Belarus courts the west as its opposition keeps fighting
This happened hours after Lukashenko received U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg in the capital of Minsk. The release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski — known as ' Minsk's number one political prisoner,' who had received the regime's harshest verdict of 18 years — underscores the high-profile nature of the gesture.
Kellogg's visit was not his first. On Feb. 12, soon after his initial trip to Belarus, the authorities pardoned three political prisoners, including an American citizen. The June amnesty therefore builds on a pattern linking each wave of releases to Kellogg-brokered diplomacy.
The end of the isolation of the Lukashenko regime, however, does not necessarily mean abandonment of Belarusian opposition.
Every year since she emerged in 2020, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya has used major international platforms — from long-form journalism and television interviews to speeches at parliaments, security conferences and her own social channels — to repeat the same demand: freedom for all Belarusian political prisoners. The consistency of that message underlines that freeing everyone, not a token few, is non-negotiable for the democratic movement she leads.
Posting on social media, Tsikhanouskaya thanked President Trump, Kellogg and other partners for securing her husband's freedom. She added, 'We're not done,' and urged that the remaining 1,186 political prisoners be released as well, a demonstration that the fight against the regime will persist.
With so many political prisoners still behind bars, Lukashenko's selective pardons fall far short of systemic change. Yet they signal a calculated bid to shed pariah status and rebalance Belarus's dependence on Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Belarus is the world's third-largest producer of potash, a key component of fertilizer, but sanctions and Lithuania's 2022 ban on its using the port of Klaipeda have cut it off from Western buyers. Almost all Belarusian potash now travels by rail through Russia to China and other Asian customers. Because Russia controls this sole export route and competes with Belarus in the same fertilizer market, it can charge premium transit fees, squeezing Belarusian profits and deepening Lukashenko's dependence on the Kremlin.
Putin's leverage helps explain why Lukashenko trades high-profile prisoner releases for talks on easing sanctions and restoring cheaper sea access.
Sending Kellogg to Minsk lets Trump advertise an early foreign-policy win: a humanitarian deal, plus a possible opening for Ukraine peace talks. To pull Belarus even slightly out of Putin's orbit strengthens Trump's argument that his personal diplomacy can keep Russia in check.
Over 90 percent of the potash used in the U.S. is imported. Top countries for potash exports include Canada, Belarus, China and Russia, with the last three accounting for more than 40 percent of global supply.
Belarus has turned eastward since Western sanctions cut off its traditional routes: China's share of Belarus's potash sales surged from 17 percent in 2021 to more than 70 percent in 2023. President Xi Jinping hailed Lukashenko as a 'true friend' during the Beijing summit on June 4.
For Trump, who has pursued a consistently hardline stance toward Beijing, the June deal that freed Tsikhanouski also serves as proof that his direct, transactional diplomacy can peel partners away from Beijing while advancing U.S. security aims — whether that is diversifying fertilizer supply chains or kick-starting Ukraine peace talks.
While economic and political calculations may shape how the Trump administration engages with Lukashenko, they do not equate to an end of international criticism of the Lukashenko regime or support for the Belarusian opposition. On March 27, the EU added 25 more officials and seven entities to its Belarus list of 310 individuals and 46 entities under asset freezes and travel bans, keeping Belarus under the same scrutiny as before the prisoner-release diplomacy began. High-level political platforms remain open to Tsikhanouskaya and her allies, and foreign legislatures and multilateral bodies still push accountability.
This international pressure helps to keep the opposition's cause alive and ensures that the struggle for democracy in Belarus still has external backing.
