Latest news with #FourFreedoms
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion: Remembering VE Day — 80 years on from victory in Europe
'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' Benjamin Franklin Recently, I have often found myself thinking of my grandparents, Kenneth Seth (U.S. Army) and Barbara Fernelius Spiekerman (USMC). I think my thoughts have been partially drawn to them because it has been 80 years since the end of World War II — a war they both served in. I, however, think it is mostly because the peaceful, prosperous world they fought, bled and sacrificed so much to create is rapidly vanishing. As we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, I believe it is our duty as the beneficiaries of their sacrifice to take stock of and defend the many hard-won gifts that were given to us. I believe it is time for us to renew our commitment to the aims of that war, the Four Freedoms. As my grandparents were individually making their decisions about whether to serve, I am sure they were scared. I am sure they were nervous. The war was intense and bloody, with thousands dying daily and many more suffering from injury. If they would die or be injured was an unknown. They had no idea where or in what capacity they would serve. What they did know was that service would require enormous sacrifice. The economy, which had been in the doldrums for much of their life, had come roaring back to life. Well-paying jobs were plentiful. This would be a perfect chance for them to escape the poverty that gripped much of the country during the Great Depression. I can only guess as to the calculus behind their decision. However, I know for a certainty that they knew what they were fighting for. Unlike many wars, the aims and stakes of this war had been spelled out plainly, clearly and repeatedly. It was a fight for freedom at home and abroad. What are the Four Freedoms? Even before the United States entered the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spelled out what was at stake in a speech given on Jan. 6, 1941, known from that point on as the Four Freedoms Speech. In this speech, Roosevelt tackled the pressing issue of the seemingly unstoppable rise of militant autocracy. In this context, the Four Freedoms laid out by Roosevelt served as a vision of a future and democratic antidote to the malaise and foreboding that had enveloped the world. Roosevelt's contention was that long-term peace could only be ensured by the guarantee of individual freedom at home and abroad. These four freedoms are fundamentally Christian and American ideals that lay at the heart of America's long-held aspirations. The speech advocated for a renewed commitment to these freedoms both domestically and internationally. The first freedom is speech, or the right to speak up for causes without fear of government retribution. The second of the four freedoms is the freedom of worship. This freedom, as FDR intended, is meant to ensure that no government can interfere or intercede in an individual's ability to worship who, where and what they may. The next two are the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. The former is a guarantee against hunger and destitution, and the latter is a guarantee against fear of state-sponsored violence without due process. The price of victory and liberty President Roosevelt's speech would animate America's war effort and the reconstruction of much of the world and the international system that followed the war's end. Victory did not come cheap. It required over 16 million young people to sacrifice the best years of their life and 407,316 to sacrifice all. The commitment of these young people to seeing through the promise of these ideals did not end with the war. They put them into action and transformed America and the world, blazing the trail for the expansion of human rights and flourishing on a scale unimaginable before the war. All with the belief that freedom brings security, a belief that has been proven out by the historically unprecedented period of peace that followed the war. We now find ourselves 80 years out. The memory of the war and those that fought in it are starting to fade. Autocracy seems ascendant, and all of the things that my grandparents and so many millions of others fought for appear as though they might be lost. Before this happens, we may want to consider not only the value of their sacred efforts, but also a warning FDR borrowed from Benjamin Franklin in his Four Freedoms speech: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Yes, FDR warned of 'selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests'
Claim: Former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests." Rating: A rumor that circulated online in early 2025 claimed former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests." For example, on Feb. 15, author, professor and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich posted the quote on Bluesky. The next day, he shared it on Facebook, Threads and X. Days later, in a Feb. 21 Instagram post, he posted it once more, adding a caption referencing President Donald Trump's second administration. The caption read, "A warning that sadly rings as true today as it did back then." In past years, Snopes readers also asked in emails about the authenticity of the quote. According to numerous historical records, Roosevelt indeed once warned, "We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests." Reich published the quote on his social media accounts after railing against Trump, his government efficiency adviser, tech billionaire Elon Musk, and Vice President JD Vance, in a series of Substack articles. Reich asserted that Trump, Musk, Vance and other members of the administration had participated in a coup to enrich themselves financially in the pursuit of an oligarchy. Weeks later, Reich marked the end of Trump's first 100 days with