber provision in native forests, could result in annual losses to the global GDP of USD 2.7 trillion by 2030. Similarly, biodiversity loss is believed to be costing the global economy 10 percent of its output annually.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

Science, research, and scientific discoveries provide solutions to the pressing challenges our society faces and can improve people’s lives. Credit: Shutterstock

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Jan 27 2026 (IPS)

Scientists across the U.S., including me, are stressed after a year marked by several changes and challenges, including cuts to science funding that have stalled clinical trials and studies that could improve and save lives. Without funding, scientists worry about how they will support ongoing research and train America’s future workforce, including the next generation of innovators.

In the past, U.S. scientific research has greatly contributed to the country’s economic and military strength, helping the U.S. become a superpower. Through scientific research, several discoveries, innovations, scientific breakthroughs, and technologies, including artificial intelligence, have been realized.

These scientific advances have supported agricultural and healthcare advances, expanding U.S. life expectancy by almost 20 years. From vaccines to early disease detection to novel drugs, the returns on funding science are substantial.

We need science. Moments like the challenges of today call for reflection and offer opportunities to readjust, evolve, and move forward, including finding new ways to engage with the public and policymakers and to fund and conduct science creatively

Science, research, and scientific discoveries, after all, provide solutions to the pressing challenges our society faces and can improve people’s lives. Science guides us through these challenges, inspires us, and unites many curious minds.

We need science. Moments like the challenges of today call for reflection and offer opportunities to readjust, evolve, and move forward, including finding new ways to engage with the public and policymakers and to fund and conduct science creatively.

So how do we adjust? What actions can scientists take now?

First, scientists need to keep showing up and find creative ways to communicate science and the solutions being generated to the public, policymakers, and government administrators.

This includes unpacking how science solutions address the issues everyday people face, including their economic future, and how science advancements align with the challenges people face now.

Communicating science and research outcomes to the broader public, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the science enterprise is not easy. However, scientists have continued to develop creative ways to improve how we communicate science. Specifically, scientists are using multiple formats, including storytelling, infographics, animations, and interactive games and graphics.

These efforts must continue to expand, tapping into the many available ways to communicate science, including podcasts, blogs, social media, radio, TV, and op-eds.

To ensure maximum participation by scientists, universities and research institutions should find innovative ways to incentivize students and scientists to engage with the public and share their research.

Complementing these efforts, universities and research institutions, along with professional societies to which scientists belong, can continue to offer workshops and training to help scientists become better communicators.

For example, between 2008 and 2022, the American Association for the Advancement of Science offered several science communication workshops.

The Entomological Society of America, through its Science Policy and Advocacy initiative, trains and equips its members to advocate more effectively for entomology. Other science communication training opportunities include those offered by the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University, The OpEd Project, the American Geophysical Union, ComSciCon, and COMPASS.

Alongside these efforts, professional societies have also recognized elected officials who have continued to champion the role of science in addressing persistent societal challenges. For example, in 2025, ESA recognized Senator Susan Collins of Maine as the society’s 2025 Champion of Entomology for her continued support for science and research funding and for introducing several bills that are still pending Senate and House votes.

Second, we need to continue strengthening public and policymakers’ trust in science by improving peer review processes and ensuring that science remains transparent, rigorous, and repeatable, and that the credibility of published science remains intact. In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of paper mills producing fraudulent scientific papers. These science integrity challenges undermine scientific enterprises and create distrust among the public.

Strengthening public trust in science and scientists can take many forms, including convening town halls and public forums. Other creative ways include involving the public in citizen science research and fieldwork, allowing the public to be involved from the outset, including building the research project goals and a compelling justification for why the research question being addressed is important.

Engaging the public and involving them in shaping the scientific questions scientists pursue can not only strengthen public trust in science but also enrich outcomes by incorporating local or experiential knowledge. In doing so, public engagement helps ensure that the solutions generated by these shared projects address and solve challenges that are grounded, relevant, and meaningful to communities and the public we aim to serve.

For example, in my research on plant-microbe-insect interactions, which aims to help feed a growing population sustainably amid changing environments and to strengthen plant resilience against biotic and abiotic stressors such as insects, drought, and flooding, collaborating with farmers can directly shape the pests and crops I study and guide the questions I pursue. By doing so, the resulting research insights become responsive to the current agricultural challenges American farmers face.

Third and most importantly, there is an urgent need to develop a long-term vision and establish unbreakable funding frameworks for science to ensure that the gains we have made so far are preserved. Scientists, national academies of science, government administrators, elected officials, policymakers, the military, industry, NGOs, the public, think tanks, foundations, and all stakeholders in the science enterprise must work together to chart a new path forward.

Without bending back too far, scientists can stop, reflect, and find their path forward.

It is necessary to bring together all stakeholders in the science enterprise to create new science funding frameworks that are both acceptable and reasonable. Otherwise, the value of science and research, along with the gains made to date, could be lost.

It’s time for scientists to extend the olive branch, redouble our efforts to communicate science to society, and chart a path forward that brings everyone on board.

Esther Ngumbi, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, African American Studies Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Finland tops the world happiness rankings again. The US drops to its lowest position ever. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 27 2026 (IPS)

The United States is not so happy. Its population has received a lower happiness ranking compared to previous years. The factors contributing to this decline have significant implications for the United States, both domestically and internationally. As Dostoevsky noted, “The greatest happiness is to know the source of unhappiness”.

According to Gallup’s 2025 World Happiness Report, the United States was ranked 24th out of 147 countries, marking its lowest ranking to date (Table 1).

Source: 2025 World Happiness Report.

The top five countries in the happiness ranking were Finland, followed by Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Finland has maintained the top position for the eighth consecutive year, believed to be due to high levels of social support, healthy life expectancy, high GDP, and low corruption.

Furthermore, the populations of the United States neighbors, both to the north and south, had higher happiness rankings than the US. Despite having smaller economies and lower per capita incomes than the United States, Mexico ranked 10th and Canada ranked 18th on happiness among the 147 countries.

In contrast to the Nordic countries, the world’s unhappiest country was once again Afghanistan, with its population reporting particularly poor individual life evaluations. The government dominated by the Taliban continues to make life difficult for women and girls, limiting their access to education and employment.

Sierra Leone ranked as the second least happy country, believed to be a result of significant human rights violations. Lebanon followed closely behind in the 145th position due to its ongoing economic crisis and involvement in regional conflicts.

Happiness rankings vary significantly among the world’s largest economies. Among the top ten countries with the largest economies, Canada held the highest ranking at 18 in 2025, followed by Germany at 22, the United Kingdom at 23, and the United States at 24 (Table 2).

Source: 2025 World Happiness Report.

Since 2012, the mood among the population of the United States has been declining, dropping from 11th to 24th in the global happiness rankings (Figure 1).

Source: World Happiness Reports.

One of the important factors contributing to the low and declining happiness score of the United States is that many of the country’s population feel disconnected, experience financial insecurity, and are socially isolated from those around them.

The disconnection, insecurity, and social isolation are thought to result from the country’s political polarization, votes against “the system”, and general mistrust. The decline in social trust among the US population contributes a large share of the political polarization occurring across the country.

The drop in social trust in the United States arises from the growing despair among the population, frustration with the government, and striking wealth inequalities, which contribute to misperceptions among the country’s voters, leading to a worrisome “us vs. them” mentality.

Despite its national wealth, overall trends across the United States indicate eroding social bonds, increasing political polarization, worsening mental well-being, declining social trust, and rising loneliness. As a result, the country’s population of 343 million is becoming unhappier with each passing year

Additionally, there is a generational divide among the US population, with younger individuals below the age of 30 reporting significantly lower levels of happiness and social connection compared to older generations. This generational gap contributes to dragging down the overall happiness ranking of the United States.

Moreover, despite being a wealthy nation with the world’s largest economy, economic inequalities, the high cost of living, and feelings of financial insecurity are factors contributing to the country’s relatively low happiness ranking. In stark contrast to the United States, Nordic populations have strong social safety nets with support systems that reduce financial insecurity, provide healthcare, and emphasize connection and collective well-being.

Another significant factor believed to be contributing to a not-so-happy United States is the increasing number of people in the population feeling lonely. The United States is considered one of the top five loneliest countries in the world, with 21% of the population reporting feeling lonely always or almost always.

Several years ago, a national survey of the US population found that more than three in five people reported feeling lonely, with increasing numbers experiencing feelings of being left out, misunderstood, and lacking companionship.

In 2025, approximately one in five people in the United States reported that they typically eat their meals alone. Eating alone in the US has become increasingly common across all age groups, particularly among young people. Eating with others is closely linked to well-being, as social connections are crucial for young adults and can help mitigate the negative effects of stress.

The epidemic level of loneliness in the United States, coupled with the rise of single-person households over the past two decades, has exacerbated feelings of disconnection among the country’s population. In contrast, populations in countries with higher levels of happiness have stronger family bonds, a sense of belonging, and more social interactions than the population of the United States.

In summary, despite its national wealth, overall trends across the United States indicate eroding social bonds, increasing political polarization, worsening mental well-being, declining social trust, and rising loneliness. As a result, the country’s population of 343 million is becoming unhappier with each passing year.

Lastly, there is an intriguing political question regarding the consequences of the United States’ unhappiness on its government’s domestic and international policies. If the United States were happier, perhaps its voters would not have elected its current leaders, who are implementing contentious policies, controversial programs, and vindictive schemes.

These policies, programs, and schemes involve taking harsh actions against the country’s immigrants, U.S. citizens who protest these actions, and the media that report on these events. They also include capturing the president and the wife of another country, investigating political opponents and dissidents, promoting false claims, dismissing established facts, pardoning convicted insurrectionists, threatening with tariffs and economic blackmail, attempting to purchase, acquire, or take control of Greenland, dismantling the post-World War II international system, and turning allies into enemies.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Image: AI generated / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Jan 19 2026 (IPS)

 
The Trump administration’s recent announcement of its withdrawal from 66 international organisations has been met with a mixture of alarm and applause. While the headline number suggests a dramatic retreat from the world stage, a closer look reveals a more nuanced, and perhaps more insidious, strategy. The move is less a wholesale abandonment of the United Nations system and more a targeted pruning of the multilateral vine, aimed at withering specific branches of global cooperation that the administration deems contrary to its interests. While the immediate financial impact may be less than feared, the long-term consequences for the UN and the rules-based international order are profound.

At first glance, the withdrawal appears to be a sweeping rejection of global engagement. The list of targeted entities is long and diverse, ranging from the well-known UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to more obscure bodies like the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. However, as Eugene Chen has astutely observed, the reality is more complex. The vast majority of the UN-related entities on the list are not independent international organisations, but rather subsidiary bodies, funds, and programmes of the UN itself. The administration is not, for now, withdrawing from the UN Charter, but rather selectively defunding and disengaging from the parts of the UN system it finds objectionable.

This selective approach reveals a clear ideological agenda. The targeted entities are overwhelmingly focused on issues that the Trump administration has long disdained: climate change, sustainable development, gender equality, and human rights. The list includes the UN’s main development arm, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs; its primary gender entity, UN Women; and a host of bodies dedicated to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The inclusion of the UN’s regional economic commissions, which play a vital role in promoting regional cooperation and development, is particularly telling. This is not simply a cost-cutting exercise; it is a deliberate attempt to dismantle the architecture of global cooperation in areas that do not align with the administration’s narrow, nationalist worldview.

