Race in Trump's America: One step forward and two steps back
On the afternoon of 25 May 2020, George Floyd was choked to death on a Minneapolis street by a police officer. The brutal act, captured on video by a teenager, sparked a wave of multiracial protests for social justice and police reform. It also became a flashpoint in US politics and culture, ushering in a brief and backlash-ready period that galvanized millions to push for racial progress.
Caucasians began to have rare and overdue conversations about the status of African-Americans. Companies complied with the new zeitgeist and dropped racially stereotypical brand names like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, made bandages for other complexions and expanded diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. California formed a task force to study reparations. Buildings, schools and roads were renamed. Statues came down.
Also Read: Trump's trade agenda: About US jobs or global supremacy?
This was peak 'woke,' an old term that gained widespread usage around the protests. Five years later, 72% of Americans say the period of 'racial reckoning' didn't lead to changes that improved the lives of African-Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Not only that, framing America's intractable social problems around race is increasingly politically risky.
President Donald Trump is back in office—and now lecturing the leader of South Africa about reverse apartheid and 'White genocide.' Some conservatives are calling on him to pardon Derek Chauvin, sentenced to 21 years in prison for violating Floyd's civil rights. Many DEI initiatives have been renamed or eliminated and polls show a drop in support for diversity initiatives, especially among Republican voters. The nation's only African-American governor, Maryland's Wes Moore, just vetoed a bill to study reparations.
The 'Black Lives Matter' (BLM) movement has stalled, as has the police reform sought by activists. Perhaps nothing captures this more than DC Mayor Muriel Bowser's decision to dismantle Black Lives Matter Plaza, a site that had been a locus for activists and something of a rebuke to Trump in his first term.
Also Read: DEI defence: How to promote diversity and prevent a backlash
During the height of the protests, 67% of US adults expressed support for BLM, according to the Pew Research Center, including 60% of Caucasian Americans and 86% of African-Americans. Now that figure stands at 52%, with 45% of Caucasians and 76% of African-Americans expressing support for BLM. The numbers underscore the political fault lines around race and the remedies to address racial inequality. They also show a concerted and successful effort by conservatives to malign the activists and the aims associated with the movement—in part using weapons handed to them in the form of unpopular slogans ('defund the police") and a handful of unruly protests like those in Portland, Oregon.
In the BLM era, some Caucasian voters, particularly college-educated ones, shifted to the left on a broad array of social issues, helping the Democratic ticket in 2020. Now, the post-BLM or post-woke era sees Republicans with an advantage, helping Trump win a second term by suggesting activists went too far, even as it's hard for most Americans to point to any lasting good that came out of the 2020 movement for racial progress.
Some 87% of US adults say the relationship between African-American people and police officers is either about the same or worse in the five years since Floyd's death. Only 11% say that relationship has gotten better. The most striking dip is among Democrats, who in September 2020 had high hopes for African-American progress, with 70% expecting changes a result of the protests. Now, five years later, that figure is 34% according to Pew.
The Justice Department last Wednesday dropped consent decrees with Minneapolis and Louisville, rolling back federal oversight of several police departments and shifting the focus away from racial discrimination.
Also Read: Caution: Attacks on DEI in the US threaten to cement glass ceilings
The BLM protests were among the biggest and most multiracial the country has ever seen. Powered by covid lockdowns and pent-up frustration over several instances of violence against African-American people, sometimes caught on camera, the demonstrations seemed to augur in something more permanent. Yet, concerted efforts by conservatives to demonize protestors and suggest the goals of the activists amounted to reverse racism or blanket attacks on the police worked, with Trump returning to office in 2025 and advancing Caucasian identity politics.