an article The Guardian published, reading, "If leaders stay silent, the U.S. won't survive Trump's next 100 days." Reich had not yet responded to an emailed request for comment as of the time of publication, including additional thoughts he might have both on Roosevelt's usage of the quote and what the words meant to him more than two-and-a-half months later. The White House had also not yet replied to an email asking for comment on Reich's usage of the quote and the outlined claims from Reich's articles. Roosevelt delivered the in-question quote just days before beginning his third term, during his now-famous "Four Freedoms" speech, originally a State of the Union address, on Jan. 6, 1941. As proof of the quote's authenticity, at least dozens of newspapers published on the same day featured the line from his speech. The U.S. National Archives hosts a webpage with a transcript of Roosevelt's full address, including the following introduction: In his 1941 State of the Union address to Congress, with World War II underway in Europe and the Pacific, FDR asked the American people to work hard to produce armaments for the democracies of Europe, to pay higher taxes, and to make other wartime sacrifices. Roosevelt presented his reasons for American involvement, making the case for continued aid to Great Britain and greater production of war industries at home. In helping Britain, President Roosevelt stated, the United States was fighting for the universal freedoms that all people deserved. At a time when Western Europe lay under Nazi domination, Roosevelt presented a vision in which the American ideals of individual liberties should be extended throughout the world. Alerting Congress and the nation to the necessity of war, Roosevelt articulated the ideological aims of the war, and appealed to Americans' most profound beliefs about freedom. In his "Four Freedoms" speech, Roosevelt proposed four fundamental freedoms that all people should have. His "four essential human freedoms" included some phrases already familiar to Americans from the Bill of Rights, as well as some new phrases: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. These symbolized America's war aims and gave the American people a mantra to hold onto during the war. Roosevelt's speech forcefully opposed isolationism and proposed a "swift and driving increase in our armament production" to support British forces. Later in the address, he voiced his opposition to dictators — the moment Reich would highlight more than 84 years later: Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the Union," I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over. In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world. No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement. We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war. Eleven months and one day later — on Dec. 7, 1941 — the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, then a U.S. territory. On the next day, Roosevelt delivered a speech before Congress in which he famously called the attacks "a day which will live in infamy" and declared war on Japan. Congress approved Roosevelt's request by a vote of 388-1 in the House and 82-0 in the Senate. U.S. Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., a dedicated pacifist and the first woman elected to Congress, cast the only vote against the declaration of war. "About." Robert Reich, "Driving Increase in Armaments Demanded by President." Reno Evening Gazette via The Associated Press, 6 Jan. 1941, p. 6, "Full Text of President's Address." Brooklyn Eagle, 6 Jan. 1941, p. 2, "Jeannette Rankin." U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, "On This Day, Jeannette Rankin's History-Making Moment." National Constitution Center, 2 Apr. 2024, "Pearl Harbor Attack | Date, History, Map, Casualties, Timeline, & Facts." Britannica, 21 Apr. 2025, "President Franklin Roosevelt's Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941)." National Archives, Milestone Documents, 6 Jan. 1941, "President Says U.S. Must Give More British Aid." Stockton Daily Evening Record via The Associated Press, 6 Jan. 1941, p. 4, Reich, Robert. "Fraud and Musk." Robert Reich, 12 Feb. 2025, ---. "If Leaders Stay Silent, the US Won't Survive Trump's next 100 Days." The Guardian, 30 Apr. 2025. The Guardian, ---. "Say What This Is: A Coup." Robert Reich, 14 Feb. 2025, "Robert B. Reich." University of California, Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy, "Senate Count Is 82-0, House 388 to 1 after Roosevelt's Message." Buffalo Evening News via The Associated Press, 8 Dec. 1941, p. 1, "S.J. Res. 116, Declaration of War on Japan, December 8, 1941." U.S. Capitol - Visitor Center, Accessed 1 May 2025. "Text of Roosevelt's Message to Congress." Des Moines Tribune, 6 Jan. 1941, p. 4, "World War II Facts." FDR Presidential Library & Museum,
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The guardrails against authoritarianism are not holding
In 1941, as the U.S. headed toward war, President Franklin Roosevelt enunciated the foundational 'Four Freedoms,' the pillars on which he saw our nation built: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. In just 90 days since President Trump took office, Americans have seen the Four Freedoms chilled, if not seriously imperiled. The dispensing of guardrails abounds. It includes appointments of Trump loyalists thin on qualifications for their jobs. It includes the firings of people like Gen. Timothy Hough, head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, which lawmakers described as a 'chilling' action that would damage America's cyber defenses and 'roll out the red carpet' for attacks by foreign adversaries. It includes compromising national security with leaks of sensitive data to outsiders and wholesale deportations without a hearing. It includes holding large law firms to ransom out of personal animus, then