The decision to remain a member of the UN’s specialised agencies, such as the World Health Organization (from which the administration has already announced its withdrawal in a separate action) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is equally revealing. This is not a sign of a renewed commitment to multilateralism, but rather a cold, calculated decision based on a narrow definition of US national security interests. The administration has made it clear that it sees these agencies as useful tools to counter the influence of a rising China. This ‘à la carte’ approach to multilateralism, where the US picks and chooses which parts of the system to support based on its own geopolitical interests, is deeply corrosive to the principles of collective security and universal values that underpin the UN Charter.

What, then, should be done? The international community cannot afford to simply stand by and watch as the UN system is hollowed out from within. A concerted effort is needed to mitigate the damage and reaffirm the importance of multilateral cooperation.

First, other member states must step up to fill the financial and leadership void left by the United States. This will require not only increased financial contributions, but also a renewed political commitment to the UN’s work in the areas of sustainable development, climate action, and human rights. Second, civil society organisations and the academic community have a crucial role to play in monitoring the impact of the US withdrawal and advocating for the continued relevance of the affected UN entities. Finally, the UN itself must do a better job of communicating its value to a sceptical public. The organisation must move beyond bureaucratic jargon and technical reports to tell a compelling story about how its work makes a real difference in the lives of people around the world.

The Trump administration’s latest move is a stark reminder that the post-war international order can no longer be taken for granted. It is a call to action for all who believe in the power of multilateralism to address our shared global challenges. The UN may be a flawed and imperfect institution, but it remains our best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world. We must not allow it to wither on the vine.

Related articles by this author:
Venezuela and the UN’s Proxy War Moment
The Danger of a Transactional Worldview
The Choice Is Still Clear: Renewing the UN Charter at 80

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Refugees by Honoré Daumier (1808-1879)

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

At the moment, ICE’s advancement in the U.S. is apparently dividing the nation’s population into desired and undesirable elements. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was born after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and intended to be a response to terrorism. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, federal immigration agents have become the president’s praetorian guard, implementing his immigration politics.

ICE has currently 22,000 employees, a number destined to grow thanks to new recruits. Its budget is USD 30 billion a year. During 2025, the agency’s spending on fire arms has grown 600 percent. Its agents generally act with their faces covered, and move around heavily armed, in unmarked vehicles.

ICE agent, photo from Huffington Post

This while it has been indicated that between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians on Russian-occupied territories have been deported to Russia, including 260,000 children. Outside of Europe similar activities are taking place in several other areas. For example, in Gaza where from the beginning of the Gaza war on 13 October 2023, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) forced the evacuation of 1.1 million people from Northen Gaza, while the land strip has been bombed and destroyed.

We have to admit that after reaching catastrophic dimensions during the last century the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing is still with us. As the herd animals that we are, we humans have become afflicted with the unfortunate trait of dividing individuals into groups, which we judge and treat according to broad generalizations based on people’s group affiliation, regardless of their unique personality.

Given the xenophobic storms now raging in both in the U.S. and Europe, it may be appropriate to recall the human disasters that such behaviour has caused on their continents. The genocide that the indigenous people of the U.S. were subjected to is well known, and also when during World War II U.S. forcibly relocated and incarcerated about 120,000 U.S, citizens of Japanese descent in various concentration camps. Lesser known is probably the forced deportation of between 300,000 and 2 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939, forty to sixty percent of them were U.S, citizens and overwhelmingly children.

The European 20th century history of mass deportations and human slaughter is even darker. It began at the outskirts of the continent when Russian forces between 1863 and 1878 invaded Circassia by the Black Sea, systematically killing and deporting 95 to 97 percent of its population, resulting in the deaths of between 1 and 1.5 million. This was followed by the pogroms, i.e. mass killings of Jews, in for example Odessa (1881), Kishinev (1903), Kiev (1905), and Bialystok (1906), leaving more than 2,000 dead and resulting in a mass migration of Jews from the affected areas, worsened during the following civil war when 35,000 to 250,000 Jews were massacred between 1918 and 1920. At the same time the Bolshevik regime killed and/or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Don Cossacks.

After World War I between 90,000 and 300,000 Albanians were deported from Yugoslavia and up to 80,000 were killed during this new nation’s colonization of Kosovo. The expulsion and genocide of Armenians and Greeks which occurred in Turkish Anatolia both during and after World War I resulted in mass migrations and between 2 and 3 million Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were killed. Over 1.2 million ethnic Greeks were expelled from Turkey in 1922-1924, while the Greeks expelled 400,000 Muslims.

Even worse was to come. Between 1935 and 1945, Nazi Germany systematically killed an estimated 130,500 Roma and Sinti people and between 1938 and 1945 more than 6 million Jews. During the same period Nazi German forces killed 3 million Ukrainians, 1,6 million Poles, 1,6 million Russians, 1,4 million Byelorussians. The German allies in Croatia massacred between 200,000 and 500,000 Serbs, as well as approximately 25,000 Roma/Sinti and 30,000 Jews. Their adversaries, the Serbs, killed 32,000 Croats and 33.000 Bosniaks.

The overwhelming part of all these victims were civilians, not combatants, and the estimations above are only some examples of massacres and deportations that occurred all over Europe during World War II.

In the Soviet Union (USSR), Stalin ordered the resettlement of more than 3,5 million ethnic minorities – Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Chechens, Balts, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachays, Turks, and Ingush. Many of them never returned to their homelands and up to 400,000 deaths due to these expulsions were archived by Soviet authorities.

Before that the Holodomor, a massive man-made famine from 1932 to 1933 had killed 3.5 to 5 million in Ukraine, as well as 62,000 in the Kuban area, while over 300,000 Ukrainians were deported to Kazakhstan, where many died.

All these numbers are just estimations and they might be higher or lower. However, we have to keep in mind that behind every single number we find cruelty and unimaginable suffering.

At the conclusion of World War I, it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place, but during and after World War II what happened was rather the opposite – boundaries remained broadly intact (though USSR significantly expanded its territory) and people were moved instead … millions of them.

For example, 1.6 to 2 million Poles were by the invading Germans expelled from their lands, not counting millions of slave workers deported from Poland to the German Reich. At the same time the USSR transferred 380,000 Poles from their home territories, while 410 000 Finns had to leave Karelia, ceded to the USSR.

On top of that, losses on the battle fields were enormous – Soviet Union lost 6 million soldiers, Germany 4 million, Italy 400,000, and Romania 300,000. If combining military and civilian losses Poland lost one person in 5 of her pre-war population, Yugoslavia one in 8 and Greece one in 14, compared with one in 15 in Germany and 1one in 77 in France.

Nazi Germany captured 5.5 million Soviet soldiers and out of them 3.3 million died in the camps, of the 750,000 German soldiers captured by USSR 20,000 survived.

All this cruelty continued after the war and it was now members of ethnic groups connected with loosing nations who were lumped together into one unit, where individuals came to suffer, both the guilty and the innocent ones.

At the Potsdam Conference from 17 July to 2 August 1945 the heads of the leading Allies – the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. – agreed upon “orderly and humane” expulsions of the “German populations” from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but not Yugoslavia and Romania. As a result, between 13,5 and 16.5 million “ethnic Germans” were expulsed from Central and Eastern European countries.

Estimates of the number of those who died during this process are being debated and range from a half to 3 million. As an example, investigations by a joint German and Czech commission of historians did in 1995 established that 2.1 million ethnic Germans were deported from Czechoslovakia to Germany. The death toll was at least 15,000 persons, but it could range up to a maximum of 30,000 dead, if one assumes that many deaths were not reported.

Yugoslavia was a particularly horrifying example of ethnic cleansing both during and after World War II. As mentioned above Croats and Serbs constantly massacred each other. During the so called foibe massacres (foibes are sink holes common in the region and many victims were thrown into them) ethnic Italians were killed by Communist partisans. During and after the war these crimes caused an exodus amounting to between 230,000 and 350,000 “ethnic Italians”, estimates of massacred victims range from 3,000 to 11,000.

These are just a few examples of expulsions and massacres of some Europeans, without mentioning the horrible fate of many Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Turks, and many others who happened to be minorities in countries where they had lived for centuries. While considering this often forgotten, or at least unmentioned, history of millions of unwelcomed victims and refugees criss-crossing a bombed out and miserable Europe it is difficult to comprehend that so many descendants of these suffering people are now gathering around xenophobic parties which make refugeeism, whether for one’s life, or due to general misery, a crime.

Contemplating the heavily armed ICE agents in the U.S. “liberating” their nation from “foreign elements” you might easily evoke images of equally armed SS troopers, Soviet NKVD agents, Romanian Iron Guards, Croatian Ustaše and many similar units who expelled, and often killed, ethnic groups all over Europe.

Main sources: Judt, Tony (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. London: Vintage. Lieberman, Benjamin (2013) Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Totten, Samuel et al., eds. (1997) Century of Genocide; Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York: Garland Publishing.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Before military aid is appropriated, troops deployed, or bombs dropped, the United States lays the groundwork for its political violence by first stripping adversaries of their humanity. Diplomacy is sidelined, legal restraints are treated as inconveniences, and profit is valued over human life. This machinery of dehumanization, imposed around the world for decades and honed in Gaza the past three years, has now returned home, turned inward against Americans by the elected officials and systems meant to protect them.

Melek Zahine

And always, decade after decade, lingered U.S. patronage for Israel’s own wars, especially towards Palestinian self-determination. Israeli human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories—excessive force, collective punishment, illegal settlement expansion, and arbitrary detention—have been documented in U.S. State Department reports since the 1970s. Yet Washington continued to expand military aid, making Israel the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in history. After October 7, despite warnings from multiple U.S. government officials that Israel’s response to Hamas amounted to the collective punishment of Gaza’s 2.1 million population, nearly half of which is children, both the Biden and Trump administrations approved tens of billions of dollars in emergency arms transfers. These transfers proceeded despite evidence that U.S.-supplied arms, including chemical weapons and 2,000-pound bombs, were being used by Israel on Gaza’s densely populated civilian neighborhoods—violating both international law and domestic laws, namely the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Law. Over decades of support, but especially the past three years, U.S. support to Israel helped refine its own language of dehumanization towards Palestinians by consistently framing the killing of civilians as nameless and “unavoidable” incidents of Israel’s right to self-defense and laying the rhetorical foundation for the genocide in Gaza.

The Empire Comes Home

The militarized ICE raids now taking place across the United States rely on tactics, equipment, and doctrines supplied by the very military industrial complex that has profited from Gaza. The same officials who reduced Palestinians to “terrorists” or those shielding them now use that language at home, casting Americans protecting their communities as “threats to be neutralized” rather than citizens with inalienable rights. President Trump’s reluctance to say Renée Good’s name after a federal ICE agent fatally shot her in Minneapolis last week—framing the encounter as “self-defense”—echoes how Palestinians killed in Gaza by U.S.-supplied weapons and political cover are discussed as abstract, unnamed casualties. Naming the powerful while rendering the vulnerable nameless shields perpetrators and exposes the persistent logic of dehumanization that now bridges U.S. foreign policy and domestic policing.

Reclaiming Our Humanity

In his 1961 Farewell Address, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that an unchecked military-industrial complex could distort democratic governance at home. Yet even as he spoke, he oversaw the very coups and interventions that entrenched permanent militarization. We are now living in the reality he feared. Washington’s ongoing complicity in Gaza, its increasingly aggressive posture toward Venezuela and Greenland, and its authoritarian behavior at home are a stark reminder: when dehumanization goes unchecked in U.S. foreign policy, it is only a matter of time before it goes unchecked domestically.

