Latest news with #Hungarian
Bangkok Post
41 minutes ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Trump is trying to build a far-right international
Until recently, the spectre of an international far-right alliance of populist parties in democracies around the world has been just that: any appearance of cooperation was a form of self-promotion, rather than an expression of true solidarity. Few far-right figures have made any sacrifices for one another or seriously interfered in other countries' internal affairs to prop up allies. And efforts to unite the far right in the European Parliament have fallen dismally short. But that may be changing. US President Donald Trump's threat to impose punitive tariffs on Brazil, with the explicit goal of protecting its far-right former president, Jair Bolsonaro, from a "witch hunt", marks a significant shift in tactics. What's more, Mr Trump's meddling in other democracies in the name of "free speech" serves powerful interests in the United States: tech companies that do not want to be regulated by foreign governments. The international far right is often said to be a contradiction in terms. After all, every far-right leader is a nationalist, which would seem to preclude, by definition, an international alliance. But this view shows little philosophical sophistication or, for that matter, historical awareness. In nineteenth-century Europe, liberals like Giuseppe Mazzini helped one another in their various struggles for freedom and independence from imperial powers. At the time, no one complained that there was a deep contradiction embedded in a liberal international alliance devoted to national self-determination. By the same token, today's far-right populists can claim that they form a united front against "globalists" and supposedly illegitimate "liberal elites". This rhetoric -- and the attendant conspiracy theories, often tinged with anti-Semitism -- has easily crossed borders. Far-right politicians have also copied from one another what scholars have called "worst practices" for undermining democracies. Just think of the proliferation of laws that force civil society organisations to register as "foreign agents", or other thinly veiled repressive tactics. The far right also has a transnational ideological infrastructure. To be sure, there is no populist Comintern issuing binding interpretations of doctrine. But collaboration is real: for instance, Hungarian institutes lavishly endowed by Viktor Orbán's government are now allied with the Heritage Foundation in the US. So far, though, there has been a lack of concrete solidarity among populist leaders. When Mr Trump fraudulently claimed to have won the 2020 US presidential election, his international allies, from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could have refused to recognise Joe Biden as president. Instead, they congratulated Mr Biden on his victory, choosing pragmatism over ideological affinity. But Mr Trump is changing that in his second term, embracing an ideologically driven approach to confronting other countries that obviously undermines long-standing international norms. In the case of Brazil, he is using the threat of a 50% tariff to pressure the government into ending the federal criminal trial against Mr Bolsonaro for seeking to engineer a coup after losing the 2022 presidential election. Unlike Mr Trump, who was never held accountable for his role in the Jan 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, Mr Bolsonaro -- often called the "Trump of the Tropics" -- has already been banned from running for office until 2030. In his letter to the Brazilian government announcing the levy, Mr Trump also accused it of "insidious attacks on … the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans", including the censorship of "US Social Media platforms". This highlights another dimension of Mr Trump's economic bullying: his administration's crusade against efforts to prohibit hate speech and regulate the digital sphere. In February, Vice President J D Vance berated Europeans for their supposed lack of respect for "free speech". Meanwhile, the State Department has reportedly targeted the prominent Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes, who at one point blocked Elon Musk's X in Brazil and is taking the lead in holding Mr Bolsonaro criminally accountable for his conduct. Big Tech is clearly displeased with the extensive regulations that the European Union and Brazil have placed on its industry. As in other areas -- notably its attacks on higher education -- the Trumpists are weaponising free speech to exert power over supposed political adversaries. The hypocrisy is apparent: while advocating for deregulation of platforms ostensibly to protect free speech, the US government is snooping around in foreigners' social-media accounts for speech it dislikes (and then refusing a visa or entry on this basis). Pious talk of defending democracy as a shared Western value sits uneasily with the abject disrespect for other countries' right to determine their own approach to platform regulation. Whereas far-right leaders of smaller countries are limited by realpolitik, Mr Trump can use America's might to advance his punitive-cum-populist agenda at will. After all, a pliant Republican Party will not question his abuse of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. True, the courts may ultimately decide that his desire for political revenge hardly constitutes an "emergency", but the damage will have been done. As in other areas where his administration has taken plainly illegal actions, many of those being targeted will seek a deal rather than a fight. Solidarity is costly, but not for Mr Trump. ©2025 Project Syndicate Jan-Werner Mueller, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, is the author, most recently, of 'Democracy Rules' (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021).
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
EU ‘bent at the knee' of Trump
The European Union has effectively 'bent at the knee' before US President Donald Trump, White House official Sebastian Gorka has claimed, after Brussels accepted a sweeping new trade deal that includes steep tariffs and major investment commitments to the US. The deal, finalized on Sunday during a meeting between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, imposes a 15% tariff on most EU exports to the US. In addition, Brussels pledged to invest $600 billion into the US economy and purchase $750 billion worth of American energy over three years. No reciprocal tariffs were imposed on US goods. Gorka, who serves as senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, said the agreement marks a geopolitical victory for Washington. 'Even for somebody like me who has known the president for a decade now, it is hard to believe that the whole European Union bent at the knee of America First and said: '...You got us, President Trump, and we are going to surrender to a 15% tariff,'' Gorka told Newsmax on Monday. 'I'll just be very blunt with you… if you don't understand that President Trump is engineering tectonic shifts in geopolitics that are of a global effect, that will change the world for the next 50 to 100 years, you are just an imbecile,' he added. The agreement has been widely criticized across Europe. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said: 'Donald Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast.' French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou condemned the deal as a 'submission' to US. Marine Le Pen, a prominent opposition leader in France's National Rally party, called it 'a political, economic, and moral fiasco.' Italian opposition figures also denounced the deal, despite Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's attempt to present it as a positive development. Giuseppe Conte, head of the Five Star Movement, said, 'There is a winner – US President Trump – and a loser, or rather two: The EU and Giorgia Meloni.' Von der Leyen attempted to defend the deal as 'the best we could get,' noting that the compromise averted a looming 30% tariff Trump had threatened to impose.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Trump's trade war victory is already under siege
By David Goldman , CNN US President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event at the White House on 2 April, 2025 in Washington, DC. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP Analysis: The economy was supposed to crumble. The trade war was expected to escalate out of control. Markets were forecast to plunge. None of that happened - at least, not yet. President Donald Trump has pulled off what few outside the White House predicted: A trade war victory of sorts that sets America's taxes on imported goods higher than the infamous Smoot-Hawley era, without any of the damaging fallout so far. Customs revenue has increased sharply while inflation remains reasonably low. And America's trading partners, for the most part, have been willing to accept the higher tariffs without significant retaliation. Multiple framework agreements between the United States and other trading partners have jacked up tariffs on foreign goods imported to America while setting levies on US exports at or near zero. Overseas trading partners have agreed to open previously closed markets to some US goods, pledged increased investments in the United States and dropped some of what the Trump administration has lambasted as non-trade barriers, like taxes on digital services. But Trump's early trade victory may be short-lived. In fact, it is already showing signs that it may not last. The European Union, fresh off its 11th-hour compromise to get a trade agreement done before Trump's self-imposed August 1 deadline, is already in revolt. French Prime Minister François Bayrou called Sunday a "dark day." Hungarian Prime Minister and Trump ally Viktor Orban said Trump steamrolled the EU. Belgium's Prime Minister Bart De Wever lambasted the Trump administration's "delusion of protectionism." And Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, said the deal is "not satisfactory." The 27-member bloc has to hammer out key aspects of its framework, and the fragile trade truce between two of the world's largest economies could quickly break apart if sentiment turns against the arrangement. The Trump administration's trade talks with its northern neighbor and one of its largest trading partners have been effectively shut down. Despite Canada relenting on its digital services tax that the president has lambasted, Trump continued to threaten higher tariffs on some Canadian goods, including lumber. Although many goods imported from Canada continue to be tariff-free because of the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, the USMCA only covers just about half of Canadian goods. So higher tariffs on Canada could raise some costs for American consumers down the road. And the fact that America is even embroiled in a trade spat with Canada in the first place is a sign that the recent cooling off in the trade war may not last: Trump negotiated and signed the United States' current trade agreement with Canada during his first term. At any time, even after an agreement is inked, Trump could turn around and decide to raise tariffs again. A third round of talks between China and the United States' trade negotiators is expected to result in a continued pause of their historically high tariffs on one another. But it's unclear what else might come from the discussions, and the Trump administration has grown frustrated by what it has described as China's slow-walking of its previous agreements. Both sides have aimed to reduce more regulatory barriers on shipments of key technologies. China has sought more access to critical semiconductors, and the United States wants the flow of rare earth magnets to increase further. But the Trump administration has tried repeatedly to speed up China's slow progress, claiming the country has failed to live up to its agreement to approve the critical materials for crucial electronics. Trump has also said he wants China to open up its market to more US goods - a desire that Chinese Premier Xi Jinping is unlikely to give in to significantly. Trump's rhetoric against China has cooled in recent months, but the truce appears to be on a knife's edge. A crucial appeals court hearing Thursday could determine whether most of Trump's tariffs are legal at all. For most of his tariffs, Trump has cited powers listed in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But a federal court in May ruled that Trump overstepped his authority to levy tariffs on that basis. An appeals court paused that ruling from taking effect and will hear oral arguments Thursday. It's not clear when the court will rule, and the White House would likely appeal to the Supreme Court if it loses. If Trump ultimately loses his ability to levy tariffs using emergency powers, he has plenty of other options - but legal experts have said those alternatives could limit his ability to set tariffs without Congress. For example, Trump may be able to impose some tariffs as high as just 15 percent but only for 150 days, potentially taking some of the bite out of his tariff regime. Although the US economy remains strong, with rebounding retail sales, a still-robust labor market and rising consumer confidence, there is some evidence that inflation in key areas is starting to creep higher - slowly - because of tariffs. That's a potential warning sign as the tariffs take full effect. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index earlier this month showed that some tariff-affected goods have started to gain in price. Clothing, appliances, computers, sporting goods, toys, video equipment, hardware and tools prices have been on the rise. And it's starting to become a trend - in many of those categories, the rise has been happening for a few months. Many major retailers, including Walmart, have said they will raise prices because of tariffs. Procter & Gamble, which makes Tide and a host of consumer goods, said Tuesday it will raise prices in part because of tariffs. And GM, Volkswagen and Stellantis all reported tariff charges of $1 billion or more over the past quarter. Economists widely expect inflation to pick up in the late summer and throughout the rest of the year as retailers work through the inventories of goods they had stockpiled before tariffs went into effect. No one expects anything close to the inflation crisis of a few years ago. But with consumers still dealing with price-hike PTSD, that won't be a welcome change from the return to healthy inflation levels over the past year. David Goldman is the executive editor of CNN Business. - CNN
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Pentagon Against the Think Tanks
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has scanned the horizon for threats, and sure enough, he has found a new group of dangerous adversaries: think - tanks, the organizations in the United States and allied nations that do policy research and advocate for various ideas. They must be stopped, according to a Defense Department announcement, because they promote 'the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the president of the United States.' This particular bit of McCarthyist harrumphing was the rationalization the Pentagon gave more than a week ago for pulling out of the Aspen Security Forum, a long-running annual conference routinely attended by business leaders, military officers, academics, policy analysts, foreign officials, and top government leaders from both parties, including many past secretaries of defense. For good measure, the Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell invoked the current holy words of the Hegseth Pentagon: The Aspen forum, he said, did not align with the department's efforts to 'increase the lethality of our war fighters, revitalize the warrior ethos and project peace through strength on the world stage.' The Aspen gathering is not exactly a secret nest of Communists. This year's roster of speakers included former CIA Director Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper—a Trump appointee—and a representative from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's office, among many others. John Phelan, the current secretary of the Navy, and Admiral Samuel Paparo, the head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, were set to attend as well. Nor is Hegseth content just to stop America's intellectual enemies cold at the Rockies: The Pentagon last week suspended Defense Department participation in all such activities, functionally a blanket ban on any interaction with think tanks or other civilian institutions that hold conferences, convene panels, and invite speakers. The New York Times reported that the order to pull out of Aspen came from Hegseth personally. And as Politico first reported, the lager ban appears to extend 'to gatherings hosted by nonprofit military associations, such as Sea Air Space, which is led by the Navy League, the military service's largest veteran organization, and Modern Day Marine, a similar trade show for the Marine Corps.' The Pentagon also 'specifically banned attendance at the Halifax International Security Forum, which takes place in Nova Scotia each winter and where the Pentagon chief is usually a top guest.' Take that, Canada. Right now, no one seems certain of how this new policy works. Hegseth appears to have suspended all such participation subject to additional review by the Pentagon's public-affairs office and general counsel, so perhaps some defense officials could one day end up attending conferences after their requests have been vetted. Good luck with that, and best wishes to the first Pentagon employee who pops up out of their cubicle to request a pass to attend such meetings. At some point soon, this prohibition will almost certainly be lifted, but why did Hegseth's Pentagon impose it in the first place? I am a former Defense Department employee who, over the course of my career, attended (and spoke at) dozens of conferences at various think tanks and other organizations, and I will make an educated guess based on experience: The main reasons are resentment, insecurity, and fear. The most ordinary reason, resentment, predates Hegseth. Government service is not exactly luxurious, and many trips are special perks that generate internal gripes about who gets to go, where they get to stay, and so on. (These trips are not exactly luxurious either, but in my government-service days, I learned that some people in the federal service chafe when other employees get free plane tickets to visit nice places.) It's possible that someone who has never been invited to one of these things convinced Hegseth—who seems reluctant to attend such events himself—that these meetings are just boondoggles and that no one should go. Bureaucratic pettiness, however, isn't enough of an explanation. One hazard for people like Hegseth and his lieutenants at a place like Aspen or the International Institute of Strategic Studies or the Halifax conference is that these are organizations full of exceptionally smart people, and even experienced and knowledgeable participants have to be