exacting millions in free services, provided the services aid favored MAGA causes. It includes crashing the Federal Reserve for 'playing politics' and dismantling or neutering the independent agencies. It includes devaluing the work of scientists and defunding research at the universities — all elements constructed to keep us free, safe and healthy. As for the rule of law, Trump even threatened to seek impeachment of judges that disagreed with him, at least until Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unprecedented rebuke, put a stop to it. The public is not happy. Last weekend was marked by millions of people across the country who took to the streets to protest the havoc. While the protesters showed anger toward Trump, Elon Musk and the 'Department of Government Efficiency' that has been slashing government agencies and employees, they more generally focused on our freedoms, aiming not to change the status quo but to protect our traditional rights from abridgement. The protestors carried homemade signs. One said, 'We value: Due Process, Public Health, Science, Our Veterans, Our Diversity, The Friendship & Autonomy of Our Allies.' Another, my favorite, sized it up neatly: 'Hands Off Our Rule of Law.' So, what can save us from this madness? It might be the federal courts, which have before them more than 170 cases filed against the administration's executive orders, with a number resulting in temporary restraining orders entered against the government. But this will take time, and it is time that we may not have. Can we count on the Department of Justice? It is supposed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. But under Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, examples of removing guardrails abound. Career Justice Department lawyers find it difficult to answer relevant questions put to them by judges, as honest answers might undercut the policy directives of the political appointees at the top. These career lawyers know the dire consequences of an honest answer. A top immigration law prosecutor was just fired for admitting that the deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador was the result of an 'administrative error.' One significant guardrail has been the highly respected Office of Legal Counsel. Under Trump and Bondi, the office has been largely dealt out of the game. The Office of Legal Counsel traces its origins to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which empowers attorneys general to render legal opinions to the president, and a 1962 presidential directive requiring it to review draft executive orders. The office regularly evaluates the legality of executive orders before they are issued, ensuring they are within the president's constitutional and statutory powers. The office issues opinions, the product of meticulous research, that are supposed to bind the executive branch. Its opinions are often cited with approval by the Supreme Court. One of its opinions put a stop to torture of alleged terrorists after 9/11; another dealt with drone strikes on American citizens abroad. Another opinion is that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted while in office for criminal acts. Attorneys general can overrule Office of Legal Counsel conclusions, and presidents are not bound to follow its advice. But in practice, reversal of the office's judgments is rare. The Office of Legal Counsel has been led by the preeminent lawyers of their day, three of whom — Byron White, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia — went on to become Supreme Court justices. Trump has curtailed the influence of the Office of Legal Counsel, taking actions that contradict its opinions on topics involving birthright citizenship, impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, migrants' asylum rights and White House jurisdiction over the Smithsonian Institution. The Office of Legal Counsel has been startlingly absent from public debates, including administration efforts to revoke visas of foreign students; fire officials without regard to legislated job protections against arbitrary removal; dismantling and defunding agencies such as USAID and NIH; and wholesale deportations without due process, among others. Such moves threaten our health, safety, national security and the very core of democracy. What does the Trump administration have against scientific and medical research that can save our lives? Beats me. Where have all the guardrails gone? The Office of Legal Counsel, designed to protect the president and the American people from a legal misstep, has been put out to pasture. Those who might have stood up to Trump have been fired or excluded from appointments in the first place. So we are in free fall, living in a needless fear, 'boats against the current,' leaving very little to protect the 'Four Freedoms' from overreaching executive action. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The guardrails against authoritarianism are not holding
In 1941, as the U.S. headed toward war, President Franklin Roosevelt enunciated the foundational 'Four Freedoms,' the pillars on which he saw our nation built: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. In just 90 days since President Trump took office, Americans have seen the Four Freedoms chilled, if not seriously imperiled. The dispensing of guardrails abounds. It includes appointments of Trump loyalists thin on qualifications for their jobs. It includes the firings of people like Gen. Timothy Hough, head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, which lawmakers described as a 'chilling' action that would damage America's cyber defenses and 'roll out the red carpet' for attacks by foreign adversaries. It includes compromising national security with leaks of sensitive data to outsiders and wholesale deportations without a hearing. It includes holding large law firms to ransom