If Gaza and America’s long history of dehumanization have taught us anything, it’s that Americans cannot depend on their political elites to restrain their appetite for abusive authority. Average citizens must move beyond mere condemnation and toward sustained civic action. This means voting out officials beholden to war-profiteering lobbies, reasserting congressional power over the executive branch, and demanding the enforcement of laws designed to prevent U.S. complicity in human rights abuses overseas and the rule of law at home. The challenge ahead is truly immense—but ending the machinery of dehumanization is not inevitable and remains within the reach of those Americans determined to reclaim their shared humanity for one another and the world.

Melek Zahine is a writer and advocate focusing on the intersection of humanitarian assistance and U.S. foreign policy.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: WMO/Daniel Pavlinovic / UN News

By Center for International Environmental Law
WASHINGTON, USA, Jan 9 2026 (IPS)

The Trump Administration’s sweeping executive order to withdraw the United States from dozens of United Nations bodies and international organizations, as well as a treaty ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the US Senate, is a targeted assault on multilateralism, international law, and global institutions critical to safeguarding human rights, peace, and climate justice.

This move, the constitutionality and legal effect of which are questionable, was announced under the guise of protecting US interests, but does exactly the opposite. By divesting from global cooperation on the environment, human rights, democracy, and peace, the US puts its own future, and that of the planet, at greater risk.

The Executive Order represents a deliberate effort to dismantle the international infrastructure designed to uphold dignity, protect children, improve gender and racial equality, advance sustainable development, preserve the oceans, and confront the climate crisis. It undermines bodies that safeguard the global commons and ensure basic protections for marginalized people and those in vulnerable situations around the world, including refugees, women, children, people of African descent, and many others.

Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said:

“This executive order is not just a policy shift— it is a direct assault on the multilateral system that has helped prevent conflict, advance human rights, and protect the global commons for nearly eighty years. At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat.”

“The decision to defund and withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change and remedy climate harm, as the world’s highest court made clear last year. This action is simply a continuation of this Administration’s efforts to prioritize corporate interests over people and planet, and flout the rule of law.

Withdrawing from institutions designed to support global climate action does not change the stark reality of the climate crisis, rebut the irrefutable evidence of its causes, or eliminate the US’s clear responsibility for its consequences. Withdrawal only serves to further isolate the US to the detriment of its own population and billions around the world.”

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session in 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider.

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s executive order to stop United States support for 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations (UN) groups, has faced strong opposition from these organizations, the global community, humanitarian experts, and climate advocates, who are concerned about the negative effects on global cooperation, sustainable development, and international peace and security.

This executive order follows earlier withdrawals from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The United States has recently reduced its funding for foreign aid organizations.

The majority of the affected bodies in this executive order are organizations that center around issues in climate change, labor, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement from the U.S. Department of State, it is confirmed that Trump’s review of these organizations found them to be “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful.”

The executive order primarily affects organizations that address climate change, labor rights, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement, the department described the organizations, calling them vehicles for “progressive ideologies” funded by American taxpayers and misaligned with United States’ national interests.

“The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” said United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

The order instructs all executive departments and agencies to begin implementing the withdrawals immediately. For the affected UN agencies, this entails ending United States participation and halting funding. Rubio also confirmed that the review of additional international organizations is still underway.

Humanitarian experts and spokespersons for many of the affected entities have voiced alarm and condemnation with President Trump’s order, warning of severe consequences for climate action, human rights, peacebuilding efforts, multilateral governance, and global crisis-response systems—particularly at a time of mounting international instability.

“Today, we are witnessing a complete shift from global cooperation towards transactional relations,” said Yamide Dagnet, Senior International Vice President at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

“It is becoming less about shared principles, rule of law, and solidarity, thereby risking more global instability. By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot. With diminishing credibility and competitiveness in the industries of the future, the United States will be missing out on job creation and innovation, ceding scientific and technological leadership to other countries,” Dagnet said.

She called on world leaders to commit to multilateralism.

“The world is bigger than the United States—and so are the solutions to our problems, which require global cooperation more than ever, including among states, provinces, and cities globally. This is the moment when world leaders need to resolutely commit to multilateral collaboration if we’re going to overcome these global threats to ensure a safe and sustainable future for all.”

Many have also criticized the United States’ à la carte approach to meeting its international obligations, only supporting the operations and agencies that align with President Trump’s priorities.

“I think what we’re seeing is the crystallization of the United States approach to multilateralism, which is ‘my way or the highway,’” said Daniel Forti, the head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group. “It’s a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.”

The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) said it regretted “the deeply disappointing news of the United States’ intention to withdraw its participation in IPBES, along with more than 60 other international organizations and bodies.”

Dr. David Obura, Chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), said the U.S. was a founding member and “scientists, policymakers and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to the work of IPBES since its establishment in 2012, making valuable contributions to objective science-based assessments of the state of the planet for people and nature.”

Apart from their contributions to IPBES, “decision-makers in the United States—at all levels and in all spheres of society—have also been among the most prolific users of the work produced by IPBES to help better inform policy, regulations, investments and future research.”

Obura thanked the United States for their contribution but noted that the withdrawal would have a massive impact on IPBES and the planet.

“Unfortunately, we cannot withdraw from the fact that more than 1 million species of plants and animals face extinction. Nor can we change the fact that the global economy is losing as much as USD 25 trillion per year in environmental impacts, or restore the missed opportunities of not acting now to generate more than USD 10 trillion in business opportunity value and 395 million jobs by 2030.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing approximately 22 percent of the organization’s regular budget and roughly 28 percent of all peacekeeping funds.

The withdrawal of United States support from 31 UN bodies is expected to trigger substantial budget shortfalls, cutbacks in humanitarian staffing, and the loss of critical technical expertise supplied by its personnel. These setbacks are likely to hinder progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reduce food assistance and medical services for people in protracted crises, and embolden authoritarian governments to resist humanitarian oversight and intervention.

“The US decision to disengage from dozens of United Nations programs and agencies, along with other international bodies, is just President Trump’s latest assault on human rights protections and the global rule of law,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).

“Whether withdrawing from the Human Rights Council or defunding the UN Population Fund, which helps millions of women and girls around the world, this administration has been trying to destroy the very same human rights institutions that the US helped build over the last 80 years. UN member countries should resist the US campaign to demolish tools they use to uphold human rights and ensure that vital UN programs have the funding and political support they need.”

At a press briefing at the UN Headquarters, Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, informed reporters of the UN’s reaction to the United States withdrawal, emphasizing that the UN remains committed to assisting people in need regardless of United States participation

“As we have consistently underscored, assessed contributions to the United Nations regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all Member States, including the United States,” said Dujarric.

“All United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given by Member States. The United Nations has a responsibility to deliver for those who depend on us.  We will continue to carry out our mandates with determination.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

While US President Donald Trump has blamed the BRICS and foreign investors for de-dollarisation, his rhetoric, actions and policy measures are mainly responsible for the trend’s recent acceleration.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Despite some temporary reversals, the dollar’s post-World War II role as world reserve currency has gradually declined over the decades, especially since the 1970s. Ben Norton has argued that several Trump measures have accelerated this trend.

Trump claims his supposedly ‘reciprocal tariffs’ will reduce the US trade or current account deficit with the rest of the world. But if countries cannot export to the US, they cannot earn dollars to meet their trade and investment needs.

Many believe Trump’s tariffs and other threats are enhancing US leverage vis-à-vis others, but their reactions, including defensive countermeasures, are accelerating de-dollarisation.

Trump’s measures, such as his insistence on bilateral negotiations, have alarmed most nations, including long-time allies. As nations, including allies, rethink their economic relations with and vulnerability to the US, de-dollarisation inadvertently accelerates.

Trump vs the Fed
The US Federal Reserve Bank’s overnight lending or funds rate has been higher since 2022, responding to higher consumer price inflation following the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As the Fed raised interest rates, yields on US government debt rose. But Trump now wants the Fed to cut interest rates to reduce the high debt servicing costs of both the government and private corporations.

In 2024, the US federal government paid about 3% of GDP in debt interest alone. Although such debt exceeds 120% of GDP, debt service costs are deemed manageable as long as interest rates remain low.

Trump’s pressures on the Fed to cut interest rates have inadvertently undermined investor confidence and prompted ‘flights [from dollar assets] to safety’.

Trump’s recent campaign against his earlier Fed chair appointee, Jerome Powell, has inadvertently raised investor concerns about his espoused monetary policy priorities.

Inflation fears persist
Investors now worry that Trump is pressuring the Fed to cut interest rates. They believe this will stoke inflation and cause the dollar to fall against other major currencies. As Trump is seen forcing down interest rates, he risks being blamed for persistent inflation.

If the Fed buys US Treasuries to reduce yields, for a new round of ‘quantitative easing’ (QE), dollar asset investments will realise lower, if not negative, real yields.

Although inflation hawks’ worst fears of higher inflation have not materialised so far, few believe tariffs will not raise inflation.

Expecting Trump 2.0 to impose more tariffs, many US companies stockpiled imports before April 2. As tariffs took effect and stocks declined, prices rose.

Many investors have sold their dollar assets as monetary authorities worldwide seek alternatives to the greenback. Such sell-offs lower the dollar’s value, further spurring de-dollarisation.

Trump now wants to lower US Treasury bond yields as foreign governments and investors seek alternatives to holding dollar assets.

Many are considering switching to non-dollar assets despite stagnation tendencies elsewhere in the Global North, especially in Europe and Japan. If investors stop buying dollar assets or sell them to purchase non-dollar assets, de-dollarisation will gain momentum.

Foreign demand falling
Washington is understandably worried that foreign investors will dump Treasury securities. In 2015, a third was held by foreigners, but this has since fallen to under a quarter.

The ‘Mar-A-Lago Accord’ proposal, which requires foreign governments to hold US Treasury ‘century bonds’ for 100 years despite assured losses, will compound resentment.

Lowering Treasury bond yields is both risky and difficult due to the highly financialised US economy. Past bond market turmoil has triggered stock market selloffs, lowering Treasury yields, share prices and tax revenue.

Government and corporate borrowing costs rise together. As trillions of dollars’ worth of corporate bonds mature over the next two years, high interest rates will raise corporations’ borrowing costs. Many want to refinance at lower interest rates.

These efforts to bring down interest rates are apparent to all. But lower interest rates and negative ‘actual yields’ for Treasury securities will ensure high inflation persists.

De-dollarisation accelerating?
Trump’s actions, especially threats of tariffs and sanctions, have elicited diverse reactions, often undermining dollar hegemony and accelerating de-dollarisation.

Many recent developments have undermined public confidence in the US government and the rule of law, accelerating de-dollarisation.

As investors sold US assets in mid-2025, the dollar saw its biggest fall since the 1973 oil price hike. It fell by over 10% against other major currencies, triggering temporary falls in the prices of many financial assets, including equities and bonds.

Since then, there has been increased capital market uncertainty and volatility, as in the US bond market, although a strong rally followed the ensuing stock market crash.

In many recent episodes of financial volatility, dollar liquidity was considered the safe option. But in 2025, confidence in dollar assets fell, prompting selloffs and de-dollarisation.

Thus far, Trump has been adept at managing short-term volatility, but his style implies no one knows when the music will stop.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Security Council Meets on Threats to International Peace and Security. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Cecilia Russell
UNITED NATIONS & JOHANNESBURG, Jan 5 2026 (IPS)

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern about the immediate future of Venezuela.

