Latest news with #Trump-led
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
In the wake of Trump's assault on Ramaphosa, can SA and the US find a new equilibrium?
The South African delegation's decision to maintain calm, even in the face of provocation, appears to be a strategic tactic to de-escalate tensions and reset the relationship. President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent visit to Washington, DC, has offered a platform for resetting relations and exposed deep fissures in bilateral relations. The challenges of navigating a world increasingly shaped by ideological polarisation and performative politics were laid bare in the livestreamed meeting between Ramaphosa and his entourage and President Donald Trump and his staff. The meeting was anything but routine – while not descending to the level of chaos that characterised the Trump-Zelensky meeting, the American president did confront (read: ambush) Ramaphosa on claims of white genocide. A video featuring Julius Malema's trademark inflammatory rhetoric and a row of white crosses was presented as evidence of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers. Ramaphosa remained composed (looking bemused, even) and rebutted these claims, emphasising South Africa's commitment to multiparty democracy and clarifying that EFF and MK sentiment reflected a minority view and did not reflect government policy. While observers have offered a mixed interpretation, mine is that the meeting went as well as could be expected, given how acerbic American criticism of South Africa has been in the context of increasingly tense relations. The South African delegation's decision to maintain calm, even in the face of provocation, appears a strategic tactic to de-escalate tensions and reset the relationship on a firmer footing – leading with an honest assessment of the on-the-ground realities (albeit with unnecessarily graphic descriptions of crime from some in the delegation) and using a not-too-assertive approach. The logic, it seems, was to use the visit as a platform to correct misperceptions and begin a reset, without provoking further rupture. Beneath a difficult relationship While the meeting has been closely watched, the underlying deterioration in the relationship is far more complex. These are two actors with fundamentally divergent worldviews amid a failure to find common understanding at a time when a global realignment appears to be under way. On one side is a resurgent US under a Trump-led foreign policy that is transactional, nationalist and deeply sceptical of multilateralism. Trump's White House has embraced a worldview framed around selective alliances based on loyalty rather than shared values. In this context, South Africa's non-alignment – a cornerstone of its post-apartheid foreign policy – has been recast in Washington as defiance, or worse, outright hostility. Pretoria, for its part, sees itself as part of a multipolar future in which there is a more equitable seat at the table for those in the Global South. South Africa's BRICS membership, deepening ties with China and Russia, and outspoken criticism of Western dominance in global institutions are not anomalies, but features of a strategy that sees the Global South as no longer beholden to the geopolitical logic of the Cold War or unipolar American power. Ramaphosa's government has made clear that his administration's foreign policy is driven by constitutional principles, historic solidarity with anti-colonial struggles, and a desire for global equity. Washington, however, views these positions through a much narrower and increasingly ideological lens. Ramaphosa's visit was intended to highlight the country's diversity, being honest about its challenges, but reaffirming a commitment to inclusive governance, while perhaps also trying to re-explain South Africa's foreign policy outlook. He went there with a conciliatory tone, an appreciation of American contributions to the global order, and a desire to boost trade and investment, clothed as a request for help. Solid foundation for cooperation There is a solid foundation for continuing economic and political cooperation. The US is an important trading partner for South Africa, with 600 US companies active in the country, while several South African firms also invest heavily in the US. Indeed, South Africa offers a range of opportunities for US economic engagement across multiple sectors, including renewables, mineral resources, ICT, infrastructure development and agriculture. Furthermore, both nations share interests in regional stability. South Africa plays a crucial role in peacekeeping and conflict mediation efforts on the continent, particularly in southern Africa and the Great Lakes region. The US has faced a changing landscape of global influence in Africa, and partnering with Pretoria can offer it a different platform for engagement. But even shared interests have proven vulnerable to distortion in the current climate, risking being drowned out by mutual mistrust, symbolic politics and domestic pressures. While not a diplomatic breakthrough, the media spectacle of Ramaphosa's visit exposed how deeply domestic political imperatives now shape bilateral engagement. If it serves any form of substantive turning point, it is in making clear that a recalibration will require deeper diplomacy (including public diplomacy) as well as political will behind the scenes. For South Africa, the key question is whether it can pursue a principled foreign policy while maintaining strategic relationships with major powers. For the US, the challenge is to recognise that non-alignment is not hostility, and that partnership is most successful when built on mutual respect, not coercion. Essential steps Looking ahead, a few steps are essential if this relationship is to be salvaged. First, there needs to be a revival of diplomatic dialogue beyond theatrical moments. Both countries have long-standing mechanisms for bilateral engagement that should be reactivated at a senior level, with clear channels for addressing areas of tension. To this end, South Africa needs diplomatic representation that can cut past the rhetoric and get through to important figures in the Trump administration. Second, both sides must invest in the Track II relationships that have traditionally undergirded diplomacy – business partnerships, academic exchange and civil society dialogue. These are often more resilient than government-to-government relations and can provide ballast in turbulent times. Finally, there must be a recognition that the world is changing. South Africa is no longer simply a beneficiary of US aid or a passive participant in Western-led initiatives. It is a regional power with assertive diplomatic positioning and, despite having constrained and uneven power, an important voice on the international stage. That voice will not always echo Washington's, but if treated with respect, it can still be an ally. Indeed, diplomatic equilibrium does not necessarily require identical interpretations of the world, but it does require strategic maturity. Ramaphosa's visit did not mend fences, but it did force both sides to confront the new reality of their relationship. Whether this signals rupture or renewal remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the work of diplomacy must now begin in earnest, far from the cameras and the media, and rooted in the hard, often uncomfortable, business of listening. Ramaphosa's visit underscores the importance of sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement. It is a reminder that diplomacy, though often tested, remains essential in bridging divides and fostering understanding in an increasingly fragmented world. DM
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump wants to end federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here's what to know
The Trump administration wants to put a new 'welcome' doormat on the front steps of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he wants to undo government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and let them go public. It's a concept that has occasionally popped up in policy debates since the Obama administration. Here's what to know about a possible Trump-led effort to end federal control of Fannie and Freddie. They're a pair of government-supervised mortgage firms with an enormous footprint in the housing market. The firms don't actually make home loans. Instead, they purchase mortgages from lenders, bundle them into securities and sell them to investors with a federal guarantee against default. That guarantee renders Fannie and Freddie attractive to investors since they're shielded from losses. Fannie and Freddie comprise about 70% of the mortgage market, according to 2023 data from the Urban Institute. The pillar of the market is the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, a distinct American product that insulates homeowners from inflation spikes or changes to interest rates while paying off their homes. Fannie and Freddie had long operated as publicly-traded businesses responsive to shareholders since their inception. But in 2008, Fannie and Freddie crashed into trouble after buying a flood of toxic loans. Housing prices nosedived and homeowners trailed on mortgage payments. Fannie and Freddie's losses were enormous. The ensuing mortgage-market meltdown led to a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which placed them into what's known as 'conservatorship,' an arrangement giving the federal government broad powers in managing the firms. Thatfell just short of full-blown nationalization. The federal rescue of Fannie and Freddie was originally designed as a short-term fix, but the setup has lasted almost two decades. A federal spinoff of Fannie and Freddie isn't a new idea. Congress has flirted with it before, but several attempts fizzled out over the years. In 2019, then-Senate Banking Chair Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican,released a three-page outline that would turn the institutions into private guarantors with a limited share of the mortgage market. The push didn't gain traction. Some observers argue that privatizing Fannie and Freddie could be achieved through the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), though it would take several years to complete an arduous process. Fully restoring private control of Fannie and Freddie wasn't an explicit goal of Trump's 2024 campaign and he didn't mention it on the campaign trail. But he has taken an interest in the idea in several social media posts. In addition to stating his intention of eventually selling off Fannie and Freddie on Tuesday, Trump wants to rewrite the unspoken contract between investors and the federal government. He made explicit what was once treated as implicit in the housing market: The U.S. would again prop up the mortgage giants if another 2008-style economic meltdown fell at their doorstep. Analysts have widely expected a second Trump administration to try and finish what they started. The first Trump administration sought to promote private competition in the mortgage market, arguing it was an effective method to lower mortgage rates. In 2019, the Treasury allowed Fannie and Freddie to keep more of their earnings and begin rebuilding capital reserves so both could eventually function without government support. Democrats at the time were chilly to the measures. The Trump administration could try to release Fannie and Freddie from federal ownership without Congress, a step that's likelier given that lawmakers have devoted little time and resources on the issue. 'Its implementation is likely to take many years, potentially longer than the four years Trump II will have in office,' housing expert Donald Layton said in a January blog post for the NYU Furman Center. Investors such as Bill Ackman, who bought shares at deeply discounted rates, stand to make a windfall if Fannie and Freddie become publicly traded. Some analysts warn that casting off Fannie and Freddie into the private sector could drive up mortgage rates. But that depends on how their release from conservatorship is structured and the strength of a federal guarantee to rescue them if they fail. FHFA director Bill Pulte said during a congressional hearing in February that any exit from conservatorship for Fannie and Freddie should be 'carefully planned' to avoid unsettling mortgage rates. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump moves to strip Harvard of certification for student exchange programs
As the President Trump-led US administration's tensions with Harvard University intensifies, the former issued a formal notice on Thursday of intent to withdraw the university's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), according to Reuters. Moreover, the notice gave the Ivy League 30 days to present its case as to why its certification should not be revoked. The move comes a day after President Donald Trump called for a 15% cap on the number of foreign students admitted to the institution and demanded that the university submit a full list of its current international enrollees. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo "Harvard has got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper" Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) This is among a slew of measures the new US administration has taken against the Ivy League university, which collectively have begun to cripple its foreign student intake and further inflamed an already volatile standoff over federal funding, immigration policy, and ideological control. Live Events Federal funds frozen The conflict began in April when President Trump accused Harvard of fostering 'hate and stupidity,' calling the university 'a JOKE' on his social media platform, Truth Social. He slammed the institution for hiring 'woke, radical left, idiots' and called for an end to its access to federal funding. Shortly afterward, federal agencies froze $2.2 billion in approved federal funds earmarked for research and academic programs. In addition, a federal antisemitism task force announced that another $450 million would be withheld, citing pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged harassment of Jewish students. Visa rights revoked The administration has increasingly cited campus unrest, particularly pro-Palestinian demonstrations, as justification for its sweeping actions. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced earlier this month that Harvard's license to enroll international students had been revoked, giving the university just 72 hours to provide detailed records of its foreign student body to regain certification. These moves, combined with Thursday's SEVP decertification notice, have drastically disrupted Harvard's international programs and left thousands of students in legal limbo. Harvard responds with legal action In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit in federal court, warning that the government's actions would cause 'immediate and irreparable injury' to the university and its roughly 6,800 international students. The complaint emphasized that these students contribute nearly $400 million in annual tuition and could face deportation if visa access is not restored. US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary block on the administration's actions, pausing the visa restrictions until a full hearing scheduled for May 29, where the court will decide whether to extend legal protection or allow enforcement to proceed. Wider campaign targets elite universities Harvard is not alone in facing federal pressure. In March, the administration rescinded $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University, also citing failure to prevent harassment of Jewish students. Although Columbia implemented several administrative reforms, it still suffered major penalties. Unlike Columbia, however, Harvard has openly challenged the administration in court, using its $50 billion endowment as a financial buffer to resist political pressure.
Mint
3 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Lenders concerned about education loans as US tightens curbs on student visas
US president Donald Trump administration's tough stance on international student visas are worrying lenders, as they are seeing a sharp fall in the number of customers opting for education loans to study in America. Disbursal of loan amounts may also get impacted if visas are cancelled or delayed, the banks warned. 'Banks have seen a 25% reduction in education loans to students applying to US and Canada last fiscal and the growth in education loans will dip further now. More students are now looking at European colleges for admission," said a senior official at one of India's largest public sector banks. Also Read: What's cooking inside RBI's Bengaluru innovation hub? The banks' warnings comes on the back of the US government directing its embassies to stop scheduling new interviews for international student visas. Prior to this, the US embassy in India has cautioned students that skipping classes or leaving the program without informing authorities will lead to visa revocation, as the Trump administration mounts scrutiny of overseas students. 'Demand for US student loans have halved as of now post the Trump decision. We are expecting business to slow down drastically, also due to the delay in US visa applications. However, we expect the situation to improve by February-March next year," said Nilanjan Chattoraj, head, credit and product, education loans, InCred Finance. 'So far we are not seeing stress in the education loan portfolio. However, we have put in place structures and teams in place if some of the students face job losses. We will work with them to chart out a repayment plan and seek regulatory flexibility in classifying these loans," said Chattoraj. Loan disbursal risks worry lenders Typically, the loan amount gets sanctioned and then the student applies for the requisite visas. But lenders are worried that if visas get cancelled or delayed, then there will be an issue during the time of disbursal, which is sought by the college when the academic session starts. '55-60% of our loan applicants are for higher education to the US and we expect a dip because of the visa issues, but this should be a temporary one. However, US-focussed education consultants who link the students with us have seen up to 50% drop in demand for US," Ankit Mehra, co-founder and chief executive officer of non-banking financial company GyanDhan, said. For non-bank lenders, the average ticket size for a loan to the US is ₹40 lakh, and the other geographies that are next in queue include the UK, Canada and Australia. Tighter visa rules dent student traffic A degree in these colleges can set one back by $55,000-$100,000 a year for a four-year undergraduate course. Over the past few weeks, there has been a stiff battle between Ivy League universities like Harvard with the Trump-led government. Last week, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard's certification to admit foreign students for the 2025-26 academic year. Also Read: Primer: Is geopolitics to blame for your missing pay hike? The university sued the US administration in the district court of Massachusetts, which blocked the order, providing temporary relief. The Trump administration has already ended Federal grants worth more than $2 billion to Harvard. It also aims to cancel remaining contracts, The New York Times reported. 