out of personal animus, then exacting millions in free services, provided the services aid favored MAGA causes. It includes crashing the Federal Reserve for 'playing politics' and dismantling or neutering the independent agencies. It includes devaluing the work of scientists and defunding research at the universities — all elements constructed to keep us free, safe and healthy. As for the rule of law, Trump even threatened to seek impeachment of judges that disagreed with him, at least until Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unprecedented rebuke, put a stop to it. The public is not happy. Last weekend was marked by millions of people across the country who took to the streets to protest the havoc. While the protesters showed anger toward Trump, Elon Musk and the 'Department of Government Efficiency' that has been slashing government agencies and employees, they more generally focused on our freedoms, aiming not to change the status quo but to protect our traditional rights from abridgement. The protestors carried homemade signs. One said, 'We value: Due Process, Public Health, Science, Our Veterans, Our Diversity, The Friendship & Autonomy of Our Allies.' Another, my favorite, sized it up neatly: 'Hands Off Our Rule of Law.' So, what can save us from this madness? It might be the federal courts, which have before them more than 170 cases filed against the administration's executive orders, with a number resulting in temporary restraining orders entered against the government. But this will take time, and it is time that we may not have. Can we count on the Department of Justice? It is supposed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. But under Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, examples of removing guardrails abound. Career Justice Department lawyers find it difficult to answer relevant questions put to them by judges, as honest answers might undercut the policy directives of the political appointees at the top. These career lawyers know the dire consequences of an honest answer. A top immigration law prosecutor was just fired for admitting that the deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador was the result of an 'administrative error.' One significant guardrail has been the highly respected Office of Legal Counsel. Under Trump and Bondi, the office has been largely dealt out of the game. The Office of Legal Counsel traces its origins to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which empowers attorneys general to render legal opinions to the president, and a 1962 presidential directive requiring it to review draft executive orders. The office regularly evaluates the legality of executive orders before they are issued, ensuring they are within the president's constitutional and statutory powers. The office issues opinions, the product of meticulous research, that are supposed to bind the executive branch. Its opinions are often cited with approval by the Supreme Court. One of its opinions put a stop to torture of alleged terrorists after 9/11; another dealt with drone strikes on American citizens abroad. Another opinion is that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted while in office for criminal acts. Attorneys general can overrule Office of Legal Counsel conclusions, and presidents are not bound to follow its advice. But in practice, reversal of the office's judgments is rare. The Office of Legal Counsel has been led by the preeminent lawyers of their day, three of whom — Byron White, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia — went on to become Supreme Court justices. Trump has curtailed the influence of the Office of Legal Counsel, taking actions that contradict its opinions on topics involving birthright citizenship, impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, migrants' asylum rights and White House jurisdiction over the Smithsonian Institution. The Office of Legal Counsel has been startlingly absent from public debates, including administration efforts to revoke visas of foreign students; fire officials without regard to legislated job protections against arbitrary removal; dismantling and defunding agencies such as USAID and NIH; and wholesale deportations without due process, among others. Such moves threaten our health, safety, national security and the very core of democracy. What does the Trump administration have against scientific and medical research that can save our lives? Beats me. Where have all the guardrails gone? The Office of Legal Counsel, designed to protect the president and the American people from a legal misstep, has been put out to pasture. Those who might have stood up to Trump have been fired or excluded from appointments in the first place. So we are in free fall, living in a needless fear, 'boats against the current,' leaving very little to protect the 'Four Freedoms' from overreaching executive action. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
The Guardian
02-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Australia's key ally has gone rogue – and Trump has us expertly wedged. We need a plan B