In a statement read by Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, Guterres told the Security Council’s emergency meeting he was deeply concerned about “possible intensification of the instability in the country, the potential impact on the region, and the precedent it may set for how relations between and among states are conducted.”

On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he was putting Venezuela under temporary American control following the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Adela Flores, in a raid and whisking them to New York to face charges, including drug trafficking.

Guterres stated at the emergency Security Council meeting, which was set to discuss threats to international peace and security, that the situation in Venezuela has been a matter of regional and international concern for many years.

“Attention on the country only grew following the contested presidential elections in July 2024. The panel of electoral experts I appointed at the Venezuelan Government’s request to accompany the elections highlighted serious issues. We have consistently called for full transparency and the complete publication of the results of the elections.”

Yet, he said, it was necessary to respect international law.

“I have consistently stressed the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.

“I remain deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected with regard to the 3 January military action.”

Guterres called on all Venezuelan actors to engage in an inclusive, democratic dialogue in which all sectors of society can determine their future.

Jeffrey Sachs, the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, urged the UN Security Council to declare an immediate cessation and desist from any explicit or implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela.

He also requested the council demand the United States terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken without Security Council authorization.

Merchy de Freitas, founder and executive director of Transparencia Venezuela, the national chapter of Transparency International, said the country ranked among the world’s most corrupt countries, with over 500 documented cases involving USD 72 billion, mostly public funds.

She said there was a symbiotic relationship between the Maduro regime and criminal organizations, which have exploited national parks and the Amazon for gold and other illicit activities. The crisis has led to a decrease in state income, affecting basic services and causing severe humanitarian issues, including a lack of electricity, food, and medical care.

“The government has captured all institutions, beginning with the justice institutions,” she said. “We need a transparent state that is accountable and that will guarantee the rule of law and human rights.”

De Freitas called for a transparent and accountable state, respect for human rights, and the release of political prisoners.

A representative from Columbia expressed concern over what it considers a “violation of international law and the UN Charter and expressed concern over the regional impact, including a potential migration crisis.

She emphasized the importance of respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the principles of peaceful conflict resolution while expressing concerns over the regional impact, including potential migration crises, and calling for de-escalation and diplomatic solutions.

Russia and China, among others, condemned the United States’ action.

However, the United States informed the council that it had launched a “law enforcement operation” against Maduro and Flores, accusing them of “narcoterrorism and drug trafficking.”

Maduro, who was indicted by a New York grand jury, faces serious charges for his role in a conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking and international weapons trafficking, he told the council.

He justified the operation because Maduro’s presidency was illegitimate due to his manipulation of Venezuela’s electoral system and commented that even the UN had questioned his legitimacy. The United States also highlighted the destabilizing impact of Maduro’s regime, including the largest refugee crisis in the world, with over 8 million Venezuelans fleeing.

“Maduro and his cronies have partnered with some of the most violent and prolific drug traffickers and narcoterrorists in the world for decades, facilitating the flood of illegal drugs coming into the United States,” the representative told the Security Council, reminding the council that the United Nations had documented the excesses of the Maduro government.

The action by the United States had taken place after Trump had exhausted diplomacy, he said.

“The United States will not waver in its actions to protect Americans from the scourge of narcoterrorism and seeks peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela.”

Venezuela’s representative denounced the events of January 3, 2026, as an illegitimate armed attack by the US government.

“The events of January 3 constitute a flagrant violation of the UN Charter perpetrated by the US government, in particular, the principal violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states, of the absolute prohibition of the use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” he said.

“Today, it is not only Venezuela sovereignty that is at stake, but also the credibility of international law, the authority of this organization, and the validity of the principle that no state can set itself up as a judge, jury, and executor of the world order.”

He denied the country was dysfunctional.

“Venezuela would like to inform this body and the international community that its institutions are functioning normally, that constitutional order has been preserved, and that the state exercises effective control over all of its territory in accordance with our Constitution.

While Spain said they did not recognize the Maduro presidency, they were concerned that the United States’ action would set a worrying precedent.

“We share the view that fighting organized crime in the region is a priority, but that fight can only be waged through international cooperation. We also share the view that it is a priority to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms in Venezuela,” the representative said, adding that it would “work to unite Venezuelans, men and women. Spain is committed to dialogue and peace, because force never brings more democracy.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The new US National Security Strategy (NSS) repositions the superpower’s role in the world. Hence, foreign policy will be mainly driven by considerations of ‘making America great again’ (MAGA).

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Quietly released on December 4, it is certainly not an easily forgettable update of long-established positions, cloaked in obscure bureaucratic and diplomatic parlance.

Mainly drafted under the leadership of ‘neo-con’ Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, it is already seen as the most significant document of Trump 2.0.

It asserts, “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” Instead, foreign policy should now prioritise advancing US interests.

New priorities
The NSS implies the US will no longer be the world’s policeman. Instead, it will exercise power selectively, prioritising transactional rather than strategic considerations.

It emphasises economic strength as key to national security, rebuilding industrial capacity, securing supply chains and ensuring the US never relies on others for critical materials.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

The NSS is ostensibly based on MAGA considerations involving immigration control, hemispheric dominance, and cultural ethno-chauvinism.

Mainstream commentators complain it lacks the supposedly enlightened values underlying foreign policy in the US-dominated world order after the Second World War.

They complain the new NSS is narrow in focus, redefining interests, and sharing power. Its stance and tone are said to be more 19th-century than 21st-century.

Besides pragmatic imperatives, mixed messages may be due to unsatisfactory compromises among rival factions in Trump’s administration.

MAGA foreign policy
Long-term observers see the NSS as unprecedented and blatantly ideological.

White supremacist ideology influences not only national cultural politics but also foreign policy. The NSS unapologetically promotes Judaeo-Christian chauvinism despite the constitutional separation of church from state.

MAGA’s ‘America First’ priority is evident throughout. Border security is crucial as immigration is deemed the primary national security concern.

For Samuel Huntington, immigration threatens the US by making it less WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).

The NSS blames social and economic breakdown on immigration. Inflows into the Western Hemisphere, not just the US, must be urgently stopped by all available means.

Ironically, the US has long been a nation of immigrants, with relatively more immigrants than any European country. Its non-white numbers are almost equal to whites.

Trump’s neocolonial interpretation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine emphasises the Americas as the new foreign policy priority.

Foreign rivals must not be allowed to acquire strategic assets, ports, mines, or infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean, mainly to keep China out.

Trump’s NSS prioritises the Western Hemisphere, with Asia second. Africa receives three paragraphs, primarily for its minerals.

Europe is downgraded to third, due to its ostensible immigration-induced civilizational decline. Surprisingly, the NSS urges halting North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion.

China near peer!
The NSS policy on China is widely viewed as unexpectedly restrained. China remains a priority, but is no longer its primary antagonist; it is now a peer competitor.

Now, the US must rebalance its economic relationship with China based on mutually beneficial reciprocity, fairness, and the resurgence of US manufacturing.

The US will continue to work with allies to limit China’s growth and technological progress. However, China is allowed to develop green technologies due to US disinterest.

Meanwhile, US hawks have ensured a military ‘overmatch’ for Taiwan. The NSS emphasises Taiwan’s centrality to Indo-Pacific security and world chip production.

The NSS warns China would gain access to the Second Island Chain if it captured Taiwan, reshaping regional power and threatening vital US trade routes.

With allied support, the US military will seek to contain China within the First Island Chain. However, Taiwan fears US support will wane after TSMC chip production moves to the US.

The NSS expects the ‘Quad’ of the US, Australia, Japan and India to enhance Indo-Pacific security. For Washington, only India can balance China in Asia, and is hence crucial to contain China in the long term.

Regional reordering
The NSS also downgrades the Middle East (ME). Conditions that once made the region important have changed.

The ME’s importance stemmed from its petroleum and Western guilt over Israel. Now, the US has become a significant oil and gas exporter.

Critically, the US strike on Iran in mid-2025 is believed to have set back Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The ME seems unlikely to continue to drive US strategic planning as it has over the last half-century. For the US, the region is now expected to be a major investor.

As US foreign policy is redefined, the world worries. The ME has been downgraded as Latin America has become the new frontline region.

Much has happened in less than a year of Trump 2.0, with little clear or consistent pattern of continuity or change from his first term. But policies have also been quickly reversed or revised.

While the NSS is undoubtedly important and indicative, it would be presumptuous to think it will actually determine policy over the next three years, or even in the very near future.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses US civil society action under the second Trump administration with Bridget Moix, General Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the oldest faith-based lobbying organisation in the USA, advocating for peace, justice and environmental stewardship. Bridget has participated in the No Kings movement, a nationwide grassroots response to democratic backsliding and attacks on rights.

Bridget Moix

What drives the No Kings movement?

We are experiencing a rapid and devastating rise of authoritarianism. Since coming into office for his second term, Trump has embarked on a relentless campaign to undo generations of democratic institution building and international law while pursuing his own interests and the interests of billionaires. He has launched a militarised mass deportation campaign against immigrants that is ripping families apart and disappearing people from our streets. At the same time, he is dismantling core government agencies and firing hundreds of thousands of federal employees, punishing political opponents and rewarding those who are willing to serve him and his so-called ‘America First’ agenda.

Many people across the political spectrum are deeply troubled by what he’s doing and see it as a major attack on core principles of democracy, which have been at the heart of the struggle for freedom and equality since the country’s founding. The USA was founded on the rejection of rule by monarchy, a declaration against kings doing what they want at the expense of the public. The No Kings movement recalls that history and speaks out against Trump’s authoritarian actions today.

What have the protests been like, and what role is civil society playing beyond the streets?

The first protests brought about five million people in 1,500 cities and towns across the USA onto the streets to stand up for democracy. More recent protests in October brought seven million people out in 2,600 towns and cities.

What’s impressive about these protests is they bring a wide diversity of people together, across traditional social and political boundaries, who all believe our democracy is at real risk and we need to resist Trump’s authoritarianism. Even in very small towns, large groups gather, including people who have never protested before but feel they must do something now. That gives me hope.

Beyond the protests, US civil society has been very active and is learning and taking inspiration from movements elsewhere, as well as from our history of democratic struggle. Civil society groups have been quick to take legal action to sue the Trump administration for its overreach and continue to do so. They provide training every week on non-violent resistance and monitor immigration enforcement activity. Faith leaders have been speaking out and holding vigils and taking part in civil disobedience. Many groups are advocating with Congress to uphold its constitutional powers and provide a check on the Trump administration. Mutual aid groups are providing support for migrants and others at risk across the country. People are also working to build long-term resilience individually and in solidarity with others because we know this could be a long struggle.

How are immigration policies affecting communities?

Immigration raids and detentions are happening across the USA. I live in Washington DC, where Trump has deployed the national guard to further militarise our communities. The White House has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) free rein to terrorise people, detaining them from their homes, schools and workplaces as well as off the street, in front of their families. ICE officers drive unmarked vehicles, wear masks and do not follow due process as they should under US law.

Here in DC we’ve had at least 1,200 people detained in two months, probably many more. They are often taken without any warning and transported hundreds of miles to detention centres. Their families struggle to find out what happened to them and get legal help. Many people who are here legally have been swept up in these detentions, including US citizens. Many families are too afraid to send their children to school or leave their house. All of us know families who have been affected. The economy is also being affected.