sharp and prepared when they're onstage and in group discussions. The chance of being outclassed, embarrassed, or just in over one's head can be very high for unqualified people who have senior government jobs. Hegseth himself took a pass on the Munich Security Conference (usually a good venue for a new secretary of defense), and instead decided to show videos of himself working out with the troops. We can all admire Hegseth's midlife devotion to staying fit and modeling a vigorous exercise regimen for the troops (who must exercise anyway, because they are military people and are ordered to it), but America and its allies would probably benefit more from a secretary with an extra pound here and there who could actually stand at a podium in Munich or London and explain the administration's strategic vision and military plans. The overall prohibition on conferences provides Hegseth and his deputies (many of whom have no serious experience with defense issues) with an excuse for ducking out and avoiding making fools of themselves. But perhaps the most obvious and Trumpian reason for the Pentagon's brainpower lockdown is fear. Officials in this administration know that the greatest risk to their careers has nothing to do with job performance; if incompetence were a cause for dismissal, Hegseth would have been gone months ago. The far greater danger comes from the chance of saying something in public that gets the speaker sideways with Trump and turns his baleful stare across the river to the Pentagon. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear,' a Republican political strategist and previous Aspen attendee told The Hill last week. 'And they don't like dissenting views at conferences.' The problem for Trump officials is that 'dissent' can mean almost anything, because the strategic direction of the United States depends on the president's moods, his grievances, and his interactions with others, including foreign leaders. Everything can change in the space of a post on Truth Social. To step forward in a public venue and say anything of substance is a risk; the White House is an authoritarian bubble, and much like the Kremlin in the old Soviet Union, the man in charge can decide that what is policy today could be heresy tomorrow. In the end, banning attendance at meetings where defense officials can exchange ideas with other intelligent people is—like so much else in this administration—a policy generated by pettiness and self-protection, a way to batten down the Pentagon's hatches so that no one speaks out or screws up. If this directive stays in place for even a few years, however, it will damage relationships among the military, defense officials, business leaders, academics, and ordinary Americans. Public conferences are part of the American civil-military relationship. Sometimes, these are events such as Aspen, where senior officials present policies or engage their critics under a national spotlight; other gatherings at various nongovernmental organizations help citizens understand what, exactly, their government is doing. At academically oriented meetings, members of the defense community gather ideas, debate, discuss, and sometimes establish contacts for future research and exchanges. Retired Army Colonel Jeffrey McCausland, who served on the National Security Council staff and as the dean of the Army War College, told me that the Pentagon's shortsightedness could prevent important civil-military exchanges about national defense, and he wonders how far such prohibitions will go: Might the new directive mean that the 'guy who teaches history at West Point or a war college,' for example, 'can't go to a history conference and be a better history professor?' Maybe someone is mad that they didn't get to go to Colorado or Canada; perhaps someone else is worried that accepting an invitation could be career suicide. Somehow, the Pentagon has managed to engage productively in such events for decades, under administrations of both parties. But Hegseth, after a string of embarrassments—McCausland points to the lingering 'radioactivity' of Signalgate —has apparently chosen a safety-first approach. Unfortunately, the secretary still has to appear in public, and the chances of yet more stumbles from him and his team are high. But at least he'll be able to reassure the American public that the upright employees of the Pentagon won't be wined and dined by politically suspect eggheads.
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Science
- Miami Herald
Sports complex construction reveals 1,600-year-old burial site in Hungary. See it
The site of a third century burial ground has been revealed, thanks to a modern sports complex construction project in Hungary, museum officials announced. The construction is part of a larger project by the Szeged-Csanád Grosics Academy, and includes two new artificial turf soccer fields, according to a July 25 Facebook post from the Móra Ferenc Museum Archaeology Department. When early earthworks began on the soccer fields, archaeologists uncovered graves, pits and ditches, according to the post. The site was dated to the third century, likely used by the Sarmatian people, the museum said. The Sarmatians were a group of nomadic people originally from the region of modern-day Iran before migrating to the Ural Mountains, according to Britannica. The culture was skilled in horsemanship and warfare, Britannica says, and ultimately joined the Gothic invasion of western Europe during the third century. Archaeologists found that many of the graves had been disturbed and the bones moved, according to the post. However, some remains were found placed in log coffins that were held together by metal clasps, the museum said. Other items — from ceramics to knives — were found in some of the graves, the museum said. Archaeologists also uncovered pieces of clothing in the graves with amber and glass beads and iron fibulae used to fasten garments. Archaeologists didn't just make an ancient discovery, the museum said. As the land was cleared, a concrete bunker was also found. The bunker was part of the Southern Defense System, or the 'Rákosi Line,' made of a series of bunkers along the Hungarian border, according to the museum. A total of 21 bunkers were built in the early 1950s to defend Hungary in the case of a Yugoslav attack, the museum said. The line stretched a total of nearly 400 miles along Hungary's southern border. A video of the site was shared by Hungarian news outlet Lelépő. The site was found in Mórahalom, Hungary, along the south-central border with Serbia. Chat GPT, an AI chatbot, was used to translate the Facebook post from the Ferenc Móra Museum Archaeology Department.
