Next Africa: Inside Ramaphosa's Encounter with Trump
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited Washington last week to ease tensions amid a barrage of criticism from President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly spread false claims that there's a genocide against White people in Africa's most industrialized economy. Ramaphosa was intent on focusing on trade relations — the US is the country's second-largest trading partner after China — but the US leader quickly turned the meeting into an interrogation. Bloomberg's South Africa Government Reporter S'thembile Cele was in the room and recounts the full story of the face-to-face Oval Office meeting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea faces high-stakes election; fears over China, North Korea and US ties shape voter concerns
Early South Korean voters reportedly turned out in record numbers this week as the nation awaits the June 3 presidential election in what has been described as a pivotal race amid ongoing threats posed by China and recent rocky relations with the U.S. due to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The leader of the progressive Democratic Party of South Korea, Lee Jae-myung, is reported to be leading the race as the frontrunner, but he has raised some eyebrows after he vowed to take a "pragmatic" approach to geopolitics, chiefly by easing previously hawkish positions on China and lessening dependence on the U.S. "The alliance with the U.S. is the foundation of South Korea's diplomacy," Lee said during a debate earlier this month, Bloomberg reported. Kim Jong Un Left Fuming After North Korea's New Destroyer Damaged In Failed Launch Lee said the U.S.-South Korea-Japan partnership should be expanded, but he also said Seoul can't be "unilaterally bound" to relations with Washington, particularly when it comes to U.S. geopolitical rivalries. "We should not neglect ties with China or Russia. We need to manage them appropriately, and there's no need to have an unnecessarily hostile approach like now," Lee also said during the debate, the South China Morning Post reported. Read On The Fox News App Former California GOP Congresswoman Michelle Steel, who was born in South Korea, explained that China's "bullying" behavior in the region leaves much for the global community to be concerned about. "China [poses] the biggest threat, and they already told the whole world that they're going to take over Taiwan," she told Fox News Digital. "When they take over, where are they going to go [to] next? South Korea or Japan? The Philippines? "China has been always fighting to expand." Foreign policy has taken center stage in the presidential race after conservative former President Yoon Suk Yeol threw the nation into political chaos after his December 2024 impeachment. Yoon was ardently aligned with the U.S. when it came to opposing Chinese aggression in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea, where Beijing has been accused of expanding, militarizing and blocking freedom of navigation in contested territorial zones. Lee's chief challenger, Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party (PPP), a former labor minister under Yoon, pushed back on the democratic challenger's position when it comes to China and the U.S. But Lee has rejected the idea he is not prioritizing the U.S. alliance and reportedly said during this month's debate, "There's no need to worry. The South Korea-U.S. alliance is important and should continue to grow and strengthen." North Korea Launches Short-range Ballistic Missiles Into Sea, South Korea Says Though he did caution that certain steps taken by the Trump administration, including the 25% tariffs announced earlier this year and the potential withdrawal of troops has "eroded" the relationship. "If the U.S. continues this way — eroding its soft power and the trust of other nations — it won't be sustainable. At some point, brakes will be applied," Lee said. "Until then, endurance is key." Steel argued the "South Korean people understand the importance of a strong relationship with the United States." "Whatever the outcome of the election, South Korean leaders should embrace President Trump and look to make an incredible trade deal that will benefit everyone," she added. But Lee has not convinced all who are weary of his view on U.S. relations, including David Eunkoo Kim, founder and president of the Truth Forum, a conservative youth organization founded at Seoul National University. "This election is widely seen as a pivotal moment for South Korea because the stakes — both domestically and geopolitically — are extraordinarily high," Kim said. "Throughout his political career, (Lee) has consistently aligned himself with both pro-North Korean and pro-Chinese agendas. He has been implicated in sending funds to North Korea in violation of U.N. sanctions, and his deference to China has been nothing short of submissive," Kim said. Kim was referring to Lee's indictment for an illegal cash transfer scheme to North Korea, though Lee denies the accusations and has argued they are politically motivated. During this month's debate, Lee's opponents claimed Lee is also a "North Korea risk" as concerns about Pyongyang's military movements continue to escalate, Radio Free Asia reported. Lee maintains he wants to ease tensions with North Korea by engaging in peaceful diplomacy. But David Eunkoo Kim told Fox News Digital Lee's legal troubles are another geopolitical vulnerability. "With multiple criminal investigations looming, he has every incentive to cling to power at all costs — even if that means aligning South Korea more closely with Beijing," he said. "And this concern is not theoretical. "China is already aggressively asserting influence in the region."Original article source: South Korea faces high-stakes election; fears over China, North Korea and US ties shape voter concerns