However, the good news is that communities are standing up and working around the clock to support and protect one another, document and interrupt abuses and urge our leaders to push back against this mass cruelty campaign. Neighbourhood groups in Chicago, DC, Los Angeles and elsewhere are organising rapid response teams and sharing learning with each other to build resistance and solidarity.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The Trump administration doesn’t care about protests and just tries to ignore them or spread lies about them. We are used to that. What is important though is that we’re beginning to see more movement among members of Congress, whose constituents are protesting and advocating with them, and the protests are building the awareness and broader engagement of the public we need to push back.

Research shows that it takes 3.5 per cent of the population engaged in civil resistance to overcome authoritarian regimes. We have 330 million people in this country, and with each major protest we’re getting closer to that threshold.

What needs to happen to protect democracy?

We need to continue building an engaged and active movement of people who speak up, push back and advocate to rein in the Trump administration’s authoritarian takeover. We need to draw on the lessons from our history of struggles for freedom such as the Civil Rights movement, as well as lessons from grassroots movements around the world, as we grow non-violent civil resistance. We need more people protesting and protecting their neighbours, and we also need to turn that protest into policy action.

We need more people lobbying their members of Congress to stand up as an independent branch of government that responds to people and to do the right thing. Also critical is Congress standing up to protect its constitutional power of the purse and its authority over war. These are critical guardrails we need exercised against the militarised campaigns of the Trump administration at home and abroad.

We need to continue the legal pushback through the courts to uphold the rule of law and prevent the White House from further militarising our streets and corrupting government and elections. Solidarity across impacted communities in the USA and with civil society movements around the world will be very important to help us maintain and grow momentum here. We need to remember that our struggles for peace, justice and freedom are connected to people’s struggles all around the world.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube
Bridget Moix/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Outsourcing cruelty: the offshoring of migration management CIVICUS Lens 15.Sep.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Trump 2.0: What to expect CIVICUS Lens 18.Jan.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Nigerians at a newspaper stand with headlines reflecting the Trump versus Nigeria saga. Credit: Promise Eze/IPS

By Promise Eze
ABUJA, Nigeria, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Diplomatic relations between Nigeria and the US have continued to sour after US President Donald Trump threatened ‘military’ intervention over what some American lawmakers have called  “Christian genocide” in Africa’s most populous country.

In a series of posts on his social media platform on October 31, Trump accused the Nigerian government of ignoring the killing of Christians by “radical Islamists.” He warned that Washington would suspend all aid to Nigeria and would go into the “disgraced” country “guns-a-blazing” if Abuja failed to respond.

“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter,” Trump wrote.

He went on to declare Nigeria a “country of particular concern” for alleged violations of religious freedom, instructing the US Department of War to prepare for “possible action” and warning that any strike would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

Trump’s remarks follow years of lobbying by American evangelical groups and conservative lawmakers who accuse the Nigerian government of complicity in attacks on Christians in the country.

This is not the first time Trump has accused an African country of genocide. Earlier this year, he claimed that South Africa was committing genocide against white farmers.

Recently, the US stayed away from the G20 summit in South Africa, apparently because of these widely disputed claims that white people are being targeted in the country.

Disputed Narratives

According to an organization that claims to track persecuted Christians, Open Doors International, Nigeria remains one of the world’s most dangerous places to be a Christian, ranking seventh on its 2025 World Watch List of nations where believers face the most persecution.

A report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law estimated that jihadist groups killed more than 7,000 Christians and abducted 7,800 others in 2025 alone. The organization asserts that since 2009, they have killed over 125,000 Christians, destroyed 19,000 churches, and displaced more than 1,100 communities.

Open Doors’ data suggests that Christians in northern Nigeria are 6.5 times more likely to be killed and five times more likely to be abducted than Muslims.

However, the Nigerian authorities have rejected claims of a state-sponsored Christian genocide, insisting that both Christians and Muslims suffer from extremist violence.

Analysts caution that portraying Nigeria’s insecurity as purely religious oversimplifies a crisis rooted in political and economic failure.

With its 230 million citizens divided almost evenly between Christians and Muslims, the country faces multiple overlapping threats, from Boko Haram’s Islamist insurgency and farmer-herder conflicts to ethnic rivalries and separatist agitations in the southeast.

While Christians are among those targeted, researchers note that many victims of armed groups are Muslims living in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, where most attacks are not driven solely by religion.

Data from the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) show that between January 2020 and September 2025, 20,409 civilians were killed in 11,862 attacks across Nigeria. Of these, only 385 incidents were explicitly linked to victims’ Christian identity, resulting in 317 deaths, while 196 attacks targeted Muslims, leaving 417 dead.

“Trump’s comment has certainly drawn global attention to the problem of insecurity in Nigeria, but it also raises questions about foreign influence and national sovereignty,” said Oludare Ogunlana, Professor of National Security at Collin College in Texas. “What I’ve observed is that many who present themselves as experts on African or global security often lack a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s realities.”

He described Trump’s claims as misguided, stressing that Nigeria’s insecurity is multifaceted and should not be given a religious coloring.

“If you examine the situation closely, it is not a religious war. It reflects systemic governance failures, economic inequality, and weak law enforcement,” he said. “Citizens of all faiths—Christians, Muslims, atheists, and traditional believers—have suffered from kidnapping, organized crime, and other forms of violence. These criminal activities emerge from disparities in wealth and control over resources, resulting in loss of life across communities.”

Religious Tensions

Trump’s remarks have already inflamed tensions at home and analysts have cautioned that framing Nigeria’s insecurity as a religious conflict risks deepening divisions.

Several Muslim groups have condemned Trump’s comments as an attack on Islam and an attempt to demonize Nigeria’s Muslim population. They argue that Trump, who has long enjoyed support from evangelical Christians, is ill-suited to address the complexities of Nigeria’s Muslim-majority north.

Days after Trump’s comments, members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria marched through Kano to protest the threat of US military action. Chanting “Death to America” and burning the US flag, demonstrators carried placards reading “There is no Christian genocide in Nigeria” and “America wants to control our resources.”

Northern states like Kano have a long history of bloody religious riots, and observers warn that renewed rhetoric could deepen sectarian divides in a region where relations between the two faiths remain fragile.

Christian and non-Muslim groups, on the other hand, maintain that persecution is real. They cite reports noting that more than 300 Nigerians have been killed over alleged blasphemy since 1999, with few perpetrators prosecuted. They call out government officials who support religious extremism and enforce shariah law on non-Muslims.

“It is an honor to be called an Islamic extremist,” wrote Bashir Ahmad, a former aide to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, in a since-deleted post on X. Ahmad has previously called for the death penalty for blasphemy.

Deborah Eli Yusuf, a peace advocate with Jugaad Foundation for Peace and Nation Building, expressed concern that ongoing arguments could spill into real-world violence, making tensions difficult to contain.

She told IPS that the government should collaborate with stakeholders to maintain peace.

“This is an opportunity for the government to take the lead in facilitating honest interfaith conversations and dialogues that can lead to mutually agreeable resolutions. The government is best positioned to organize discussions that bring together critical stakeholders, including both religious and traditional leaders.

“Many of these conflicts also intersect with ethnic divisions, which further complicate the situation. The conversations happening now present a chance to address these divides. If left unchecked, rising tensions could deepen fragmentation in a country already divided along tribal, ethnic, and class lines,” she said.

Abba Yakubu Yusuf, Coordinator of the Reves Africa Foundation, believes that while Nigeria faces various forms of violent conflict orchestrated by multiple armed groups, it is misleading for the government to deny that Christians are being specifically targeted by some for their faith. He argues that acknowledging this reality is the first step toward finding solutions.

“Since as far back as 2009, the killings in southern Kaduna, Plateau, Benue, and parts of Kano states have been largely religiously motivated,” he claimed. “There was a massacre in Plateau state that saw an entire village wiped out with no survivors. In the northeast, while attacks target Muslims, there are exceptions. In southern Borno, for example, a largely Christian population has suffered the most. Overall, I would say there is a genocide occurring in Nigeria, and we should not lie to ourselves.”

Yusuf warned that continued denial by the government of systematic attacks on Christians, without addressing the root causes, could have serious consequences for the country’s economy.

“We need investors to come to our country, but they are hesitant. This creates a climate of fear and threatens economic growth,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Recently, President Donald Trump made an unexpected and stark reversal from his previous position of opposing the release of the Epstein files. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 19 2025 (IPS)

With the longest shutdown of the U.S. government now over, the White House, Congress, the media, and the public have shifted their attention to the contentious and highly political issue of releasing the files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The White House’s resistance to releasing Epstein-related documents brings to mind the famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet that the U.S. president “doth protest too much, methinks.”

For many, the president’s continued denials of any wrongdoing suggest the opposite is true.

According to a Marist poll conducted in October, 77% of the U.S. public support the release of all files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Another 13% want some of the Epstein files released, while only 9% don’t want any documents released (Figure 1).

Source: Marist poll.

According to other polls, a majority of the U.S. public, 67%, believe that the government is covering up evidence and 61% think the Epstein files contain embarrassing information about the president (Figure 2).

Source: Polls of The Economist/YouGov, the Washington Post, and University of Amherst.

A similar percentage, 63%, believe the president is hiding important information, while 61% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Epstein files. Additionally, 53% believe the files are sealed because the president is named in them.

Much of the country’s population believes that the president does not want the Epstein files released because the information contained within is criminal or embarrassing. In a national poll conducted in July, a majority of the U.S. public, 61%, thought that the Epstein files contain embarrassing information about the president.

Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans in Congress are pushing for the release of all Epstein files and actively working towards a Congressional vote to make it happen.

Furthermore, a bipartisan group of Congressional lawmakers believes that releasing the Epstein files is a moral imperative that will help bring justice to more than a thousand victims and prioritize truth over political convenience. In addition, a group of Epstein’s victims are featured in a new ad calling on Congress to pass the pending legislation.

In addition to acknowledging its widespread support among the U.S. public, the president’s reversal also seems to recognize that supporters of the measure to release the Epstein files have enough votes to pass it in the House. However, the president never truly needed the approval of Congress, as he has the power to release the files himself

Recent news reports indicate that the White House is now in panic mode. In addition to criticizing Democrats who are pushing for a Congressional vote, the president has spoken out strongly against Republican lawmakers who support the release of the Epstein files.

Further complicating matters are the newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate that contain several messages referencing the U.S. president. Additionally, a review by the Wall Street Journal found that the U.S. president was mentioned in more than 1,600 of the 2,324 email threads.

Despite this, the president continues to object to the release of the Epstein files, claiming it is a Democrat-manufactured hoax. He further asserts that there is nothing in the Epstein files that would incriminate him. The president’s supporters argue that the issue is merely a fake narrative intended to smear and slander him.

The Epstein files refer to the extensive collection of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the pedophile ring that victimized hundreds of children.

On August 10, 2019, prison guards claimed that Epstein had apparently committed suicide in his prison cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Initially expressing suspicion about the suicide, the country’s attorney general described Epstein’s death as “a perfect storm of screw-ups,” Subsequently, Epstein’s death unleashed conspiracy theories online suggesting that he was killed to prevent him from incriminating others.

For example, in 2011, Epstein wrote the following to Ghislaine Maxwell, his associate and aide: “I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is trump … (victim) spent hours at my house with him.” In 2018, Epstein further wrote, “I am the one able to take him down and you see, I know how dirty donald is”.

The president’s name also appeared in Epstein’s correspondence, indicating that he was aware of Epstein’s activities. Despite previously praising Epstein as a “terrific guy”, the president now claims that they barely knew each other.

National polling data from mid-2025 shows that nearly half of the U.S. public, about 46%, believed the president was involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

A growing number of the U.S. population support the release of the Epstein files to ensure all information is available, allowing the innocent to go free, and ensuring the guilty face judgment.