In the wake of Trump's re-election, some African-Americans, who have been at the forefront of fights for a more equal America, have decided to march no more, instead leaving the fight to others. The lack of engagement has consequences for Democrats particularly, but more broadly for the cause of racial equality, which remains a worthy goal. ©Bloomberg
The author is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
X factor: The rise and fall of Elon Musk as a political figure
Elon Musk has officially resigned from the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Although his role was only temporary and departure was not surprising, it follows his criticism of President Donald Trump's tax bill. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' would not improve America's finances, he said, and will undermine his efforts to cut back on unnecessary government spending. Was there a clear divide between Trump and Musk? Only seven months ago, at his victory speech on 6 November, Trump spent four minutes praising Musk. 'A star is born—Elon!" said Trump. Musk had invested nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in Trump's campaign, which could explain his influence on the Trump administration. It was possibly the most astute investment Musk ever made. He oversaw Trump's DOGE and also shaped a far-right discourse both domestically and internationally. Also Read: Electric debacle: Tesla's troubles started before Musk wore the MAGA cap Musk attempted to involve himself in several European political issues—in Germany and the UK especially. In February, Time magazine portrayed Musk as 'President Musk." Its cover illustration showed him seated at the Resolute Desk in the White House. However, it is evident that Musk has now drifted to the margins of Trump's world. 'Elon is from South Africa—I don't want to get Elon involved," Trump told his South African counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa, during a discussion at the White House recently. On 19 May, an analysis titled 'Why has Elon Musk vanished from the spotlight?' was published by Politico, which noted that Trump was posting messages about Musk on his Truth Social platform at an average of four times a week in February and March, but stopped doing so in April. Musk was included in nearly daily fund-raising emails sent by Trump's campaign team. However, save for a single email in May, this abruptly stopped in early March. Trump's top advisors and official White House accounts also stopped posting photos and content mentioning Musk. Musk, whose business empire includes Tesla, SpaceX and X, seemed to have got the drift. Amid mounting investor worries, he announced a major reduction in political spending. This was a public indication of the billionaire turning his focus back to his businesses. Also Read: Tesla's slump: When social intelligence clashes with artificial intelligence The main source of Musk's fortune, Tesla, has lost sales globally and suffered severe brand damage as a result of his political activities. His expressions of support for the far-right anti-immigration AfD party in Germany, for example, were noted across Europe. Tesla's sales in Europe dropped 49% in April, indicating a backlash against him. Towards the end of that month, Tesla reported a 71% dip in profits. In a call with Tesla investors, Musk said that he would begin stepping back from his position at DOGE in May. In the US and abroad, Tesla dealerships have been the target of protests and vandalism. Musk's move to impose harsh employment and spending cuts within the federal government on behalf of the Trump administration was dubbed 'one of the greatest brand destructions" ever by Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business. According to some surveys, most respondents disapproved of the way Musk and DOGE have handled federal government employees and slashed jobs. About 60% of respondents in a nationwide study conducted by Marquette University Law School last month had a negative opinion of Musk, while 38% had a positive opinion. The study found approval of Musk's DOGE handling at 41% and disapproval at 58%. Also Read: The US should stay away from gimmicks and tackle its real fiscal problem Musk may have recently met his political Waterloo in Wisconsin, where he contributed at least $3 million to making the Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign the most costly in US history. He even personally appeared in Green Bay sporting a cheese-head cap, a favourite among supporters of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team. But the Republican candidate he backed lost by a 10% margin. The Democrats mobilized people by calling it a 'People versus Musk' contest to highlight his intervention. Frankly, Musk's accountability has been non-existent, his loyalties seem inconsistent and his political intentions unclear. Trump might be well aware of this. Musk stood for six hours to shake hands with Democrat Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2014, Musk described himself as 'somewhere in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially liberal." He even advocated that Trump 'hang up his hat and sail into sunset" in 2022, arguing that he was too old to seek re-election. But then he started to tilt Republican. Also Read: A trade arrangement that leaves out the US could trump Trump's tariffs Thus, it was perhaps inevitable that Trump would grow weary of Musk. Since the president is accustomed to generating all his popularity himself, it would be easy for him to assume he needs nobody's help on that count. Then there is also the matter of Musk's unpopularity, which Trump may not want rubbing off on his own standing. However, Musk will still hold billions of dollars once Trump's term is over, not to mention the power of his social media platform. In the political sphere, his legacy may be a handy list of what the ultra-rich should do and not do. Or maybe he has left America's business class a model that no one else would dare imitate. The author is professor of statistics at Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
India, U.S. desire to give preferential market access to businesses; talks on for trade pact: Goyal
India and the U.S. desire to give preferential market access to each other's businesses and teams of both the countries are working together on the proposed bilateral trade agreement, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has said. In February, U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi announced plans to negotiate the first tranche or phase of a mutually beneficial, multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by fall (September-October) of 2025. It is aimed at more than doubling the bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 from the current level of $191 billion. "Both countries are committed to work together, both countries desire to give preferential access to each other's businesses and we are working towards the bilateral trade agreement," Mr. Goyal told reporters in Paris. Mr. Goyal is here on an official visit to hold talks with French leaders and business representatives to boost trade and investments. When asked about an announcement of Mr. Trump to double tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50%, he also said that the two countries will continue to work together to resolve all these issues bilaterally. "Let us wait and watch ...both the U.S. and India share good relations and we will continue to work together to resolve all these issues bilaterally," he said. Trade experts have stated that the further increase in the import duty by the Trump administration would impact Indian exporters, particularly those engaged in value-added and finished steel products and auto-components. On May 30, Mr. Trump announced that he would double the existing 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from June 4. Mr. Trump originally invoked this