Tuesday Briefing: Trump Said There's ‘Real Starvation' in Gaza
President Trump said yesterday that there was 'real starvation' in Gaza, disagreeing with a recent assertion by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the territory had sufficient food.
'That's real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can't fake that,' Trump said while speaking to reporters in Scotland with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain. 'We have to get the kids fed.'
Trump's comments were a notable turn on Gaza. He criticized as ineffective the current aid distribution system and said he wanted to create more food sites, adding that Britain would assist in the effort.
International agencies, experts and doctors say that starvation is sweeping across Gaza amid restrictions on aid imposed by Israel for months. To date, Trump has appeared wary of using American power to secure aid for the Palestinians in Gaza and has largely blamed Hamas for stealing food. As recently as Sunday, the president said that Gaza was 'not a U.S. problem, it's an international problem.'
More on Gaza:
Israel has devastated Gaza but achieved few, if any, goals since a cease-fire ended in March, our Jerusalem bureau chief writes.
A growing number of Israelis are speaking out against what they describe as atrocities carried out in their name by their government in Gaza.
Two of Israel's best-known civil rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, said that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now it goes on to Round Two. Advertisement On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Advertisement Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. Advertisement The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Advertisement
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Chinese researchers suggest lasers and sabotage to counter Musk's Starlink satellites
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'As the United States integrates Starlink technology into military space assets to gain a strategic advantage over its adversaries, other countries increasingly perceive Starlink as a security threat in nuclear, space, and cyber domains,' wrote professors from China's National University of Defense Technology in a 2023 paper. Advertisement Chinese researchers are not the only ones concerned about Starlink, which has a stranglehold on certain space-based communications. Some traditional U.S. allies are also questioning the wisdom of handing over core communications infrastructure — and a potential trove of data — to a company run by an unpredictable foreign businessman whose allegiances are not always clear. Apprehensions deepened after Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine made clear the battlefield advantages Starlink satellites could convey and have been exacerbated by Musk's proliferating political interests. Advertisement Musk pumped tens of millions of dollars into President Donald Trump's reelection effort and emerged, temporarily, as a key adviser and government official. As Musk toys with the idea of starting his own political party, he has also taken an increasing interest in European politics, using his influence to promote an array of hard-right and insurgent figures often at odds with establishment politicians. Musk left the Trump administration in May and within days his relationship with Trump publicly imploded in a feud on social media. SpaceX, the rocket launch and space-based communications company that Musk founded and that operates Starlink, remains inextricably linked with core U.S. government functions. It has won billions in contracts to provide launch services for NASA missions and military satellites, recuperate astronauts stranded at the International Space Station and build a network of spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office. Starlink's space dominance has sparked a global scramble to come up with viable alternatives. But its crushing first-mover advantage has given SpaceX near monopoly power, further complicating the currents of business, politics and national security that converge on Musk and his companies. Starlink dominates space Since its first launches in 2019, Starlink has come to account for about two-thirds of all active satellites, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who writes a newsletter tracking satellite launches. SpaceX operates more than 8,000 active satellites and eventually aims to deploy tens of thousands more. Beijing's tendency to view Starlink as tool of U.S. military power has sharpened its efforts to develop countermeasures — which, if deployed, could increase the risk of collateral damage to other customers as SpaceX expands its global footprint. The same satellites that pass over China also potentially serve Europe, Ukraine, the United States and other geographies as they continue their path around the earth. Advertisement Starlink says it operates in more than 140 countries, and recently made inroads in Vietnam, Niger, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan. In June, Starlink also obtained a license to operate in India, overcoming national security concerns and powerful domestic telecom interests to crack open a tech-savvy market of nearly 1.5 billion people. On the company's own map of coverage, it has very few dead zones beyond those in North Korea, Iran and China. No other country or company is close to catching up with Starlink. Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos has taken aim at rival Musk with Project Kuiper, which launched its first batch of internet satellites into orbit in April. So far Amazon has just 78 satellites in orbit, with 3,232 planned, according to McDowell, and London-based Eutelstat OneWeb has around 650 satellites in orbit, a fraction of the fleet it had initially planned. The European Union is spending billions to develop its own satellite array — called the IRIS2 initiative — but remains woefully behind. EU officials have had to lobby their own member states not to sign contracts with Starlink while it gets up and running. 'We are allies with the United States of America, but we need to have our strategic autonomy,' said Christophe Grudler, a French member of the European Parliament who led legislative work on IRIS2. 'The risk is not having our destiny in our own hands.' China has been public about its ambition to build its own version of Starlink to meet both domestic national security needs and compete with Starlink in foreign markets. In 2021, Beijing established the state-owned China SatNet company and tasked it with launching a megaconstellation with military capabilities, known as Guowang. In December, the company launched its first operational satellites, and now has 60 of a planned 13,000 in orbit, according to McDowell. Advertisement Qianfan, a company backed by the Shanghai government, has launched 90 satellites out of some 15,000 planned. The Brazilian government in November announced a deal with Qianfan, after Musk had a scorching public fight with a Brazilian judge investigating X, who also froze Space X's bank accounts in the country. Qianfan is also targeting customers in Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and has ambitions to expand across the African continent, according to a slide presented at a space industry conference last year and published by the China Space Monitor. Russia's invasion of Ukraine supercharges concerns Concerns about Starlink's supremacy were supercharged by Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war was a turning point in strategic thinking about Starlink and similar systems. Ukraine used the Starlink network to facilitate battlefield communications and power fighter and reconnaissance drones, providing a decisive ground-game advantage. At the same time, access to the satellites was initially controlled by a single man, Musk, who can — and did — interrupt critical services, refusing, for example, to extend coverage to support a Ukrainian counterattack in Russia-occupied Crimea. U.S.-led sanctions against Moscow after the full-scale invasion also curtailed the availability of Western technology in Russia, underscoring the geopolitical risks inherent in relying on foreign actors for access to critical infrastructure. 'Ukraine was a warning shot for the rest of us,' said Nitin Pai, co-founder and director of the Takshashila Institution, a public policy research center based in Bangalore, India. 'For the last 20 years, we were quite aware of the fact that giving important government contracts to Chinese companies is risky because Chinese companies operate as appendages of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, it's a risk because the Chinese Communist Party can use technology as a lever against you. Now it's no different with the Americans.' Advertisement Nearly all of the 64 papers about Starlink reviewed by AP in Chinese journals were published after the conflict started. Assessing Starlink's capabilities and vulnerabilities Starlink's omnipresence and potential military applications have unnerved Beijing and spurred the nation's scientists to action. In paper after paper, researchers painstakingly assessed the capabilities and vulnerabilities of a network that they clearly perceive as menacing and strove to understand what China might learn — and emulate — from Musk's company as Beijing works to develop a similar satellite system. Though Starlink does not operate in China, Musk's satellites nonetheless can sweep over Chinese territory. Researchers from China's National Defense University in 2023 simulated Starlink's coverage of key geographies, including Beijing, Taiwan, and the polar regions, and determined that Starlink can achieve round-the-clock coverage of Beijing. 'The Starlink constellation coverage capacity of all regions in the world is improving steadily and in high speed,' they concluded. In another paper — this one published by the government-backed China Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team — researchers mapped out vulnerabilities in Starlink's supply chain. 'The company has more than 140 first-tier suppliers and a large number of second-tier and third-tier suppliers downstream,' they wrote in a 2023 paper. 'The supervision for cybersecurity is limited.' Advertisement Engineers from the People's Liberation Army, in another 2023 paper, suggested creating a fleet of satellites to tail Starlink satellites, collecting signals and potentially using corrosive materials to damage their batteries or ion thrusters to interfere with their solar panels. Other Chinese academics have encouraged Beijing to use global regulations and diplomacy to contain Musk, even as the nation's engineers have continued to elaborate active countermeasures: Deploy small optical telescopes already in commercial production to monitor Starlink arrays. Concoct deep fakes to create fictitious targets. Shoot powerful lasers to burn Musk's equipment. Some U.S. analysts say Beijing's fears may be overblown, but such assessments appear to have done little to cool domestic debate. One Chinese paper was titled, simply: 'Watch out for that Starlink.' Chen reported from Washington.