After months of attempting to delay or prevent a vote and a discharge petition by Democrats, joined by four Republicans, the House of Representatives reached the 218-signature threshold. On 18 November, the House voted on legislation to compel the Department of Justice to release all its case files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

After the legislation passed 427 to1 in the House, the Senate considered mandating the release of the files. Similar to the House, the Senate decided to pass the bill by unanimous consent without any objections raised. The legislation is now on track to reach the president’s desk for his signature, despite his previous attempts to kill it.

Recently, the president made an unexpected and stark reversal from his previous position of opposing the release of the Epstein files. The president called on House Republicans to support a proposal to release files connected to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, stating that “we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax”.

In addition to acknowledging its widespread support among the U.S. public, the president’s reversal also seems to recognize that supporters of the measure to release the Epstein files have enough votes to pass it in the House. However, the president never truly needed the approval of Congress, as he has the power to release the files himself.

Furthermore, the president’s reversal allows him to claim support for transparency. It is also seen as a strategic move that shifts the responsibility onto Congress, limits politically damaging defections by Republican lawmakers, and avoids a likely political setback.

This move also has the potential to use the ongoing investigation as a way for the administration to control the timing and extent of future document releases, especially those concerning the president’s ties to the sex offender. The situation is further complicated by the president’s call for the U.S. Attorney General to investigate several Democrats, with these investigations serving as a justification for withholding the files.

With both the Senate and the House having passed bills for the release of the files, the legislation is now being sent to the president for his approval or veto. However, it is unclear when the files could be released and whether they would satisfy those advocating for the complete release of the Epstein files.

In a significant change to his political strategy, the president recently announced that he would sign the Epstein files bill if Congress passed it. However, as he has done in the recent past, the president could change his mind upon reviewing the legislation and decide to veto it.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the president will veto the legislation as Congress has the power to override his veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

If all the files related to Jeffrey Epstein are released, the information they contain has the potential to trigger the largest scandal in the history of the United States presidency. Such a scandal could compel the president to say something similar to the line from Hamlet: “Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me.”

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications.

Kumi Naidoo with Brazilian First Lady Janja Lula da Silva and Brazilian Cultural Minister Margareth Menezes and others at a panel called “Narratives and Storytelling to Face the Climate Crisis” during the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Aline Massuda/COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 18 2025 (IPS)

Decades ago, a little girl was born in a place called Cleveland, Ohio, in the heart of the United States of America. Born to a woman from the deep South, the place of Martin Luther King, her mother left her ancestral lands for the economic opportunities in the north.

“Off she went, making it all the way to the east side of Cleveland,” says Rev. Dr. Angelique Walker-Smith. “To the place where most people who look like me lived, and still live, and are subjected to policies of injustice, race and gender.”

Here, she found a more pressing issue.

“I couldn’t breathe, my mother couldn’t breathe, and we all couldn’t breathe,” she narrates.

This urbanization, driven by fossil fuels, occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, where her mother relocated and where her relatives still live today. During the Great Migration, over six million people of African descent traveled from the South, believing that economic opportunities would be better in the North.

Rev. Dr Angelique Walker-Smith, regional president of the World Council of Churches, speaks at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future.’ Credit: IPS

“Upon our arrival, we discovered that we just couldn’t breathe.”

As one of eight regional presidents representing the World Council of Churches, Walker-Smith says for the World Council of Churches in over 105 countries, over 350 million adherents, and over 350 national churches all over the world, supporting the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty “is all about the issue of injustice, life and life more abundantly.”

“We are saying yes to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable life-giving energy.”

Kumi Naidoo, a prominent South African human rights and environmental justice activist and the President of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, says if the goal is renewable life-giving energy, the world has been going the wrong way for the past 30 years.

“If you come home from work and see water coming from the bathroom, you pick up the mop. But then you realized you left the tap running and the sink stopper on. What will you do first? Of course! You’ll turn off the water and pull the stopper. You will not start mopping the floor first.”

“For 30 years since the time science told us we need to change our energy system and many of our other systems, what we’ve been doing is mopping up the floor. If fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—account for 86 percent of what drives climate change, then we must turn off the tap.”

Masahiro Yokoyama was speaking at an event titled Faith for a Fossil-Free Future co-sponsored by Soka Gakkai International. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Naidoo was speaking at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future’ co-sponsored by several organizations, including Soka Gakkai International (SGI), Laudato Si’ Movement, GreenFaith—a global interfaith environmental coalition and EcoJudaism, a Jewish charity leading the UK Jewish Community’s response to the climate and nature crisis.

He spoke about the contradiction of the climate talks at the doorsteps of the Amazon, while licensing for drilling is still ongoing in the Amazon even as the people in the Amazon protest, calling for a fossil-free Amazon.

Continuing with the thread of contradictions, Naidoo said, “Some of you might be shocked that even though fossil fuels are 86 percent of the cause of climate change, it took 28 years before the words ‘fossil fuels’ could even be mentioned in the COP document. It is as absurd as Alcoholics Anonymous holding 28 years of conferences before they get the backbone to mention alcohol in an outcome document. If we continue on this path, we'll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can't plant food. The end result is that we'll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.

“And actually, staying with that analogy, can you imagine how absurd it is that the largest delegation to this COP this year, last year, and every year is not even the host country?

“It’s not even Brazil—for every 25 delegates that are attending the COP, one of them is from the fossil fuel industry. That’s the equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous having the largest delegation to its conference annually from the alcohol industry.”

People, groups and movements of different faiths and consciousness are increasingly raising their voices in robust support of a rapid fossil fuel phase-out, a massive and equitable upsurge in renewable energy, and the resources to make it happen—in the form of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Naidoo says the treaty is “a critical success ingredient for us not (only) to save the planet, but to secure our children and their children’s future, reminding ourselves that the planet does not need any saving.

“If we continue on this path, we warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food. The end result is that we’ll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.”

This treaty is a proposed global agreement to halt the expansion of new fossil fuel exploration and production and to phase out existing sources like coal, oil, and gas in a just and equitable manner.

The initiative seeks to provide a legal framework to complement the Paris Agreement by directly addressing the supply side of fossil fuels.

Its ultimate goal is to support a global transition to renewable energy and is supported by a growing coalition of countries, cities, organizations, scientists, and activists. More importantly, it has multi-faith support.

Masahiro Yokoyama of the SGI, which is a diverse global community of individuals in 192 countries and territories who practice Nichiren Buddhism, spoke about the intersection between faith and energy transition and why the fossil fuel phase-out cannot wait.

“The just transition is also about how young people in faith can be the driving force to transformations.”

“So, a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, in my view, is not only about phasing out other fossil fuels but it also represents an ethical framework.”

“It’s a way to move forward while protecting people’s livelihoods and dignity within the context of the environment and also the local business and economies. So, a just transition is not merely a technical issue but a question of ethics, inclusion and solidarity,” Masahiro Yokoyama said.

The most pressing issue at hand is how to implement the treaty in the current environmental context.

“The pathway that we are following is a pathway that has been followed before. We are not going to negotiate this treaty within the COP or within the United Nations system. We’re going to do what the Landmine Treaty did.

“The landmine treaty was negotiated by 44 countries outside of the UN system and then brought to the UN General Assembly for ratification. The second question that people ask, justifiably, is, what about the powerful exporting countries, for example?” Naidoo asked.

“They’re not going to sign it. And to that we find answers in the landmine treaty. Up to today, the United States, Russia and China have not signed the Landmine treaty. But once the treaty was signed, the social license to continue as business as usual was taken away. And you saw a drastic change.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

US President Trump’s economic strategy for his second term aims to get the rest of the world, especially its wealthy allies with greater means, to pay more to help strengthen the US economy.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

De-dollarisation distraction
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff recently observed, “We are absolutely at the biggest inflection point in the global currency system since the Nixon shock to end the last vestige of the gold standard.”

After the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the gold price was set at $35 per ounce. In August 1971, US President Richard Nixon ended this gold-dollar parity.

De-dollarisation has gradually continued since, with occasional brief spurts and reversals. For example, capital flows abroad rose following the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

Growing weaponisation of economic relations has probably accelerated de-dollarisation. Rogoff observed, “this was happening for a decade before Trump. Trump is an accelerant.”

Governments, central banks and BRICS countries have been de-dollarising. Even US dollar hegemony advocates no longer deny alternatives to the dollar’s role as global reserve currency.

Meanwhile, private foreign investors, including foreign asset managers, investment banks and pension funds, do not want to be left behind.

Investment fund managers are increasingly ‘de-risking’ by cutting exposure to dollar-denominated assets.

Mar-a-Lago plan
Economist Stephen Miran has proposed a new Trump initiative to require other governments to pay the US for services purportedly rendered.

First appointed chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, Miran has since been appointed to the US Federal Reserve Board.

A few days after Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs on April 2, Miran articulated five expectations. These expect other nations to pay the US for ‘public goods’ services it ostensibly provides the world.

Allies will be expected to pay the US more for the ‘security umbrella’ it provides to NATO and other allies. The US also expects those buying Treasury bonds to pay more for the ‘privilege’

In November 2024, Miran’s A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System proposed the Mar-A-Lago accord, named for Trump’s exclusive Florida island resort and residence.

He also referred to the Plaza Accord, which the Reagan administration imposed on its G5 allies in September 1985. Then, the US forced Japan and Germany to appreciate their currencies against the dollar.

The yen’s appreciation fuelled a massive Japanese asset price bubble that burst with devastating consequences in 1989, ending its post-war boom.

Trump now seeks the appreciation of other major currencies. Already, he has succeeded in getting his European allies to agree.

However, it seems unlikely that Trump will get China and other BRICS economies to do so, as they are aware of how the Plaza Accord affected Japan.

Century bonds
Other national monetary authorities buying US Treasury bonds to stabilise their own currencies have long caused dollar appreciation.

They are now expected to help depreciate the dollar. Miran has proposed that the US issue century, i.e., 100-year bonds, at very low interest rates, well below the current rates for US Treasury securities.

Miran wants foreign central bank reserve currency managers to sell off their dollar-denominated assets. They should “term out” their “remaining reserve holdings” and refinance short-term debt with long-term borrowings.

Miran is explicit: “The US Treasury can effectively buy duration back from the market and replace that borrowing with century bonds sold to the foreign official sector.”

His plan thus intends to force foreign holders of US government debt (‘Treasuries’) to extend the duration of their loans.

Very low interest rates for century bonds will ensure that foreign bondholders effectively pay the US more for the ‘privilege’ of borrowing dollars.

For Miran, the appreciation of other currencies against the dollar will also strengthen the American economy. US manufacturing will strengthen as its exports become more competitive.

Thus, his Mar-A-Lago accord plan expects other nations to pay more to strengthen the world’s largest and richest economy.

Miran’s Mar-A-Lago plan is not yet official US policy. However, this can change with Miran’s likely appointment as the next Fed chair, replacing Trump 1.0 appointee Jerome Powell.

BRICS de-dollarisation?
However, Miran’s declared plan to strengthen the US economy by depreciating the dollar against other major currencies has also accelerated de-dollarisation.

In recent years, the BRICS have been accused of conspiring to accelerate de-dollarisation worldwide, but this is certainly not a shared ambition.

Lacking significant trade surpluses, Brazil and South Africa have long advocated de-dollarisation. But Russia’s complaints have more to do with recent NATO weaponisation of financial instruments against it.

There is no comparable enthusiasm among other BRICS member states, which have much healthier trade surpluses and more dollar assets.