Tatsiana Kulakevich is an associate professor of instruction in research methods and quantitative analysis at the University of South Florida.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
15 minutes ago
- Vox
Democrats are right to flirt with Trump-Epstein conspiracies
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A group of young protesters holds pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump outside federal court in New York City on July 8, 2019. Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Democrats want you to know that President Donald Trump definitely might be protecting a cabal of child abusers. Or so the party's recent messaging suggests. For years, extremely online conservatives have been agitating for the release of the 'Epstein Files' — a hypothetical trove of confidential documents that reveal the powerful co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and accused sex trafficker who died in prison in 2019. When Fox News asked Trump last year whether he would release these files upon winning reelection, the Republican said, 'I guess I would.' Upon taking office, the Trump administration hyped the imminent disclosure of these documents. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested in February that a list of famous people who had abused Epstein's trafficked girls was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Around the same time, Bondi and Trump's FBI released what it billed as the 'first phase of declassified Epstein files.' But these proved to be binders comprised largely of already public information. Then, earlier this month, the Justice Department declared that Epstein did not actually maintain a 'client list,' that he had died by suicide (contrary to the popular theory that he'd been murdered to prevent the exposure of his clients), and that no further files on his case would be made public. This incensed much of the online right. And Democrats have decided to echo its outrage. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. The party's decision to dedicate so much energy to promoting this controversy might seem dubious. For one thing, Democrats' ostensible outrage over the alleged suppression of the Epstein Files is obviously hypocritical. After all, he died six years ago. A Democratic administration was in power from January 2021 through January 20 of this year. If there are secret federal documents about this case that incriminate public figures, then Joe Biden had them at his disposal. Thus, by affirming the notion that incriminating 'Epstein Files' exist, Democrats risk perpetuating the idea that both parties are toxically corrupt — a form of cynicism that Trump has long exploited to excuse his shameless graft and malfeasance. Separately, Democrats have already spent much of the past decade trying to tar Trump's image by spotlighting his scandals. Yet the minority of Americans who are open to supporting Trump — but not dead set on doing so — haven't evinced much concern for his character. Generally, messaging that emphasizes how Trump's policies would materially hurt ordinary Americans has tested better than attacks on the demagogue's shady dealings or authoritarianism. Whatever one may say about the White House's handling of the Epstein case, it does not seem likely to increase Americans' cost of living. By focusing on Epstein, Democrats are thus arguably defraying attention from Trump's true vulnerabilities — such as the tariffs that are raising prices for consumers or Medicaid cuts that will take health insurance from lower-income people. But these worries are misguided. The Democrats' decision to lean into the Epstein controversy is a political no-brainer for several reasons. Trump's relationship with Epstein – and handling of his case – is genuinely eyebrow raising To a degree, the furor over Epstein is rooted in beliefs that are unproven, if not outright false. For instance, there is no public evidence that he kept a labeled list of fellow sexual abusers, much less that such a document is in the government's possession. But the Trump administration has genuine liabilities on this subject, which Democratic advocacy can direct public attention toward. First, the incontrovertible facts about Trump's relationship with Epstein are unflattering and eyebrow raising, even though they are not incriminating. In the 1990s, Trump and Epstein were repeatedly photographed and video taped beside each other at social events. This by itself isn't especially damning. There's no reason to presume that everyone who ever associated with Epstein participated in his sex crimes. Criminals do not generally socialize exclusively with their co-conspirators. But in 2017, Epstein told the journalist Michael Wolff that he had been Trump's 'closest friend for 10 years.' And in 2002, Trump told New York magazine, 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' What's more, on Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal published the text of a letter that Trump sent to Epstein to celebrate the latter's 50th birthday. In that missive, Trump wrote his signature below the following lines of imaginary dialogue, which were typewritten: 'Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,' the note began. Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be anothedr wonderful secret. It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead. It's possible that Trump did not realize quite how young Epstein's sexual targets were. And it's also conceivable that the playful references to 'age' and a 'secret' in Trump's letter reference something innocuous. But at the very least, these are extraordinarily inconvenient things to have said about — and to — a man who allegedly trafficked 14-year-old girls. To be clear, there is no evidence that Trump participated in Epstein's abuse of children. But his longtime friendship with the rapist, avowed knowledge of Epstein's taste for youth, and own record of alleged sexual misdeeds makes this a politically hazardous subject for Trump. Making matters worse for him, his own claims about the Epstein controversy are wildly contradictory. In recent days, Trump has claimed that the government does possess secret files with explosive claims about Epstein, but that these documents were forged by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and 'the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration.' He has also insisted that this whole controversy is dull and deserves no public attention, telling reporters, 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring.' As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait notes, these two claims are a bit hard to square. On the one hand, Trump suggests that the FBI, CIA, State Department, and the Obama and Biden administrations all conspired to fabricate defamatory documents about an alleged child sex abuse conspiracy. On the other hand, he says that this is a really boring story that shouldn't interest anybody. But an elaborate conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government — and seemingly aimed at politically damaging Trump — seems like something that would quite naturally interest Americans in general, and Trump supporters in particular. What's more, even if we put Trump's conspiracizing to one side, his claim that he doesn't understand why the Epstein case interests people still seems disingenuous. After all Trump, accused former President Bill Clinton of visiting 'the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein' in 2015, and spread allegations that Clinton was behind Epstein's death four years later. Trump subsequently demanded 'a full investigation' into Epstein's death and crimes, telling reporters, 'You have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot.' It seems clear then that Trump knows perfectly well why the Epstein case interests people. The fact that he now feels compelled to claim otherwise, while begging his supporters to stop talking about the controversy, seems rather odd — and also, like an indication that Democrats would be wise to keep attention focused on this matter. Meanwhile, it is clear that Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel deceived the public about the Epstein case — either when they suggested that the government had been suppressing documents about his co-conspirators, or when they later insisted that such documents did not exist. In 2023, Patel suggested that the Biden administration possessed Epstein's 'black book,' and insinuated that this document was not merely a catalog of the financier's contacts, but rather, a list explicitly identifying various famous people as 'pedophiles.' As noted above, Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was sitting on her desk. Now, Patel and Bondi maintain that no such lists exist. This leaves two possibilities: Either America's two top law enforcement officers misled the public about the Epstein case in the past, or they are doing so today. Put more pointedly, Patel and Bondi either cynically promoted conspiracy theories about a Biden administration coverup, despite knowing they lacked evidence for their smears, or they suddenly decided to perpetrate such a coverup themselves. Neither interpretation recommends them for high office. And both readings of their actions make the Trump White House look grossly incompetent. If the administration knew that it had no compelling information about Epstein to unveil — or else, that it possessed explosive information that it didn't wish to make public — why did Bondi spend months hyping the release of the Epstein documents? It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead (a suspicion also raised by Trump's trade strategy). Cuts to Medicaid provider taxes are never going to get more clicks than conspiracy theories about elite child sex abuse rings If the Democratic Party had the power to dictate which topics would trend on social media, then they would be well-advised to pick Trump's Medicaid cuts or tariffs. But they do not have such power. Every Democratic official in the country could spend all day every day talking about Trump's defunding of rural hospitals — posts and podcasts about Medicaid provider taxes still wouldn't outperform content about whether Epstein was a CIA asset. Millions of Americans may vote once every four years on the basis of mundane economic policy concerns. But they are not typically going to entertain themselves by viewing TikToks about the 'de minimis' exemption on a daily basis. Democrats can and should foreground their party's strongest policy arguments in paid media. With a TV or YouTube ad, you can force the public to think about the subject of your choice. But the range of topics that you can get people to post about for free is much narrower. And of all the stories that could plausibly drive weeks of public conversation, Trump purportedly suppressing information about Epstein — to the chagrin of his own allies — seems like one of the most favorable for Democrats. There's a major difference between this scandal and all Trump's prior ones Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. But Trump's base was behind him in all of those instances. Today, by contrast, major right-wing influencers are validating the Democratic Party's narrative that a Republican White House is hiding something. And Trump's attempts to shut down discussion of the Epstein case have gotten him 'ratioed' on his own social media platform. Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. This is especially true when that issue also pits your adversary against majority opinion. And in trying to persuade the broad electorate that the Trump administration is mishandling the Epstein case — possibly, for nefarious reasons — Democrats are pushing on an open door. A YouGov/Economist poll released this week found that nearly 80 percent of Americans want the government to 'release all the documents it has about the Jeffrey Epstein case,' while more than two-thirds — including half of Republicans — say that the government is 'covering up evidence it has about Epstein.' Internal Democratic polling tells a similar story. A recent survey from Blue Rose Research found that 70 percent of the public — including 61 percent of Trump voters — believes that law enforcement is 'withholding information about powerful people connected to Epstein.' And a majority of voters agreed with the statement, 'authorities are keeping secret' a list of Epstein's clients to 'protect powerful people like Donald Trump.' There's a broader narrative here about Trump betraying his campaign promises, in service of the powerful Finally, it isn't that hard to weave the Epstein controversy into a broader story that touches on voters' material concerns. And Democrats are already doing this. In the party's telling, Trump's refusal to release documents related to the case reflects a core truth about his presidency: his fundamental commitment is to protecting the powerful, even if doing so requires breaking campaign promises. Hence, Trump's willingness to slash Medicaid — after promising for years that he wouldn't — so as to finance tax cuts for the rich. As Pat Dennis, president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge, told Politico, the Epstein controversy is 'an interesting foot in the door to the overall case' that Trump 'doesn't have your back on Medicare, on health care, on veterans.' Thus, the Epstein story is a clear boon for Democrats, who've been right to increase its salience. Still, Democrats still have a lot of work to do Even as the party savors Trump's squirming, however, it should not lose sight of its own lackluster political standing. As CNN's Harry Enten noted this week, Democrats' poll numbers are far worse today than at this point in the 2006 and 2018 midterm election cycles — years when the party enjoyed large congressional gains amid a Republican presidency. In the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by just 2 points today, compared to seven points in 2006 and 2018. All else equal, the Epstein scandal is a helpful development for Democrats. But its impact so far is miniscule. The online right's freakout notwithstanding, 90 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump in a recent Quinnipiac poll. By contrast, Democrats disapprove of their own congressional leadership by a 13-point margin. Democrats can and should continue cultivating distrust in Trump. But to increase faith in their own party, they will need to do more than affirm voters' conspiratorial suspicions about a long dead sex offender.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Giant pandas, tiger attacks and the ugly fight to control the San Francisco Zoo
Molting peacocks squawked in the distance and a Pacific breeze whispered through the eucalyptus as flamingo keeper Liz Gibbons tidied her station at the San Francisco Zoo. It had been an unusually cold summer in a city famous for them. Marooned on 'a breathtaking piece of land' at the peninsula's far western edge, steps from the deadly surf at Ocean Beach, the timeworn seaside menagerie had endured weeks of gray gloom. But late that July afternoon, the sun broke through the clouds. Then word began to spread. 'Everybody was like, 'Oh my God, did you hear?'' the keeper recalled. 'It's the news we've been waiting for.' For more than a year, the keepers, gardeners, train drivers and office staff of Teamsters Local 856 had been fighting to unseat their boss, longtime San Francisco Zoo Chief Executive Tanya Peterson. They were not alone. A growing chorus of animal activists, government watchdogs and civic leaders had called for Peterson to step down. In May, the San Francisco Zoological Society, the park's nonprofit operator, split down the middle in a failed attempt to remove her. From late last spring through early this summer, there was a vote of no confidence by the union, a blistering exposé in the San Francisco Chronicle, a damning report by the Animal Control and Welfare Commission, a looming audit by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a hail-Mary intercession by Mayor Daniel Lurie. Even the consul general of China had privately sought Peterson's ouster. 'He was like, 'You have issues — fix them,'' said Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose district includes the zoo. A similar fight recently sent fur flying in Los Angeles, where the city and its former nonprofit zoo partner have locked horns over control of a $50-million endowment. At stake in San Francisco's power struggle is a pair of cuddly new tourist magnets: two giant pandas from China, hailed as a coup for the tarnished Golden City when then-Mayor London Breed inked the deal to bring them last year. Only two other American zoos have pandas: San Diego and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. In San Francisco, where nearly a quarter of residents identify as Chinese, the thrill was palpable. City Hall hoped the panda prestige would burn off any lingering haze of a doom loop. 'We're getting our house in order,' Lurie said. 'We already are a world-class city. When the pandas arrive in San Francisco, that's just going to be yet another draw.' Others saw the black-and-white bears as a rebuke to Trumpian isolationism. 'The best response to the displeasure of Washington is to be awesome and successful,' Melgar said. 'The pandas are a part of our success and a part of our value system.' For Peterson, who led the zoo since 2008, bringing a pair of the world's most sought-after animals to San Francisco was a dream come true. The political urgency and multimillion-dollar price tag seemed to ensure her continued leadership. 'The same day that the [Zoological Society] board was meant to vote her out, she let everyone know she was meeting with the Chinese Consulate,' said activist journalist Justin Barker of SF Zoo Watch. Peterson 'essentially tells the Board of Supervisors, 'If you move forward with this audit, you might not get pandas.'' So how did the ace up her leopard-print sleeve bring her down? Peterson did not respond to requests for comment. In an emailed statement, zoo spokesperson Sam Singer said she 'served with distinction and devotion.' In her own message to staff this month, Peterson likened her planned departure on Aug. 1 to the death of the zoo's beloved silverback gorilla, writing that 'some animals may leave this earth, but they never leave our souls.' 'It has been an honor to serve you, our animals, and the loyal constituents of this amazing community,' she said. For workers, her exit brought elation. 'I haven't seen this level of positivity and excitement ever,' said Stephanie Carpenter, a reptile and amphibian keeper. Former carnivore curator Travis Shields name-checked the infamous large cat wrangler from the Netflix series 'Tiger King' when asked what the next zoo leader should bring in comparison with Peterson. 'I don't think [keepers] care who comes next,' he said. 'It can't be any worse unless Joe Exotic comes in — and he's still in prison.' But the long fight has clawed open old wounds. Many in and around the zoo described the bitter panda power struggle as the worst crisis the institution has faced since the fatal tiger attack that vaunted Peterson to her current position and nearly shut down the zoo. 'They're holding their breath,' said one former manager, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. 'It's a similar feeling to after the tiger got out — what's going to happen to everything?' For Peterson's usurpers, the $25-million question is now: What's going to happen to the pandas? The rise of Tanya Peterson is inextricably linked to the fall of Tatiana the tiger, the first and only animal to escape and kill a visitor at an Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums-accredited facility. San Francisco acquired the 2½ -year-old, 242-pound Siberian from the Denver Zoo in 2005 as a mate for its 14-year old male Tony. They lived in the tiger grotto and were fed at the Art Deco-style Lion House, built for the original Fleishhacker Zoo by the Works Progress Administration. The park's original Depression-era structures are iconic, rising gray and craggy from the muted landscape like the Monterey cypress through the ever-present fog. 'The zoo is right on the water, it's right next to the beach and all the structures are daily battered by the fog and the wind and the sand and the salt,' Melgar said. Much of the century-old site is in disrepair. 'The infrastructure really left a lot to be desired,' said Manuel Mollinedo, who took over as the executive director of the San Francisco Zoo in 2004 after a successful turnaround at the Los Angeles Zoo. Twenty years before Tatiana arrived, the tiger grotto was briefly repurposed to house two giant pandas, Yun-Yun and Ying-Xin, who passed through during the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics before visiting again in 1985. Those publicity tours preceded a slump in attendance through the mid-1990s. In 1993, the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society took over operations, while the city retained ownership of the property. Many zoos are run on a similar nonprofit model, including the Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoo, Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums President Dan Ashe said. Others, such as the Los Angeles Zoo, are run by cities or for profit. By the mid-aughts, efforts to draw in more blue-collar visitors had begun to bear fruit, and tax records show more than a million people were coming each year. 'The zoo had really turned a corner,' Mollinedo said. 'Our attendance was the highest it had ever been since the pandas were brought in 20 years before.' Then, during a public feeding in the Lion House in December 2006, Tatiana reached under the bars and grabbed keeper Lori Komejan by the arm. The tiger mauled her as she attempted to drag her into the cage, leading to permanent damage, according to a lawsuit later settled with the city. But that wasn't the end of it. One year after that incident, on Christmas Day 2007 — Tatiana escaped, mauling two men and killing a teenager. The city and the zoo ultimately reached financial settlements with the injured men and the family of 17-year-old Carlos Eduardo Sousa Jr. A federal investigation found panda-era modifications probably paved the way for Tatiana's escape. 'It was really rough for everybody,' said Gibbons, the flamingo keeper, who grew up in the Outer Sunset neighborhood and climbed the ranks through the zoo's youth volunteer program. 'I remember the city wanting to close it as a zoo and have it be a sanctuary.' Instead, the board pushed Mollinedo out and installed Peterson, a fellow board member and an attorney at Hewlett-Packard, whose then-husband had just run the finance committee for then-Mayor Gavin Newsom's reelection campaign. 'She said all the right things — that she wanted to hear from staff, that her door was always open,' longtime zoo gardener Marc Villa said. 'For the time being, it was kind of a breath of fresh air.' Echoing other critics, Mollinedo said Peterson 'knew nothing about animals.' But she made up for it with philanthropic prowess. 'She's a good fundraiser, I'll give her that,' said San Francisco Recreation and Park Commissioner Larry Mazzola Jr., who heads the zoo advisory committee. As interim CEO, Peterson swapped her corporate wardrobe for ostrich-feathered sheaths, tiger-striped hatbands, snakeskin-patterned coats and cheetah-spotted sneakers. Her early tenure was already marked by constant tension between what animal experts felt needed fixing and what donors wanted done. Outrage over half-finished safety measures led the Teamsters to their first no-confidence vote in 2014. 'All of this has been degenerating for a long time,' Melgar said. 'We have not had labor peace at that institution for years.' By 2024, the zoo's annual attendance had slipped to 700,000 — 15% below the nadir after the tiger attack, and roughly two-thirds of the yearly visitors to the Oakland Zoo across the bay. The pandas were supposed to fix all those problems. Instead, they fomented a coup. When Breed announced the panda deal late last April, zookeepers were shocked. 'None of the senior managers knew anything about it,' Villa said. 'Everybody's scrambled: How do we make this work? Where are we going to put them? It was just, 'Hey, we're getting pandas!'' It was a week after the union's second vote of no confidence against Peterson. To many, the move felt emblematic of her leadership flaws. 'If we do have a vision for this zoo besides pandas, it's not been communicated very well,' Villa said. Pandas are wildly popular with the public. But they're a thornier prospect for zoos, experts warn. The bears cannot be kept near lions or other large carnivores. They need a special diet, experienced keepers and state-of-the-art new enclosures. For San Francisco, the cost has been estimated at $25 million. Raising that money will fall to the interim CEO, which San Francisco has not yet named. The search for a permanent replacement will pit San Francisco against two of the state's premier animal attractions, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the San Diego Zoo. Despite the promise of greater oversight and the possibility of more funding from the city, many animal activists and former zoo staff remain staunchly opposed to the panda project. Some current keepers also expressed concerns. 'Guests are always asking, 'Where are the tigers? Where are the monkeys? Where are all these animals that used to be here?' We need to take care of the animals we have right now,' said Carpenter, the reptile keeper. But City Hall remains staunchly pro-panda. So does the Chinese Consulate, the Teamsters and the Board of Supervisors, which just last month threatened to withhold $4 million from the Zoological Society over its failure to produce audit paperwork. 'People are proud that we're doing this, and want us to pull it off,' Melgar said. 'The pandas will have a view of the ocean!' The Chinese visitors were originally slated to arrive at the end of this year. Then, this spring, they were assured by next April, just after the Super Bowl. That date has been pushed again, to the end of 2026. 'We don't know where we're going,' Villa said. 'Everything runs on rumors and speculation.' For now, the Teamsters are keeping their ears perked, waiting for good news to swirl in with the fog.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
McConnell evolves from GOP leader to Senate wild card
Former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has emerged as one of the biggest wild cards in the Senate, keeping his Republican colleagues guessing about how he'll vote on elements of President Trump's agenda. McConnell has been largely sidelined from important leadership-level discussions since he stepped down as Senate Republican leader at the end of 2024 after a record-setting 18 years in the post, say Senate colleagues. But the crafty veteran senator has used high-profile dissenting votes and carefully timed statements to make his influence felt throughout the Senate GOP conference and to signal when he thinks Trump — and by extension, Trump's allies in Congress — are moving in the wrong direction. In doing so, he's using his leverage to preserve the values of the traditional GOP establishment in Washington. McConnell this week voted against two critical procedural motions to advance a proposal to claw back $9 billion in funding Congress had already appropriated, legislation that was a top priority of Trump and Russell Vought, Trump's controversial leader of the White House budget office. McConnell joined moderate Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), in voting to block the bill from coming to the floor. And he did so with no public warning, playing his cards close to the vest and leaving his colleagues guessing about what he would do. He also voted with Collins and Murkowski for an amendment sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) to shrink the size of the rescissions package by exempting $496 million for international disaster relief from the cuts. It failed 49 to 50 on an otherwise party-line vote. McConnell threw colleagues another curveball when he voted 'aye' on final passage of the rescissions package. He explained his 'no' vote on the motion to proceed to the bill and his vote to pass the package once it was on the floor as reflecting his reservations about letting the White House dictate spending decisions to Capitol Hill. 'My belief in the importance of American soft power is not in conflict with my commitment to holding government accountable for inefficiency, and I take Congress' responsibility to rein in federal spending seriously,' he said in a statement. 'The Administration's rescissions request is not the way I would prefer to act on this responsibility, but faced with a choice between spending reduction and no reduction, I voted in favor of the rescission.' One GOP senator who requested anonymity applauded McConnell for pushing back against increasing pressure from the White House to carry out its demands for spending cuts, demands that have chaffed Republican members of the Appropriations Committee especially. 'I think it's him being Mitch McConnell as the senior senator from Kentucky, as a leader in the Senate for decades who no longer has the burden of leadership and is just free to be a lawmaker. I think that's what you see in Mitch; I love it,' one senator said. The senator described the Office of Management and Budget's response to senators' concerns about the rescissions package as 'dismissive.' McConnell declared in October he would feel more free to vote his conscience once he stepped down from the Republican leadership role and would have less of an obligation to toe the party's line. 'Here's one way to look at it: Free at last,' McConnell quipped during a talk to the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. 'What I mean by that, is when you're the leader — if you're smart — you're looking out for everybody else. You also — if you're smart — understand you're going to take all the arrows that are coming in in order to protect your members. 'I'm actually looking forward to the next couple of years to focusing on what I want to focus on,' he said. A couple of Republican senators see McConnell's 'no' votes on the procedural motions to advance the rescissions package as part of a broader trend this year, noting that he also voted for a resolution in April to undo Trump's punitive tariffs against Canada. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he thought McConnell's votes breaking with the GOP leadership were 'more directed at Trump.' A second Republican senator who requested anonymity to speak on the subject said McConnell doesn't mind sticking Trump in the eye given their rocky relationship, which hit a low point after McConnell refused to endorse Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen. McConnell told his biographer, Michael Tackett of The Associated Press, that he thought the 'MAGA movement is completely wrong' and that former President Reagan 'wouldn't recognize' the party today. But he sounded a more conciliatory tone after Trump won a sweeping victory over then-Vice President Kamala Harris in November. 'I want Trump to be successful,' he said right after the election. A person familiar with McConnell's thinking said his 'no' votes have never been about political vengeance and have always been about policy. In addition to voting to unwind Trump's tariff on Canada, McConnell voted against Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominees to head the Department of Defense, serve as director of national intelligence, and lead the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively. A few Republican senators saw McConnell's no votes this week as a veiled 'shot' at Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), McConnell's long-time deputy who replaced him as GOP leader at the start of the year. 'I wonder if this rescissions thing is a little bit of a shot at John Thune,' said a third Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment frankly on McConnell's relationship with the new leadership team. 'Thune pretty much sidelined him during the reconciliation debate, which makes sense to me because Thune's the leader now,' the lawmaker said. 'You can tell that McConnell tried to insert himself a couple of different times over the course of the months in meetings. Thune would let him talk but then he would quickly move him aside, he wouldn't comment, he wouldn't engage. 'Why would he vote against rescissions? There's nothing in here that's ideological that would bother him,' the senator said of the votes against proceeding to the bill. 'He's not for public broadcasting money, he's voting against that a bunch of times.' McConnell voted for the $15 billion rescissions package Trump sent to Congress in 2018, when Republicans controlled both chambers and McConnell was Senate majority leader. That package narrowly failed in the Senate by a 48-50 vote. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) called McConnell's votes against motions to discharge the rescissions bill from the Appropriations Committee and to proceed to it on the Senate floor as 'disappointing.' 'Rescissions are a legitimate appropriations process, albeit rarely used,' he said, countering the argument pushed by members of the Appropriations Committee that the White House's request for rescissions undercut congressional spending authority. Cramer suggested that McConnell owes Thune more loyalty after many years of pressing GOP colleagues to stay unified on tough votes when he was the leader. 'As leader, he certainly would have done everything he could to earn our 'yes' vote as part of the team effort,' he said. 'It's certainly disappointing to see him not do that for … John Thune, who was a very, very good and loyal lieutenant.' Cramer said voting for the rescissions package 'is as easy as it gets.' A source familiar with McConnell's relationship with Thune said while the two men have 'different styles,' they both have a lot to offer the GOP conference by working together. 'While Leader Thune and Sen. McConnell … approached the [leader's] role with different styles, they both understand — better than anyone else in the conference — the hurdles and opportunities that come with the job,' the source said. 'They speak frequently, and Leader Thune appreciates and values the unique role Sen. McConnell plays, having served as leader for nearly two decades and now as chair of the Rules Committee and as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee,' the source said. McConnell gave Republican senators a 'pep talk' about sticking together when they held the first vote-a-rama to pave the way for Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act and again urged his colleagues to band together to beat back Democratic attempts to divide them over proposed cuts to Medicaid, according to another source familiar with McConnell's efforts to help Thune get the reconciliation package across the finish line.