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CA track meet spotlight should have been on competition, not shaming
Finally, the charade of President Donald Trump and other politicians pretending to care about girls' sports is over with Saturday night's closing of the 2025 California Interscholastic Federation Track & Field Championships at Buchanan High's Veterans Stadium. Well, I hope it's over. I have covered the state track meet off and on since 1979 when I traveled to Berkeley to cover the event for The Bakersfield Californian. I don't recall any politician showing up and cheering for the female competitors. I was there last year, and I'm sure Fresno County Supervisors Garry Bredefeld and Nathan Magsig didn't attend a press conference to promote the girls taking part in 17 track and field finals. This year's edition of a sporting event that draws more than 1,500 boys and girls would likely have come and gone with little notice if not for Trump threatening on Tuesday to withhold federal funds for California if the state track meet included a transitioned girl from Riverside County. 'In the meantime I am ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow the transitioned person to compete in the State Finals,' the president posted on Truth Social. 'This is a totally ridiculous situation!!!' What is ridiculous is that the transitioned girl has followed the rules, which have allowed transitioned girls to compete at the high school level since 2013. The CIF did amend its rules for a pilot program to allow any biological girl that was displaced by a trans girl to compete at the state meet. The CIF also released a statement on Wednesday: 'A biological female student-athlete who would have earned a specific placement on the podium will also be awarded the medal for that place and the results will be reflected in the recording of the event.' The pilot program sounds a bit confusing, but blame it on the politicos who should get a gold medal for spotting a microphone and television camera. Saturday, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Steve Hilton spoke at a press conference outside Veterans Stadium where he blasted the state policy that allows trans girls to compete. All the noise – and the extra dose of media attention – is misguided. Last year, finding a place at the media table was no problem. Saturday, the area was inundated by media drawn not so much by the sport of track and field, but by a 16-year-old performer who drew the wrath of Trump. Authentic track and field supporters would show up to cheer for Giselle Fernández of Riverbank High in the 1,600-meter race. Or Khaliq Muhammad of Pittsburg High in the pole vault. Or the Herbst twins (Morgan and Makenna) from Carlsbad. Only those stuck in the Middle Ages would dare root against the trans athlete. The real attention should have been on the competitors named above and others, who transform the California state meet into the best in the nation. Fernández and Riverbank have been a perfect match for the state finals. The senior didn't match her brother Germán's 2008 state double in the 1,600 and 3,200 meters that people still talk about, but Giselle proved she deserves a shot at the title by improving her personal mark in the 1,600 by more than 10 seconds. She placed sixth Saturday in 4:43.8. Does having her brother, who still holds the state record in the 1,600 with a 4:00.9 time, help? Of course, said Giselle, who was a year old when her brother won his state titles. 'My brother has connected with many people that are now professionally running, and that's given me benefits,' said Giselle. 'I'm not finished here. I think next year I can improve even more.' Muhammad is another state competitor with a pedigree. His older sister, Jathiyah, won the girls state pole vault last year. Their father, Gary, is a pole vault coach at Pittsburg. Khaliq dominated the boys pole vault, clearing a personal-best 17-10½ and besting the meet record by half an inch. He missed a try at 18 feet, ½ inch before calling it a day. 'I was tired,' he said. 'I knew I was going to win. I had confidence in my ability to win,' said Muhammad, who credits his father for his success. 'He's been my coach for 12 years, ever since I started.' Morgan Herbst shattered the meet record in winning the girls 300-meter hurdles (39.64 seconds), while sister McKenna won the girls 800-meter race less than a quarter-second off the meet record (2:02.28). I could mention many other athletes who deserve the attention at claiming a medal on a 100-degree-plus day. That is where the focus of this state meet should have been all along.