The Atlantic alliance, which has protected peace in western Europe for almost 80 years, however imperfectly, is evaporating before our eyes in real time. We would be deluded not to realise this has the most profound and alarming implications for Australia and consequences for which we are not prepared. In the months before Pearl Harbour in December 1941, and America's declaration of war on Japan, then US President Franklin D Roosevelt delivered his landmark Four Freedoms speech. In freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear, Roosevelt articulated the universal fundamentals of democracy and his nation's leadership role in promoting them across the world, for all people. As Australians, we have aligned ourselves as a nation with these values before and since. Yet as we further embed that relationship with the bipartisan, minimally debated, multibillion-dollar Aukus arrangement, it's impossible to avoid the obvious divergence in values that is beginning to emerge. To ignore it is wilfully naive. In the few short weeks since his inauguration, Donald Trump and his myrmidons have: defamed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, lied about Russian president Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, started to withdraw US military support in defence of Ukraine as a democratic nation, rewarded Putin's murderous autocracy by starting to normalise relations with Moscow, even siding with Russia, Belarus and North Korea at the UN, excluded Ukraine from US discussions about the war with Russia and heavied Ukraine to hand over its critical minerals to the US in exchange for respectful treatment in any peace negotiations. And that was just the start – as it turned out, insult was added to injury quite literally in the Oval Office where Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, attempted to bully Zelenskyy into accepting a ceasefire without the very collective security guarantee that is Nato's foundation principle. The Trump administration is threatening to abandon the very basis of Nato (the institution that has guaranteed security for western Europe for more than 70 years): that an attack on any member nation is an attack on all while meanwhile interfering in Germany's domestic politics by playing footsie with Europe's authoritarian right and further weakening Ukraine's bargaining position by telling Kyiv to give up hope of regaining territory seized by Russia. In short, Trump has thrown a beleaguered democracy which shares Australia's values to the wolves and trashed the longstanding principle of collective security with the nations of Nato – its closest allies – while bullying the EU. Concurrently, we begin the process of handing over billions for submarines that the Americans may never deliver (but we think we need) and we tiptoe a fraught line to avoid offending the mercurial Trump for fear that the slightest provocation will give him the weak excuse to retaliate with trade tariffs on some of our more important industries, such as steel and aluminium. In short, while our key ally has gone rogue, he has us expertly wedged. Meanwhile he's also upended the global order by freezing the US foreign aid budget, something our government has limply said is a matter for the US administration. We have not found the courage to criticise this gross breach of humanitarianism even as we attempt to patch up a few holes through our own meagre aid program amid stories of people dying as aid-funded medical programs are shut down overnight. There are also warnings of mass starvation in places such as Sudan where entire communities are reliant on food aid that is no longer being delivered. At what point do we say something to those who we've been following into wars for the last 100 or so years? Meanwhile we can only cross our fingers that with predictability all but lost, the president will stick with Anzus and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – the bedrock of our national security matrix – and Aukus. Let's be clear: the Trump administration's actions undermine our national security and represent an assault on our democratic values. And the implications should be deeply troubling for everyone: for policy makers, defence planners, politicians and everyday citizens. On brand, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has played the small target and distanced himself from Trump even as we handed over $800m to the US for submarines its naval establishment admits it cannot currently deliver. 'Something for nothing,' you can almost hear Trump saying. 'Best deal ever.' Meanwhile, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, who loves to deploy a Trumpism whenever he can manage it, declared the president had simply got it wrong, on Ukraine at least. This is the same Peter Dutton who declared Trump 'shrewd', 'a big thinker' with 'gravitas', who imitates the Doge and DEI stunts and weaponises social division. Where does he now stand on Aukus (as the defence minister at the time of its announcement) considering Washington's dismissal of the value of treaty partners and abandoning of a fellow democracy? Based on what the Trump administration has done to Ukraine and threatened to do to Nato, along with trade threats to allies such as Canada and rumours the Canadians may be kicked out of the Five Eyes, how can we have confidence the US will continue to be our defensive shield via Anzus or deliver the required hardware via Aukus which makes us more dependent on the US for our national security than ever before? These are obvious questions that need asking, and while the major parties will ignore them, I expect the independent crossbench won't. In these parlous circumstances it is even more important to ask: what is our plan B? The answer from what I know, is there is none. This has always been unsatisfactory, now it is downright derelict and the challenge for our defence planners is to tell us how we will defend ourselves if the US won't, as Trump has already made crystal clear to Ukraine and its allies in Europe. Our voters deserve nothing less. As a former US-based foreign correspondent, I covered the election of Trump in 2016 and his first administration. It's clear to me that he responds only to strength. As Australians, all those years ago we aligned ourselves with Roosevelt's freedoms of speech and worship, from want and fear, the very underpinnings of democracy. It's time to reassert those values. Because the question today is: does Trump's America still align with us? Zoe Daniel is the independent member for Goldstein and a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. She is also a three-time ABC foreign correspondent and Washington bureau chief
