logo
Opinion - Is Irish America in decline?

Opinion - Is Irish America in decline?

Yahoo04-04-2025

For Irish politicians, the annual trip to America to mark St. Patrick's Day is usually about as low-risk and high-reward as anything in public life. The presentation of a bowl of shamrock had muted beginnings: In 1952 Irish ambassador John Hearne sent a gift to President Harry S. Truman, who was out of town at that time but sent a warm note of thanks. Four years later, John Costello became the first prime minister of Ireland to present the shamrock in person to President Dwight Eisenhower. It was Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald in the 1980s who began regularly making the trip to Washington in person.
This relationship has traditionally been win-win. Successive Irish heads of state have banged the drum for American investment in Ireland, while presidents have been able to parade their Irish ancestry and Blarney stone bonhomie in front of Irish American voters.
Gradually it has become a significant event for Northern Ireland's leaders too. The prime minister of Northern Ireland, aristocratic Anglo-Irish Terence O'Neill, visited Washington in 1964, but until 1999 it was only Nationalist and Republican leaders who found a welcome. Since then, intermittently, first ministers and deputy first ministers have represented the devolved Northern Ireland executive.
This year, everything changed.
If you are willing to take at face value President Bill Clinton's tenuous claims of Irish lineage, President Trump is the first chief executive since Eisenhower to have no familial links with the Emerald Isle, and inevitably does not have the instinctive attachment to Ireland and Irish America of some of his predecessors. Of the 45 men to have held the presidency, 23 had Irish roots — mostly Protestant Ulster-Scots. Joe Biden, although only five-eighths Irish, positively weaponized his identity, often quoting W.B. Yeats and Seamus Heaney. Two years ago, Biden dismissed a question from the BBC with the scornful response 'BBC? I'm Irish.' (I described the effect of this identity on his presidency in 2023.)
But it has not simply been an issue of a new president who is cooler towards Ireland. In February, Northern Ireland's Nationalist SDLP party, then the Republican Sinn Féin party, announced that it would boycott the Saint Patrick's Day celebrations in Washington. The two parties, both of which support a united Ireland, made the decision in protest at the Trump administration's stance on the war in Gaza, in which they have been sharply critical of Israel's conduct.
Sinn Féin's boycott meant the absence of the first minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill, who said she was 'taking a stand against an injustice which I see unravelling every day from the dangerous rhetoric from this new U.S. president.' It also ruled out the party's president and leader of the opposition in the Irish Parliament, Mary Lou McDonald.
Trump sees little more than Ireland's membership of the European Union, an organization he hates and claims was 'formed to screw the United States.' He is imposing severe tariffs on EU imports and has already announced additional taxes on imported cars and car parts. Ireland has been offered no exceptions.
Micheál Martin, who began his second stint as the Republic of Ireland's prime minister three days after Trump's inauguration, made the traditional visit to the White House, even if others chose to stay away. The atmosphere, however, was worlds away from the usual merriment and backslapping. Although Trump made some semi-humorous but barbed remarks about his guest, his perennial sense of injustice was barely beneath the surface.
'We do have a massive deficit with Ireland, because Ireland was very smart. They took our pharmaceutical companies away from presidents that didn't know what they were doing … This beautiful island of five million people has got the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry in its grasps … We don't want to do anything to hurt Ireland. But we do want fairness.'
Martin wisely said little. And in simplistic terms, Trump was not wrong. More than half of Ireland's 72 billion euro ($77.5 billion) in exports to the U.S. last year consisted of medical and pharmaceutical products made in Ireland by American-owned firms such as Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Trump plans tariffs on this sector too, and the effects on the Irish economy could be devastating, perhaps shrinking its GDP by 3.7 percent over the next five to seven years and costing 80,000 jobs.
Many presidents would have hesitated before risking the wrath of Irish American voters by punishing the old country like this. Trump, however, appears typically unperturbed, telling reporters 'the Irish love Trump' — 'we won the Irish with a tremendous amount … I got it locked up pretty good.'
It may be more complicated than that. It is now more than 400 years since the first significant Irish immigration to North America, and 176 years since the first Kennedy arrived in Boston. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a fifth-generation Irish American. Statistics show that Irish Americans earn more than the average Americans and are better educated.
Perhaps it is simply no longer possible to see 'Irish Americans' as a monolithic voting bloc; instead they will react to any Trumpian conflict with the Emerald Isle according to a range of interests and identities. Once so proudly hyphenated, many may now simply see themselves as 'Americans.'
Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard

Boston Globe

time3 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire

Fox News

time3 minutes ago

  • Fox News

JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire

California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.

Waymo suspends robotaxi rides near LA protests after 5 cars are set ablaze
Waymo suspends robotaxi rides near LA protests after 5 cars are set ablaze

Business Insider

time8 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Waymo suspends robotaxi rides near LA protests after 5 cars are set ablaze

Waymo suspended robotaxi service in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday after five vehicles were set on fire during protests against President Donald Trump 's immigration raids in the city. Photos show Waymo cars covered in anti-ICE graffiti burning in the street, engulfed in smoke. A spokesperson for Waymo confirmed to Business Insider that five vehicles had been vandalized during the protests. The company temporarily suspended service in downtown LA and doesn't think its vehicles were intentionally targeted, the spokesperson said. Waymo is working with the Los Angeles Police Department, they added. On Sunday night, the LAPD said on X that "burning lithium-ion batteries release toxic gases." Electric vehicles often use lithium-ion batteries. The spokesperson told BI that Waymo, which Alphabet owns, operates more than 300 vehicles in LA and is continuing operations in other parts of the city. It's not the first time that Waymo vehicles have been targeted in California. Last year, a crowd in San Francisco set one of the robotaxis on fire during Lunar New Year celebrations amid a wave of distrust about driverless vehicles. The protests broke out on Friday after an immigration raid in the city. Over the weekend, Trump bypassed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 's authority and ordered 2,000 National Guard members to the LA area. Despite the dramatic images, the protests have largely been peaceful, according to multiple reports. The demonstrations have become a political lightning rod between Newsom and Trump, and the governor has announced that he's suing the administration. They may, however, serve as an olive branch between the president and Elon Musk, who had an ugly falling out last week.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store