provision in 2018 to set the 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminium. He raised tariffs on aluminium to 25% in February 2025. In 2024-25, India exported $4.56 billion worth of iron, steel, and aluminium products to the U.S., with key categories, including $587.5 million in iron and steel, $3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel, and $860 million in aluminium and related articles. India has already issued a formal notice at the World Trade Organization (WTO), reserving its rights to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods in response to the earlier steel tariffs. A team of U.S. officials is visiting India this week for discussions on the proposed interim trade agreement between the two countries. The visit gains importance as India and the U.S. are likely to agree on an interim trade agreement by the end of June, with New Delhi pushing for full exemption from the 26% reciprocal tariff on domestic goods. India's chief negotiator, Special Secretary in the Department of Commerce Rajesh Agrawal, last month had concluded his four-day visit to Washington. He held talks with his U.S. counterpart on the proposed agreement. Mr. Goyal too was in Washington to give an impetus to trade talks. There is a possibility that both sides agree on an interim trade deal before the first tranche. Also read | U.S. remains India's largest trading partner for fourth consecutive year in 2024 -25: Government data The U.S, remained India's largest trading partner for the fourth consecutive year in 2024-25, with bilateral trade valued at $131.84 billion. The U.S, accounts for about 18% of India's total goods exports, 6.22% in imports, and 10.73% in the country's total merchandise trade. Talking about India's free trade pact with four-European nation bloc EFTA, Mr. Goyal said $100 billion FDI (foreign direct investment) commitment under the agreement does not include money coming into stock market through FIIs. "This is solid FDI coming into the country... This USD 100 billion of FDI comes with technologies... It will (also) catalyse nearly USD 500 billion of investments roughly. With this investment, the whole ecosystem gets created, hotels come up, infrastructure comes up, power and water is utilised. The whole ecosystem will add much more to the economy. So it's a massive investments that we are looking coming through this EFTA agreement," he added. The implementation process of this pact is progressing fast and is expected to come into force before the end of this year. The two sides signed the Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on March 10, 2024. Under the pact, India has received an investment commitment of $100 billion in 15 years from the grouping while allowing several products such as Swiss watches, chocolates and cut and polished diamonds at lower or zero duties. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. When asked if India would have similar arrangement in the proposed trade pact with the 27-nation bloc EU, he said: "The member countries are large investors in india, so we may not go that ground in our FTA with EU."
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
34 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US remittance tax to revive hawala, hand cartels a financial lifeline
Hidden on page 1,054 of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a threat to impose a 3.5 per cent tax on all remittance transfers made by non-citizens to accounts outside the country. This is a dangerous, backward-looking provision, and will make Americans less safe without raising much revenue. It is easy to understand why a measure like this would appeal to the current administration. It makes migrants' lives harder, and that's enough for it to be worth passing into law. And it certainly will create difficulties for millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the US, as well as for their families outside. Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has been a vocal opponent, saying — correctly — that this is unjustifiable double taxation. Her country, the largest destination for such transfers, has a lot to lose. But other countries are also worried. India is the third-largest destination for remittances from the US, receiving about $18 billion in 2024; the Philippines and China aren't far behind, at $14 billion each. According to Capital Economics, US-based remittances support 3 per cent of the Philippines' GDP. The impact on migration-dependent areas of the world will be severe. For some countries in Central America, national income might fall by almost 1 per cent if this proposal is implemented. Meanwhile, some estimates suggest that even a higher 5 per cent rate would only increase the US' takings by 0.1 per cent. For the remittance tax's backers, that's beside the point. Vice President JD Vance, when he was still a senator, introduced a similar bill. At that time, he said that 'this legislation is a common-sense solution to disincentivise illegal immigration and reduce the cartels' financial power.' That argument is exactly backward. What common sense actually tells you is that if less money is available in some of the poorest parts of Central America, it increases the incentives for people there to try and move to the US to join their family members already there. As for the impact on criminal networks — well, history suggests that they'll welcome this. The world has spent decades trying to make legal transfers cheap and efficient. An additional levy might increase the cost of transferring even small sums four fold. This would reverse all our efforts to force this trade above ground. If legal transfers are made too expensive, illegal and informal networks take their place. Some people have happily assumed that Bitcoin will fill the gap. But, more likely, there will be a renaissance in simpler, older mechanisms for international transfers. In South and West Asia, we call these methods 'hawala.' But other parts of the world derived equivalents independently. In China, for example, such mechanisms are called 'fei-ch'ien.' From a customer's point of view, they're simple to use. All you need to do is find a well-networked trader and give them the cash to be transferred. That person then calls somebody in their clan or village back home, who gives the same amount of cash to the chosen recipient. The two members of the hawala network settle accounts between each other once or twice a year, through smuggling or perhaps through false invoices and shell companies. Naturally, such informal mechanisms to transfer value can be used not just to evade the remittance excise, but taxes in general. Worse, they are frequently used as conduits for terrorism and drug financing — which is why governments have spent decades trying to stamp them out. This was hard because, if enough people use these systems, they can be more efficient and cheaper than formal finance. The exchange rates that hawala traders offer are often more attractive, and their fees take less of a bite out of small transactions than many banks do. In spite of the best efforts of regulators and cops, hawala networks only really shrank when other routes became more competitive. Informal currency traders need a large volume of transactions to be efficient and offer the best rates to their customers, so when their custom shrank, they became less attractive. It's this self-reinforcing loop that the remittance tax threatens to break. Suddenly, hawala networks — and their equivalents in South and Central America — will become appealing again. And when this method returns to its former prominence, it will become easier to pay those who smuggle opiates or people. And, of course, criminal syndicates of various types will once again step in to run these systems, and profit accordingly. The vice president is, not for the first time, wrong: His administration's remittance tax doesn't attack the cartels, it empowers them.