Its recent membership expansion will make an official BRICS de-dollarisation stance even more unlikely.

Nevertheless, Trump’s leadership relies on the American public believing the rest of the world is conspiring against them.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Zohran Mamdani at the Resist Fascism Rally held in New York, October 2024. Credit: Bingjiefu He | Wikimedia Commons

By Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, Nov 7 2025 (IPS)

The New York City mayoral elections captured the world’s attention with an excitement normally reserved for the United States presidential elections. It all culminated on Tuesday night with Zohran Mamdani’s decisive victory, signaling that hope was emerging after a period of anxiety and uncertainty for the United States. Zohran Mamdani will represent and govern New York City, one of the world’s wealthiest and most high-profile cities.

Since Wednesday morning, my social media has been full of posts from friends and family that don’t live in New York or even in the U.S. celebrating Mamdani’s win as if he had won the mayoral race in their city. Thanks in large part to his successful outreach on social media, Mamdani’s brand and the principles of authenticity that serve as its foundation resonated with people beyond New York’s borders.

Mamdani’s campaign and victory were like a fairytale unfolding in real time. Beginning as a little-known state assemblyman even within his own state, he became a global household name in one year.

Through grassroots efforts and new tactics eschewed by the establishment, his campaign gained traction with a growing coalition defined by its demographic diversity. He was the underdog challenging the current administration with his principles and convictions and even facing resistance from the old guard in his own political party.

In a way, his win reaffirms the myth of the American Dream, where anyone has the freedom and opportunity to pursue a better life. He has done this while presenting a conviction in his beliefs rooted in unity and empathy. He has achieved several historic firsts for the city: the first Muslim mayor, the first South Asian mayor, and the youngest mayor in more than a century.

While his policies for affordable living are integral to his appeal, Mamdani’s background as a Muslim man of Indian-Ugandan origin has resonated with immigrants who made sacrifices to move away from their home in pursuit of a better life. The ideal of the American Dream posits that America is the land where prosperity is still something to be gained, not just inherited. A land that promotes economic prosperity and the protection of civil liberties.

Those sacrifices must otherwise feel in vain; they must also struggle to pay for basic necessities given the high cost of living in New York City. That is perhaps where people connected with Mamdani and his message of hope; people could see that he genuinely recognized their struggles and would have witnessed them himself.

Even in the face of vitriolic rhetoric that targeted his experience, or comparative lack thereof, in relation to his faith, Mamdani did not back down or diminish his identity. Where immigrants may learn to assimilate, Mamdani showed why it is more important than ever to embrace authenticity and all facets of one’s identity.

Now that he will be the next mayor, Mamdani will have the task ahead of him of delivering on his promises to make the city more affordable. But he will also have to prove that his convictions were not just for the campaign. This world capital, the host of the United Nations, could not have asked for a more internationalist mayor.

He is a domestic politician with an international outlook. One can see even within his own family. He is married to a Syrian-American immigrant. Both his parents are cultural and academic figures in their own right.

His father, Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani, has taught political science and post-colonialism subjects across universities in Uganda, South Africa, Senegal, and even here at Columbia University.

His mother, Mira Nair, is an Indian filmmaker who has directed popular movies like Monsoon Wedding and Mississippi Masala but has also worked on projects like Still, the Children Are Here, a documentary about the Garo indigenous communities in northeastern India. She produced this film in collaboration with the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

While this reveals the level of privilege that Mamdani descends from, this may also shed light on his awareness of social justice issues. This may also reveal how he defined his campaign with the promise of change and authenticity as an embodiment of New York’s demographic and cultural DNA.

Recent times have been marked by division and uncertainty, which make pre-existing problems much harder to deal with. Even an institution like the UN, which purports to include all communities to set the common agenda for development and prosperity, has been forced to make difficult compromises.

It is struggling within the constraints of limited funding and political will without follow-through due in part to the conflicting interests between member states and other stakeholders. The UN is defined by a principled impartiality. It platforms a diverse range of issues of global interest and advocates for peaceful, inclusive dialogue. Yet it is also restrained from taking firmer principled positions due to member states’ individual interests.

In that respect, the UN and New York have something in common. They are shaped by the member states/communities that make them, and they work as those groups see fit, even if at times it seems that a small percentage holds the greatest influence and determines the fate of the majority.

Perhaps the UN could stand to benefit and learn from a mayor like Mamdani, who has demonstrated that a global outlook on domestic affairs can be conducive. He may remind us that channeling hope and expecting—not just pursuing—the dignity of life can make a difference.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Addressing the urban food insecurity crisis will require vision, coordinated actions and strategies, and sustained commitment from city governments, academia, the private sector, and NGOs. Credit: Shutterstock

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Oct 7 2025 (IPS)

Millions of people in the United States and around the world continue to face food insecurity, meaning they cannot access safe and nutritious food necessary for living their fullest lives, and they often do not know where their next meal will come from. According to Feeding America, 47 million people in the United States are food insecure. Worldwide, 673 million people experience food insecurity.

Traditionally, efforts to address food insecurity have focused on populations in rural and suburban areas; however, recent census data and statistics show that more people now live in urban areas. According to the 2020 U.S. census, 80% of the U.S. population resides in urban areas, and this is expected to rise to 89% by 2050. Similarly, a United Nations report states that over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this proportion is projected to grow to 70 percent by 2050.

As city populations continue to grow and urban food insecurity remains a persistent and urgent issue, reimagining urban and peri-urban spaces as centers of food-growing innovation is no longer optional; it is essential

Unsurprisingly, a groundbreaking 2024 report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition showed that more than 75 percent of the world’s food-insecure population lives in urban and peri-urban areas, depending on markets for their food instead of growing it themselves.

Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to broaden initiatives focused on addressing food insecurity to include populations in urban and peri-urban areas. Several interconnected strategies can be put into action to accomplish this.

Food insecurity in urban communities can be tackled through various strategies.

First, efforts to expand urban agriculture through community gardens, rooftop farms, container gardens, and other innovative urban farming methods that transform unused spaces and farmlands into productive food-growing areas should be supported.

Investing in food production near urban cities provides several benefits, including shortening supply chains, reducing dependence on imports, improving nutrition, and strengthening local resilience against climate-related shocks and disruptions in the food system.

Second, there is a need to improve food distribution within urban communities. Even when food is plentiful and easy to access, unequal distribution and access can still cause urban hunger.

Therefore, it remains essential to invest in mobile markets, expand cold storage facilities, and explore innovative and creative ways to deliver food to vulnerable households and communities. Doing so will help close this gap and ensure that food reaches those who need it most.

Third, there is a need to support and promote investments and policies that aim to build sustainable and inclusive urban food systems. Therefore, city councils and governments should intentionally incorporate food security goals into their planning.

These goals can include allocating land for local food production, establishing formal city food policy councils, and addressing unequal access to affordable and healthy food for all residents in urban areas.

The good news is that several cities across the United States have embraced this shift. For example, Seattle’s initiative was established under the city’s local food program to create a strong and resilient food system. Similar efforts have been carried out in other U.S. cities, including Detroit, Minneapolis, Austin, and Chicago.

Complementing these efforts is the need to strengthen social protection programs and safety nets for vulnerable populations living in cities. These include initiatives like school feeding programs, food vouchers, and other innovative nutrition and food assistance projects.

These initiatives can also incorporate education and awareness campaigns to promote healthy eating, reduce food waste, and motivate urban community members to engage in local food-growing activities.

As city populations continue to grow and urban food insecurity remains a persistent and urgent issue, reimagining urban and peri-urban spaces as centers of food-growing innovation is no longer optional; it is essential.

Addressing the urban food insecurity crisis will require vision, coordinated actions and strategies, and sustained commitment from city governments, academia, the private sector, and NGOs.

By investing in inclusive, evolving food systems and empowering communities to shape their food futures, our cities can transform from hunger hotspots into vibrant, nourished communities where all residents have access to healthy, affordable, and nutritious food. The time to act is now.

Esther Ngumbi, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, African American Studies Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Available data and research over several decades have consistently reached the same conclusion: Far-right extremists are more open to political violence, more likely to commit it, and responsible for far more homicides than far-left extremists. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 6 2025 (IPS)

Following the murder of Charles Kirk, a U.S. conservative activist, in Orem, Utah on September 10, various remarks, commentaries, and accusations have been made regarding politically motivated murders occurring across the United States.

In order for elected U.S. officials, policymakers, the country’s population, and others to have an informed understanding of politically motivated domestic murders, it is essential to consider the relevant facts, statistics, and research findings surrounding these homicides.

Although politically motivated murders represent a relatively small fraction of the overall number of homicides in the United States, these murders have a disproportionately large effect on the country. In particular, their symbolic impact, high visibility, media coverage, and threats to democracy make these murders especially significant for the United States

The starting point for this understanding is to define these types of homicides. Politically motivated domestic murders involve killings of people where the perpetrator’s primary motivation is ideology, politics, partisan affiliation, beliefs about government, or bias. Examples of such motivations include white supremacy, anti-immigrant sentiment, religious extremism, and political extremism.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 22,830 homicides in the United States in 2023. Domestic politically motivated murders were relatively rare, with an estimated number of 20 extremist-related murders, representing about one-tenth of one percent of all homicides that took place across the country.

Additionally, between January 1, 2020 and September 10, 2025, 79 politically motivated murders were reported to have occurred in the United States. These murders accounted for approximately 0.07 percent of all murders during that time period, or 7 out of 10,000.

Although politically motivated murders represent a relatively small fraction of the overall number of homicides in the United States, these murders have a disproportionately large effect on the country. In particular, their symbolic impact, high visibility, media coverage, and threats to democracy make these murders especially significant for the United States.

Some political figures have suggested that left-wing groups are a greater threat than right-wing groups. However, research based on empirical data does not support these claims.

In recent decades, right-wing extremism, such as white supremacist, anti-immigrant, and anti-government ideologies, has been the most frequent ideology when it comes to politically motivated domestic homicides in the United States.

In contrast, while left-wing extremism, such as environmental or anti-police violence, is present in the United States, it is much less frequently associated with homicides.

Overall, domestic politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared to total violent crime, but right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the majority of domestic terrorism fatalities over the past several decades.

For instance, a study by the U.S. National Institute of Justice found that since 1990, far-right extremists have killed more than six times as many people in ideologically motivated attacks (520 people) as far-left extremists (78 people).

In the last five years, approximately 70% of politically motivated domestic homicides in the United States were committed by individuals with right-wing ideology, compared to about 30% by those with left-wing ideology (Figure 1).

Source: Cato Institute.

Furthermore, there has been a noticeable increase in plots or attacks in the United States targeting government officials, political candidates, party officials, or staff. The number of domestic attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years.

The available data and research over the past several decades have consistently reached the same conclusions regarding domestically politically motivated homicides. In simple terms, far-right extremists are more open to political violence, more likely to commit it, and have been responsible for far more homicides than far-left extremists.

The rising threats and politically motivated domestic murders across the United Staes warrant countering the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, one-sided narratives, and violent rhetoric that have motivated many of the attackers and killers.

Political violence in the United States has risen in recent months taking forms that often go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxxing.

The recent murder of Charles Kirk is just one in a series of politically motivated domestic killings that includes the June assassinations of Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman.

Almost 75% of the U.S. public views politically motivated violence as a major problem for the country. Additionally, a majority of the U.S. public, 62%, believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, while a minority of 38% believe it is moving in the right direction.