'We typically send around 500 students to the US each year. Earlier this month, visa slots opened for Indian students, and most of our applicants secured their visas during this period. However, around 20% are currently facing delays as US Embassies conduct additional scrutiny during visa interviews," said Namita Mehta, president of education consulting firm The Red Pen. A 2024 report by Crisil noted that India's expenditure on overseas education was estimated at ₹5-5.1 trillion annually in 2023 and projected to swell to ₹10.5-11.5 trillion by 2028. 'This market is expected to be driven by the increase in the number of students opting for education abroad and the rising cost of attendance," the report stated. According to data provided by the government in parliament in March, 750,000 Indians were studying abroad in 2022. That number shot up to 892,000 in 2023, but dipped to 759,000 in 2024 in the wake of geopolitical crises and visa curbs. Also Read: Sword of Damocles hangs over Vodafone Idea's bank guarantees In 2023, Australia announced that it would no longer permit international students to enrol in affordable vocational courses immediately upon arrival in the country. In an attempt to clamp down on large-scale immigration, the UK tightened visa rules for international students, making it tougher to bring in dependents. In 2024, Canada, too, tightened visa rules.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Aircraft leasing giant calls on Trump to expand zero-tariff plane pact
* Appeal goes beyond previous industry calls for duty exemptions * AerCap CEO urges Trump to broaden and expand existing pact * Decades-old pact includes US and Europe but not China or India * White House says regularly talks to industry groups on policy PARIS/WASHINGTON, - The head of the world's largest aircraft leasing company has called on U.S. President Donald Trump to renegotiate and expand a duty-free trade agreement for the aircraft industry to include newcomers like China in a new lobbying twist to the trade war. The aerospace industry has for weeks been pushing for exemptions to tariffs introduced by Trump, or to any foreign retaliation, and wants a return to the status quo represented by a 1979 deal between some 30 nations to ban tariffs on jetliners. But Aengus Kelly, chief executive of AerCap, said the current trade crisis also represented a chance to expand and improve the decades-old pact to ensure a level playing field under what he termed a "Trump trade accord" for aviation. "It would be a fantastic win for the president if he could enhance and significantly improve the 1979 aerospace treaty, which has only got countries signed up to anything, while countries like India and China are not in it," Kelly said. The call for a Trump-led renegotiation marks a shift of emphasis by the aviation industry, which has so far focused mainly on restoring the existing tariff-free regime. Dublin-based AerCap is the world's largest aircraft owner. "If the president could convince other countries to join this zero-for-zero tariff agreement, that'll be an enormous win for high-tech manufacturing and engineering jobs in the United States," Kelly told Reuters in an interview. The White House said it was in regular contact with industry groups about trade policy. "The only special interest guiding President Trump's decision-making, however, is the best interest of the American people,' spokesperson Kush Desai said. A coalition of aerospace companies was expected to meet officials at the Commerce Department later on Wednesday. U.S. SURPLUS The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft came into force in 1980 and eliminated tariffs on aircraft and parts. It is one of a handful of side deals that survived from an earlier round of trade talks when the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995. Current members include the United States and European Union - home to Boeing and Airbus - while China, India and several other fast-growing aerospace nations, such as South Korea and Turkey only have observer status. Brazil is in the process of becoming a full member, but Mexico - with its growing supply chain - is not a signatory. The AIA aerospace association has said the 1979 pact supports a $75 billion trade surplus for the U.S. aerospace sector, which includes manufacturing giants like GE Aerospace and RTX. Analysts say a renegotiation would not be simple, however. Trump has shown a preference for bilateral deals over broad alliances from trade to security and a new aircraft pact would include nations already embroiled in a larger jigsaw of trade disputes, making it harder to isolate specific issues. Washington did however grant a carve-out to jet engines in a recent trade deal with Britain, benefiting Rolls-Royce. The call for an expanded pact comes as China is increasing production of a home-grown competitor to Boeing and Airbus , the C919, though it has yet to win Western approvals. Boeing deliveries to China were effectively frozen after the two largest economies imposed triple-digit tariffs on each other last month, before agreeing a pause in trade tensions. Trump also briefly floated heavier tariffs on the European Union, which has placed Boeing on a list of possible reprisals. Kelly said the U.S. would gradually cede aerospace manufacturing in any prolonged trade war. "With very high tariffs, if they're retaliatory, then of course we're going to see the rest of the world move over time towards Airbus," he said, though "It won't happen overnight".
