Latest news with #Biden-to-Trump
Axios
5 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Focus groups: Trump redistricting push could backfire with swing voters
The reaction of Georgia swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups shows how President Trump's sudden push for redistricting could backfire on the GOP in the midterms — if Democrats can hold voters' attention. The big picture: Just four of the 11 Biden-to-Trump swing voters in Tuesday night's sessions said they could explain why more than 50 Democratic Texas legislators have left that state. But when provided with neutral facts describing the situation, none of the 11 said they support the GOP redistricting effort. All 11 oppose an effort from the state attorney general to remove some of the Democrats from office. 10 of the 11 said Texas Democrats did the right thing by leaving the state. "Once Georgia swing voters understand what Texas Republicans are attempting, they reject it," said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. "That said, Democrats have done a lousy job of educating swing voters about mid-decade redistricting." Zoom in: Of the 11 focus group participants, all of whom backed President Trump in November, just three now say they approve of the administration's overall actions. All 11 said they're more anxious about the economy now than when Trump took office. Seven said they disapprove of the tariffs. How it works: Axios observed two online focus groups Tuesday night that included 11 Georgia residents who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. Five are Democrats, four are independents and two are Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: " The cost of living is ridiculous and it's not slowing down; it shows no signs of getting better," said Todd L., 42, of Atlanta. "It seems like every other day there's a new tariff or he's pissed off some other country, and just every single day there's more news about inflation and job losses," said Gavin E., 52, of Decatur. "It just keeps getting worse and worse. We're hemorrhaging. It's crazy." When it comes to the Texas redistricting dispute, Kevin J., 57, of Woodstock, said: "Doing this now and redrawing their districts, that's just they want to please Donald Trump." Said Chris Z., 36, of Norcross: "He wants it now. He wants it his way. There's a proper way to do things and he doesn't follow. ... There's no balance of power. That's just not how things operate, and it'll be a domino effect with other states doing the same thing." "Once it's done every five years, then some state will push it to two years and some state will push it to a year," said Sherrecia J., 34, of Atlanta. "It's going to become more and more ridiculous. It has to have a boundary." "What's the purpose of having laws and constitutions and protocols if they're not going to be followed?" said Olanrewaju A., 44, of Decatur. Meanwhile, Thau also spent a portion of the sessions asking these swing voters how they are using and thinking about AI. The panels followed the launch of OpenAI's GPT-5. Some communities, including in Georgia, are raising concerns about the growth of data centers and their potential strains on the power grid and the environment. 10 of the 11 said they've used some form of AI; five use ChatGPT at least weekly; eight consider themselves supporters of AI. Nine worried AI will weaken privacy protections, especially related to financial data; nine also feared AI will be used to undermine America's political system; and eight said they fear AI will figure out how to launch weapons on its own, without human commands.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Here's why Trump's inconsistent support for Ukraine is so dangerous
President Trump just took a partial step back from historic ignominy when it comes to the controversial issue of Ukraine. This Monday he announced with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte a two-step transaction by which the U.S. will build and sell to NATO Patriot anti-missile systems and other weapons that NATO will then provide to Ukraine for its defense against Russia's expanding invasion. Had Trump rejected NATO's compromise deal, avoiding further U.S. costs to defend Ukraine, and reverted to his openly pro-Putin posture, he would have forever tarnished his legacy — the same way Joe Biden's Afghanistan debacle destroyed his already dubious foreign policy reputation. The Trump administration last week said that the U.S. would 'pause' military weapons shipments for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, the second such interruption of aid that has taken place without the president's explicit consent. Now at least temporarily reversed, this action likely would have fatally weakened Ukraine's ability to fend off Russia's assault and guaranteed the continuation of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wanton cruelty. Trump called Russia's recent bombing onslaught on civilians 'unnecessary' and untimely, given his own plans for Ukraine, which remain undefined except that he wants the war ended on almost any terms. With the Biden-to-Trump transition, Ukraine and the world saw U.S. policy shift away from a contradictory approach of strong rhetorical support coupled with erratic military aid and constrained intelligence sharing. Biden's forever-stalemate strategy took a dramatic turn for the worse under Trump, thanks to his outright admiration for 'genius' Putin's aggressive agenda. Until now, Trump has acquiesced to Putin's mockery of his 'peace process,' and brazenly done what no other president has even considered in 250 years of U.S. history: He has openly sided with one of America's leading enemies in its victimization of a democratic friend. Even now, questions remain as to whether Ukraine will receive as many weapons as it needs and at the delivery rate needed. The new 50-day delay in threatened primary and secondary sanctions casts doubt on whether Trump's heart is really into getting tough with Putin, whom he has belatedly accused of sounding 'nice' but throwing a lot of 'bulls—.' The reprieve, as more Ukrainians die and cities are destroyed, allows Putin yet more time to deliver a death blow to Ukraine. The world may be witnessing a cynical Trump-Putin kabuki dance intended to be fatal for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Communist China and North Korea have been learning the true meaning of Trump's slogans about reviving American greatness. The laudable and long-overdue strike on Iran's nuclear weapons program did not erase what threatens to become, under Trump, the hollowing-out of Reagan's policy of resisting Russian expansionism. Counterintuitively, it is perfectly plausible for Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un to conclude that Trump's Iran operation makes him far less, not more, likely to consider using U.S. force to defend Taiwan, the Philippines or South Korea. Trump's reasoning might well be that the Iran strike has already proved his credentials as a commander in chief willing to use U.S. power in the national interest. Although the premise is sound, the perseverance of America's adversaries and the contrary message of weakness conveyed by his seeming Ukraine surrender up to now send a different message. Given his decidedly mixed record, Trump cannot afford to stand by if Beijing and Pyongyang choose to test his national security staying power. Trump has not yet endorsed the overthrow of Iran's terrorist regime. In fact, Trump has said he does 'not favor regime change in Iran' because of the 'chaos' it would cause. But he has twice cut off at the knees Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, while openly supporting Putin. In that strategic context, Xi and Kim will surely be tempted to advance their own aggressive regional plans. The interrelationship of the remaining Russia-China-North Korea entente manifests itself in various ways. Kim sent tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers to help push back Ukraine's surprise advance into Russia's Kursk region. This was undoubtedly done with Beijing's explicit encouragement, reminiscent of China's massive infusion of 'volunteers' into South Korea to thwart the allied counteroffensive during the Korean War. North Korean forces, while pushing the Ukrainians back from Kursk and gaining much-needed battlefield experience, suffered major losses and demonstrated both their strategic and tactical shortcomings — as well as the willingness of totalitarian rulers to use human lives as cannon fodder. Having entered into a 'no limits' strategic partnership with Putin just before his 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Xi arrogantly announced earlier this month that China 'can't accept' Russia's defeat. The statement, delivered by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, coincided ominously with Trump's announced second cut-off of support for Ukraine. Considering this latest unequivocal commitment to the success of Russia, Xi may well be signaling an intention to send Chinese forces to replenish Russia's depleted army. It was also striking that Beijing chose to make the outcome in Ukraine a matter of Chinese national interest. It will undoubtedly expect the same level of unlimited Russian support if it decides to move in the South China Sea. To discourage that kind of rash action, Trump needs to send a clear, Reaganesque message of deterrence to Putin and Xi that the U.S. will do whatever is necessary to protect the security of Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and America's other friends, allies and security partners. It's worth noting the commitments of China and North Korea to Russia' warmongering in Ukraine have overtones of the escalating domino effect that triggered World War I, with one major difference: Trump has made clear that, up to now at least, this U.S. president was on the side of the aligned aggressors. If Trump adheres to that wrong-headed posture, history will not treat him kindly, and the free world will pay a grievous price. Ukraine is already paying it now. Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute and member of the advisory board of The Vandenberg Coalition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Here's why Trump's inconsistent support for Ukraine is so dangerous
President Trump just took a partial step back from historic ignominy when it comes to the controversial issue of Ukraine. This Monday he announced with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte a two-step transaction by which the U.S. will build and sell to NATO Patriot anti-missile systems and other weapons that NATO will then provide to Ukraine for its defense against Russia's expanding invasion. Had Trump rejected NATO's compromise deal, avoiding further U.S. costs to defend Ukraine, and reverted to his openly pro-Putin posture, he would have forever tarnished his legacy — the same way Joe Biden's Afghanistan debacle destroyed his already dubious foreign policy reputation. The Trump administration last week said that the U.S. would 'pause' military weapons shipments for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, the second such interruption of aid that has taken place without the president's explicit consent. Now at least temporarily reversed, this action likely would have fatally weakened Ukraine's ability to fend off Russia's assault and guaranteed the continuation of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wanton cruelty. Trump called Russia's recent bombing onslaught on civilians 'unnecessary' and untimely, given his own plans for Ukraine, which remain undefined except that he wants the war ended on almost any terms. With the Biden-to-Trump transition, Ukraine and the world saw U.S. policy shift away from a contradictory approach of strong rhetorical support coupled with erratic military aid and constrained intelligence sharing. Biden's forever-stalemate strategy took a dramatic turn for the worse under Trump, thanks to his outright admiration for 'genius' Putin's aggressive agenda. Until now, Trump has acquiesced to Putin's mockery of his 'peace process,' and brazenly done what no other president has even considered in 250 years of U.S. history: He has openly sided with one of America's leading enemies in its victimization of a democratic friend. Even now, questions remain as to whether Ukraine will receive as many weapons as it needs and at the delivery rate needed. The new 50-day delay in threatened primary and secondary sanctions casts doubt on whether Trump's heart is really into getting tough with Putin, whom he has belatedly accused of sounding 'nice' but throwing a lot of 'bulls—.' The reprieve, as more Ukrainians die and cities are destroyed, allows Putin yet more time to deliver a death blow to Ukraine. The world may be witnessing a cynical Trump-Putin kabuki dance intended to be fatal for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Communist China and North Korea have been learning the true meaning of Trump's slogans about reviving American greatness. The laudable and long-overdue strike on Iran's nuclear weapons program did not erase what threatens to become, under Trump, the hollowing-out of Reagan's policy of resisting Russian expansionism. Counterintuitively, it is perfectly plausible for Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un to conclude that Trump's Iran operation makes him far less, not more, likely to consider using U.S. force to defend Taiwan, the Philippines or South Korea. Trump's reasoning might well be that the Iran strike has already proved his credentials as a commander in chief willing to use U.S. power in the national interest. Although the premise is sound, the perseverance of America's adversaries and the contrary message of weakness conveyed by his seeming Ukraine surrender up to now send a different message. Given his decidedly mixed record, Trump cannot afford to stand by if Beijing and Pyongyang choose to test his national security staying power. Trump has not yet endorsed the overthrow of Iran's terrorist regime. In fact, Trump has said he does 'not favor regime change in Iran' because of the 'chaos' it would cause. But he has twice cut off at the knees Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, while openly supporting Putin. In that strategic context, Xi and Kim will surely be tempted to advance their own aggressive regional plans. The interrelationship of the remaining Russia-China-North Korea entente manifests itself in various ways. Kim sent tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers to help push back Ukraine's surprise advance into Russia's Kursk region. This was undoubtedly done with Beijing's explicit encouragement, reminiscent of China's massive infusion of 'volunteers' into South Korea to thwart the allied counteroffensive during the Korean War. North Korean forces, while pushing the Ukrainians back from Kursk and gaining much-needed battlefield experience, suffered major losses and demonstrated both their strategic and tactical shortcomings — as well as the willingness of totalitarian rulers to use human lives as cannon fodder. Having entered into a 'no limits' strategic partnership with Putin j ust before his 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Xi arrogantly announced earlier this month that China 'can't accept' Russia's defeat. The statement, delivered by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, coincided ominously with Trump's announced second cut-off of support for Ukraine. Considering this latest unequivocal commitment to the success of Russia, Xi may well be signaling an intention to send Chinese forces to replenish Russia's depleted army. It was also striking that Beijing chose to make the outcome in Ukraine a matter of Chinese national interest. It will undoubtedly expect the same level of unlimited Russian support if it decides to move in the South China Sea. To discourage that kind of rash action, Trump needs to send a clear, Reaganesque message of deterrence to Putin and Xi that the U.S. will do whatever is necessary to protect the security of Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and America's other friends, allies and security partners. It's worth noting the commitments of China and North Korea to Russia' warmongering in Ukraine have overtones of the escalating domino effect that triggered World War I, with one major difference: Trump has made clear that, up to now at least, this U.S. president was on the side of the aligned aggressors. If Trump adheres to that wrong-headed posture, history will not treat him kindly, and the free world will pay a grievous price. Ukraine is already paying it now. Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute and member of the advisory board of The Vandenberg Coalition.
Sky News AU
02-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Former Home Affairs boss Mike Pezzullo warns Australia could face strategic challenges if Donald Trump reconsiders the future of AUKUS
Former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo has said Australia may be forced to lift its defence spending, depending on the outcome of a critical AUKUS review in Washington and views of President Donald Trump. The Biden-to-Trump transition has put the AUKUS deal under a new light with Mr Pezzullo believing that this issue remains very much alive, particularly within the Pentagon, but that the current review of the AUKUS agreement will come down to President Trump. Speaking to Sky News' Laura Jayes, Pezzullo said the current review of the AUKUS agreement – due to conclude within days – could usher in significant changes. 'The review might well be quite difficult for Australia, because it might demand for instance more defence spending or it might put a pause on the potential transfer and sale in 2032, but if that's not President Trump's view, it'll just get shelved,' he told Sky News. 'If the White House takes the view that Europe has to do more and they apply that same rubric to Japan, Australia and others, then I think that's going to be quite a willing discussion. If that's not the President's view, then I think a very different outcome will arise.' Pezzullo said the Pentagon remains wary about the availability of Virginia-class submarines, with concerns over whether the US can spare vessels for Australia. 'From the Pentagon's point of view, the concern is if we sell one to the Australians in 2032 . . . then that's one fewer that we have,' he said. He also suggested there may be growing pressure for Australia to strengthen its military posture – particularly by enabling more direct US operations from its territory, while noting that the Pentagon may want to see Australia 'lift its game in terms of its own military capability' and deepen integration with US force posture initiatives. 'The ability to launch military strikes from Australia, the ability potentially to fire missiles from Australia, the ability to sail at submarines, as they will be able to do from Perth in a couple of years' time. Is that the White House's view? That's what I'm not clear about,' he said. These comments come as Foreign Minister Penny Wong met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, where the AUKUS pact was high on the agenda. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to meet face-to-face with President Trump eight months since his election win and has faced criticism from the Coalition for not pushing harder to meet with him earlier. However, Senator Wong said she used talks with US Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio to discuss a future meeting between Mr Albanese and Mr Trump. 'I don't think that American policy in relation to the Indo-Pacific is as settled as what a lot of the commentators think,' Pezzullo said. 'President Trump has been so focused and so consumed, just in terms of time and attention, on the European theatre, both with what's happening in Ukraine and Russia, with NATO military capability, and obviously the Middle East … I don't think agencies want to get ahead of the President.' He said the bigger question that continues to hang over Washington is whether the US intends to actively counter China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific – or step back. 'Is America going to confront China and seek to deter their use of aggression and force, or will they cede them space in the Indo-Pacific and take a step back?' he said. 'Until that question gets resolved, I think we're in a holding pattern in the Indo-Pacific.'
Axios
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."