Threats and violence are increasingly seen as acceptable means to achieve political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society. In October 2025, almost a third of the U.S. public, 30%, strongly agreed or agreed that violence may be necessary in order to get the country back on track. This figure is a significant increase from the 19% who strongly agreed or agreed in April 2024 that violence may be necessary (Figure 2).

Source: PBS News/Marist Poll.

The population of the United States should reject political violence in all its forms and reaffirm that democracies depend on peaceful participation. Public discourse and government rhetoric should aim to reduce tensions, not inflame them.

Furthermore, elected officials and political leaders of the United States need to emphasize that differences should be resolved through civic debate and elections, not by violence.

If violence becomes acceptable or inevitable in politics, then political outcomes may be determined not by votes or debate but by intimidation or force. The primary message to the U.S. public should be zero tolerance for political violence, vigilance against radicalization and societal polarization, and commitment to peaceful democratic engagement.

In summary, politically motivated domestic murders across the United States remain a small fraction of overall homicides in the country and are disproportionately driven by right-wing extremist ideologies. However, their symbolic impact and threats to both human lives and U.S. democracy make them especially significant.

Countering and preventing politically motivated domestic homicides must be achieved without infringing on the constitutional rights of free speech, religion, or political expression. Elected officials, political leaders, and the courts should prioritize preventing and prosecuting criminal acts, reducing radicalization, and lessening societal polarization, rather than undermining the democratic principles, rights, and liberties of the United States.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

Charlie Weimers with EU flag and the Sweden Democrat’s party symbol, a bluebell.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

On September 11, Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament and active within the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, rose up during a Parliamentary session and asked for a minute of silence to honour the memory of Charlie Kirk, who the day before had been shot and killed during a political meeting at the Utah Valley University in the U.S.

“Madam President, dear colleagues, the murder of political activist Charlie Kirk, a husband, loving father and patriot has shocked the world. We must strongly condemn political violence and rhetoric that incites violence. Will you stand with me in reflection and prayer in his honour, and I yield the rest of my time for a moment of silence.”

Charlie Weimers began his political career as a member of the Swedish Chrisitan Democrat Party, but later switched to the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist, right-wing populist party, which in spite of efforts to tune it down finds its roots in Neo-Nazi fringe organizations. It is now Sweden’s second largest political party with more than 20 percent of the electorate behind it.

There is nothing wrong in condemning murder political violence and defend freedom of speech, but this cannot hinder us from scrutinizing who is canonized as a victim of radical aggression. Charlie Kirk was 33 years old when he was murdered, leaving a wife and two small children behind. He had admitted that when he in 2012 started Turning Point USA, which eventually would become a rich and powerful organization, he had “no money, no connections and no idea of what I was doing.” At that time, Kirk had dropped out of college and been rejected by The U.S. West Point Military Academy. Nevertheless, he had rhetorical gifts for countering progressive ideas, being sensitive about cultural tensions, and endowed with an aptitude for making provocative declarations that resonated with frustrated college audiences, who followed and agreed with his web postings. Kirk’s frequent college rallies eventually attracted tens of thousands of young voters, as well as the attention and financial support of conservative leaders. President Trump was not wrong when he declared that:

The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.

After his death Kirk has been praised for showing up at campuses where he talked with anyone who would approach him. Conservative journalists have declared him to be one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. Kirk’s message was readily embraced by youngsters who accepted his view that Democrats had spent hundreds of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and foreign nations, while the young “lost generation” of the U.S. had to pinch their pennies, but would not be able to own a home, never marry, and even be forced to work until they died, abused and childless. However, he also gave them hope, telling these unfortunate youngsters that they did not have to stay poor and accept being worse off than their parents. They just had to avoid supporting corrupt political leaders, who were lying to them only to take advantage of their votes. Kirk assured his young audience that it is an undeniable fact that cultural identity is disappearing, while sexual anarchy, crime and decadence reign unabated, private property is a thing of the past, and a ruling “liberal” class controls everything. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was probably right when she said that Kirk had inspired millions of young people “to get involved in politics and fight for our nation’s conservative values.”

Kirk allied his Turning Point USA not to any poor radical fringe groups, but to conservative, wealthy donors and influencers. He preached a “Christian Message” well adapted to several members of such groups, declaring that Turning Point USA was dedicated to “recruiting pastors and other church leaders to be active in local and national political issues.”

Kirk fervently defended the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “, declaring that it was worth “a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can keep a Second Amendment which protect our other God-given rights”.

However, Kirk was not happy about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed “discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in employment, education, and public accommodations.” He stated that the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake” and declared that if the majority of Americans were asked if they respected the Civil Rights Act the answer would have been a “no”. Adding the caveat that “I could be wrong, but I think I’m right.”

Undoubtedly, there was a racist ingredient in Kirk’s ideology. He did for example state that the concept of white privilege was a myth and a “racist lie”. In October 2021, he launched an Exposing Critical Racism Tour to numerous campuses and other institutions, to “combat racist theories”, by which he meant the propagation of an understanding of the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws and mass media, all of which Kirk considered to be propaganda and an unfounded brainchild of liberal Democrats. He blamed the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programmes for threatening U.S. competitiveness and security, even claiming that upon sitting in a plane and realising that the pilot was “Black”, he could not help thinking “’Hey, I hope he’s qualified”.

Like most populist, “patriotic”, European right-wing political parties, not the least the Sweden Democrats, though they nowadays try to hide it more carefully than before, Kirk endorsed the so-called “great replacement theory”. This way of thinking assumes that powerful, nefarious actors, for some obscure reason, are trying to replace an upright indigenous, generally white-skinned population with immigrants of “doubtful” origin. Kirk did not even hesitate to state that Democrats supposedly wanted to make the U.S. “less white”.

Kirk also argued that humans have no significant effect on global climate change and joined antivax activists by, among other statements, calling the mandatory requirements for students to get the COVID-19 vaccine “medical apartheid”. Kirk was outspoken when it came to claim that Trump’s loss in the president elections of 2022 was due to fraud, supported the “stop the steal” movement and denied that the violent attacks on the Capitol were an insurrection.

Opposing political violence and supporting free speech does not mean that you have to sanctify a victim like Charlie Kirik, who after all was a racist and an incendiary agitator against underprivileged groups, as well as he degraded scientists who warned against climate change and vaccine denial. It is not defensible that such a voice, no matter how despicable it might be, is silenced by violence and murder. However, we cannot refrain from pointing out the great harm the kind of agitation Kirk devoted himself to can cause. As an educator, I have often been forced to experience how children suffer from racism and bigotry preached and condoned by influencers like Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, to sanctify such persons and tolerate their prejudiced ideology is hurtful and dangerous.

Furthermore, let us not be fooled by deceitful propaganda trying to convince us that Charlie Kirk’s so called “debates” were neither aggressive, nor mendacious. They were brutally provocative; opponents were shouted down, or belittled. The rhetoric was hateful, contempt was poured out over women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, queer and trans people. Liberals were branded as enemies, science demeaned. And, yes – Charlie Kirk turned to young people, who felt frustrated, marginalized and despised, telling them that he wanted to give them hope and a will to fight injustice. But at what price? Based on what truth? Incitement to violence and contempt for humanity might be safeguarded in the name of free speech, but it should never be accepted and defended. It must be attacked through an unconstrained press based on facts, a well-founded science, and an unfaltering respect for human rights.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

Thousands of Afghans who fled to the USA when the Taliban took over in August 2021 now face the prospect of deportation to countries they’ve never been to. People who risked everything to escape persecution, often because they helped US forces, now find themselves treated as unwanted cargo under the Trump administration’s anti-migration policy.

Trump’s expanded deportation programme targets an estimated 10 million foreign-born people who live in the USA but lack proper legal documentation. This includes people who entered the country without authorisation, whose visas have expired, who’ve had their asylum claims denied, whose temporary protected status has lapsed, or whose legal status has been revoked or suspended. Within a hundred days of Trump’s inauguration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had arrested over 66,000 people and removed over 65,000. Some 200,000 had been deported by August.

But the Trump administration isn’t simply removing undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin. It’s increasingly embracing a particularly cruel tactic: dumping people in distant countries they’ve no connection with. This deportation strategy shows how the US government is willing to flout basic humanitarian principles in pursuit of political goals.

The government has invoked an obscure immigration law to deport people to other countries, offering financial incentives or applying diplomatic pressure to compel states to accept US deportees. Around a dozen have recently accepted such deals, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay in the Americas, and Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda in Africa. This geographic spread dispels any pretence that the policy is about returning people to transit countries: it’s about finding anyone willing to accept money in exchange for unwanted human cargo.

The programme is nakedly transactional, with rewards taking the form of direct payments, trade concessions, sanctions relief and diplomatic benefits. Uganda signed a formal agreement with the US government amid US sanctions on government officials, suggesting it traded migrant acceptance for improved diplomatic relations and potential sanctions relief. Rwanda’s deal coincided with US-brokered talks over the Democratic Republic of the Congo conflict, indicating that the deportation agreement was being leveraged in unrelated diplomatic negotiations. It’s highly unlikely the US government will criticise the human rights records of repressive states such as El Salvador, Eswatini and Rwanda now it’s struck migration management deals with them.

Human rights flouted

Although the USA has a long history of outsourcing asylum processing, these practices have been taken to another level under Trump. The administration is prepared to deport people to war zones, authoritarian states and directly to prison. These arrangements violate core principles of international law, including the right to seek asylum and the prohibition against returning people to places where they’ll face danger.

A particularly shocking example involves Venezuelan deportees sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre, an overcrowded jail notorious for human rights abuses. In March, the US government accused 238 Venezuelan men of being gang members based on little more than tattoos and fashion choices to justify their expedited removal to this hellish facility. The administration agreed to pay El Salvador US$6 million to house deportees, effectively buying prison space for people whose only crime was seeking safety in the USA. These deportees were later returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap, raising further questions about the use of migrants as diplomatic pawns.

Trump’s approach isn’t limited to recent arrivals. Unlike previous policies focused on border enforcement, it targets longtime residents – people who’ve spent years building families, careers and community ties.

This has sparked unprecedented resistance. People have mobilised in ways that transcend traditional political divides, with teachers protecting students’ families, employers refusing to cooperate with raids, religious leaders offering sanctuary and neighbourhoods forming mutual aid networks and early warning systems.

In response to ramped-up ICE raids seeking to fulfil arrest quotas of 3,000 people a day, people have protested in cities across the USA. Resistance has been particularly intense in sanctuary cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco – primary targets for federal operations to arrest migrants. Civil society activists have confronted ICE agents, blocked deportation vehicles, protested at airports and launched boycott campaigns against companies profiting from deportations.

The scale of resistance has prompted an unprecedented federal military intervention, with the government illegally deploying over 4,000 national guard troops and 700 marines to Los Angeles.

A choice to be made

Trump’s policies are legitimising xenophobia and racism, poisoning political discourse and polarising society. When it’s the world’s most powerful democracy that treats refugees as tradeable commodities, it sends an unmistakable signal to all the world’s authoritarian leaders: human rights are negotiable.

The USA faces a choice between two different versions of itself. It can continue down the path of transactional cruelty, treating human beings as problems to be exported, empowering authoritarian regimes and undermining international law. Or it can fulfil its humanitarian and human rights obligations, provide safe and legal pathways for migration and help address the root causes that force people to flee their homes.

The USA must suspend all offshore migration management agreements, stop deporting asylum seekers to unsafe countries and countries they have no connection with and restore the principle that seeking safety isn’t a crime but a fundamental human right.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Advisor, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau