Some world leaders invoke Trump to justify political crackdowns
Some leaders have explicitly invoked Trump's return to power as justification for their moves: After Hungary's parliament voted this month to ban an annual LBGTQ+ Pride parade, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's government said the changes in Washington meant the 'American boot' had been lifted off Hungary's chest and that events like Pride no longer enjoyed US protection.
Serbian authorities cited Trump's claims of fraud at USAID to launch raids against pro-democracy civil society groups. Georgia's government similarly used the USAID aid freeze to vow to pursue new restrictions against media and civil society, including a proposed ban on foreign funding for media.
Other leaders have not openly cited Trump, but analysts see clear links between their actions and Trump's rule: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is betting that Trump won't challenge the jailing of a top rival, while some have drawn comparisons between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent efforts to oust critics in this government and Trump's prioritization of loyalists for key posts.
Donald Trump's domestic policies and statements are 'providing cover for a fresh chill on freedom of expression [and] democracy' globally, The Washington Post argued. The director of Carnegie Europe said the accelerated pace of democratic crackdowns in several countries following Trump's return to power show that 'autocrats and would-be autocrats' are 'much more connected in their policies and goals than we have been assuming.' These leaders are 'sniffing the change in the geopolitical air, and reckoning they're on the cusp of a new era,' Politico Europe's opinion editor wrote. Critically, they are looking to each other for inspiration to enact new rules or find new ways to cement power.
Experts worry the next phase of the lurch toward autocracy will borrow from Donald Trump's expansionist vision. 'Conquest is back,' an expert declared in Foreign Affairs, arguing that if Washington helps negotiate a Ukraine peace deal that gives Moscow part of Ukrainian territory, 'other powers may be more tempted to wage wars of conquest.' That would alter an accepted post-World War II norm that overt invasions of sovereign territory would elicit widespread, US-led pushback, The Guardian wrote. 'It was advertised that the US didn't do conquest. What is clearly changing is this the first time since [the 19th century] when there is a conversation about whether the US does do conquest or not,' a UK-based international security expert said.
Leaders who align with Donald Trump's worldview will no longer be able to accuse malicious foreign actors from the West for fomenting anti-government protests in their countries, Bloomberg noted. Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose actions to suppress political opposition have barely invoked Western criticism, will have 'nobody but himself to blame' for public pushback. Meanwhile, European populists like France's Marine Le Pen and Italy's Giorgia Meloni who — while aligning with Trump's brand of national conservatism — also support Ukraine, are in a bind over Trump's overtures to Russia, The Economist wrote, and their factions find themselves divided over how to deal with the US president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poland's Tusk says he feels fear and hope before Trump-Putin talks
WARSAW (Reuters) -Poland's prime minister said on Monday he felt a mixture of fear and hope ahead of a Russia-U.S. summit on the war in Ukraine this week, but added that Washington had pledged to consult its European partners before the talks. U.S. President Donald Trump will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15, and Kyiv fears that the two leaders may try to dictate terms for ending the 3-1/2-year war. "The American side has promised that it will consult with European partners on its position before the meeting in Alaska," Donald Tusk told a news conference. "I will wait... for the effects of the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin - I have many fears and a lot of hope." He said that Trump's recent comments on the war in Ukraine could give the impression the U.S. president was increasingly understanding Ukrainian and European arguments regarding the conflict, but that he was not 100% sure that this position would be lasting. French, Italian, German, Polish, British, Finnish and European Commission leaders on Saturday welcomed Trump's efforts to try to end the war, but emphasised the need to pressure Russia and provide security guarantees for Kyiv. Tusk said that the joint statement from European leaders showed that they were united in their approach to Ukraine peace talks, adding that Kyiv must be involved in any such discussions. "For Poland and our partners, it is clear that state borders cannot be changed by force," he said. "Russia's war with Ukraine must not bring benefits to the aggressor."
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News pundit contradicts Trump's claims that ‘crime is out of control' in the nation's capital
Former Washington, D.C., homicide detective and defense attorney Ted Williams has taken to Fox News to reject President Donald Trump's contention that 'crime is out of control' in the nation's capital. Over the weekend, Trump announced that he would be staging a press conference on Monday to address the matter, saying of the city: 'It has become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World. It will soon be one of the safest!!!' He subsequently insisted that D.C.'s homeless citizens 'move out, IMMEDIATELY,' adding: 'We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong.' It was then reported that the president is sending 120 FBI agents on overnight shifts to help local law enforcement battle carjackings and other violent crime in D.C. His rhetoric has escalated since former DOGE employee Edward Coristine, also known as 'Big Balls,' was beaten up by muggers eight days ago when he refused to give up his car during an attempted hijacking. Asked by Fox anchor Jon Scott about D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's comment that violent crime is down 61 percent in the district from two years ago, Williams said: 'I have to agree with the mayor here… Yes, there is crime, and there will always be crimes in every major metropolitan city in this country. 'What I really found troubling and, I gotta tell you, as a lawyer I found it troubling… is that the President of the United States would say that crime is out of control. 'I take exception to that. Crime is not out of control in the District of Columbia. Yes, you do have some juveniles here that are out of control and those juveniles need to be addressed and arrested.' But, he continued: 'I think that even the Metropolitan Police Department is happy that the president has married up the federal agencies that help to try to combat crime in the District of Columbia.' Scott went on to present Williams with official data suggesting that juvenile offenders were the real problem, given that young people have been involved in half of the attempted carjackings this year and that 2,000 teens have been arrested in D.C. over the last two years. 'In any major metropolitan city you are going to have, unfortunately, juveniles committing crimes,' he responded. The ex-cop invoked the attack on Coristine as the likely motivation for Trump's new hard-line stance and added: 'I would like to ask Mr Trump: 'Where were you last month when a three-year-old child, Honesty Cheadle, was shot and killed as the result of a crime in the District of Columbia?' I didn't hear Mr Trump speaking out then. 'I want Mr Trump to do something for the district. Continue to have the federal officers partner with the district officers to try to bring down crime. But don't use this as a pretext to actually eradicate home rule... That seems to be what Mr Trump is interested in.'
Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jim Nowlan: Our politics focus on what to do ‘for' voters. That threatens the economy.
'Ask me how much I love my grandkids' begs a bumper sticker. Maybe not so much. Federal government debt, which the grandkids will have to support, now amounts to at least $275,000 per household, headed to a projected $380,000 in 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The problem lies in a powerful, fundamental principle of politics: Politicians like to do things for the voters (as in new spending), but not to them (as in new taxes to pay for the outlays). The tax package in the 'big beautiful bill' is a prime example. When government revenue lost by tax cuts is not equaled by reductions in government spending, the default action is simply to 'pay' for the difference with increased debt. In his magisterial 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,' Yale University historian Paul Kennedy warned that runaway debt could threaten the stability of our nation's financial system. He cited a doubling of the U.S. debt between 1980 and 1985, from $900 billion to $1.8 trillion. In today's dollars, that latter figure would represent about $5.5 trillion. At present, the federal debt is $36 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Oft-quoted economist Mark Zandi seems to reflect his profession in observing that the amount of debt American governments hold isn't so much the problem; however, paying the nearly $1 trillion in interest on the debt each year crowds out what could be equivalent spending today for people programs and defense. But, the economists add quickly, we should indeed worry about the lack of discipline by policymakers who keep larding on more debt. China and other foreign governments hold most of our debt. Having no love lost for Donald Trump, holders of our debt could decide to hold less of it, or to demand higher interest rates for the increased risk. Not good. Or, we could go the way of Argentina, where runaway inflation since World War II has prevented that resource-rich, well-educated nation from coming close to its potential. As we have read, the recent tax and spending bill is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase debt by $3 trillion. I project it will be much greater than that, because of two other principles, or tricks. Old Trick 1: Put the goodies up front and then sunset them long before the 10-year time frame used for projecting consequences of the bill. For example, 'big beautiful' grants some tax breaks this year that expire soon, to wit: The new deduction for seniors; the expanded deduction from federal tax liability for state and local taxes paid, and the tips, overtime and interest deductions all expire in three or four years. But, Trick 2: Once a tax break is granted, it is never (certainly, rarely) taken back, as that would be doing something to those affected. Congressional budget analysts must, however, make projections about future debt according to the bill as written, as if these costly goodies will actually expire on schedule. Sure, right. About the time of the worldwide depression of the 1930s, English economist John Maynard Keynes established a sensible principle: During good economic times, governments should run budget surpluses, which could later be applied to stimulate demand during bad times, smoothing out the peaks and valleys. The U.S. has a strong economy at present, yet we still run huge deficits, perverting the Keynes principle. What will we do when times turn tough? Runaway debt, maybe? If we keep overspending relative to tax revenue, that is, putting more dollars into the economy than are represented by increased goods and services, each dollar will ultimately be reduced in value. This is the definition of inflation. In the worst instance, this could lead to Argentine-like dysfunction and decline in wealth. The simple solution is political courage. Impose discipline and pain where necessary to stop the flight to debt. Courage is costly. The best governors of my Illinois have been one-term governors: Thomas Ford in the 1840s, who paid Eastern creditors for foolish state expenditures, rather than default on huge debts to them and ruin the state's credit rating; John Peter Altgeld in the 1890s, who pardoned radicals who had been unjustly imprisoned; and Richard Ogilvie (1969-72), who imposed an income tax on voters to meet a fiscal crisis. Most voters will never understand this matter of government debt. So, elected officials have to bear the burden of their decisions. How much do our politicians love their grandkids?