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Texas Democrats slam GOP redistricting plan as "grossly unfair" and "deeply undemocratic"
Top Texas Democrats are sounding the alarm over a GOP plan to redraw Texas' congressional maps, warning in interviews with CBS News it would dramatically dilute minority representation in the Lone Star State and set off a nationwide ripple effect. Republican state lawmakers unveiled a draft congressional map on Wednesday that would turn five U.S. House districts currently held by Democrats into GOP-leaning seats — an idea blessed by President Trump as Republicans angle to hold onto their narrow congressional majority in next year's midterms. One Democratic member of Congress whose district could be impacted called the proposed map "grossly unfair," arguing Black and Latino communities are being "scrambled" and intentionally fractured for political gain. "They've already gerrymandered the map — and now they're trying to make it 30 to 8 in favor of Republicans," the lawmaker told CBS News, referencing the state's congressional delegation. "This is grossly unfair and starts a dangerous domino effect. If Texas lights the fire, it will spread to other states like California and New York. It's going to be a mess across the country." The Democratic representative also argued that Texas Republicans are banking on maintaining the historic margins they saw among Hispanic voters in November's election, but warned that recent polling shows a softening in GOP support among Latino voters — particularly in the wake of backlash over the Trump administration's deportation policies. Those voters "may not be there," the lawmaker said, cautioning the strategy could backfire and jeopardize Republican gains. Another top Democrat who has previously run statewide in Texas echoed the concern, calling the proposal "deeply undemocratic." "We're seeing losses of representation for people of color in Texas," the Democrat said. "Five of the affected districts are Latino-majority seats. They're not just stacking the deck — they're doing it without any expectation of being held accountable. But they will be held accountable." Mr. Trump has publicly encouraged Texas Republicans to reshape the state's congressional districts, predicting to reporters earlier this month a "simple redrawing" could net five extra seats for his party. The GOP currently controls 25 of Texas' 38 House districts, which were last redrawn after the 2020 Census. House Republicans are defending a razor-thin seven-seat majority in next year's congressional elections — a challenging task since the party that controls the White House almost always loses upwards of a dozen seats in the midterms. Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called the state legislature into a special session, and on Wednesday, lawmakers released an early draft map — though changes could be made. It will need to pass the GOP-controlled state House and Senate. The map would improve the GOP's edge by tilting two Democratic seats in the Rio Grande Valley to the right, making a pair of districts in the Dallas and Houston area redder and merging two Democratic seats near Austin into one. For example, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar — who already represents a district won by Mr. Trump in 2024 — would lose parts of the San Antonio suburbs under the new map. And the Dallas-area district held by Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson would be redrawn to stretch more than 100 miles from Dallas County to deep-red parts of rural North Texas. Texas Republicans have pledged to ensure the redistricting plans are constitutional. Abbott has argued the maps need to be redrawn due to "constitutional concerns" raised by the Justice Department. CBS News has reached out to the Texas GOP for comment. But Democrats have blasted the map, which Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin called a "blatant gerrymander" and a "likely violation of the Voting Rights Act." Rep. Greg Casar — whose Austin-area district would be merged with that of fellow Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett — called the move "illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans." The governors of some Democratic states, including California and New York, have floated launching their own mid-decade redistricting processes, with an eye to creating more blue seats. But those plans could require constitutional amendments since, unlike Texas, those two states have put independent commissions in charge of redistricting. Meanwhile, some experts have suggested Texas' plan to create five extra GOP-leaning districts could make some of those newfound red seats more competitive, by distributing Republican voters across more districts. The state has also undergone significant demographic changes in recent elections. The fast-growing Dallas and Houston suburbs have shifted toward Democrats, but the once reliably blue Rio Grande Valley has become redder with more Hispanic voters supporting Republican Woodall contributed to this report.
