分类: politics

  • Trump, his ‘low IQ’ slur, and the right’s race obsession

    Trump, his ‘low IQ’ slur, and the right’s race obsession

    In a fresh round of inflammatory rhetoric this week, former U.S. President Donald Trump targeted two of the nation’s most high-profile Black leaders — Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries — with a uniquely derogatory label: “low IQ person.”

    While insulting opponents across the political spectrum has become a trademark of Trump’s public persona, deployed across social media, campaign rallies, official statements and even in direct exchanges with reporters, this particular jab carries uniquely sharp racial baggage in the American context that makes it stand out as particularly jarring.

    Jackson, a double Harvard graduate who made history as the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, drew Trump’s ire on Wednesday, when he dismissed her as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench.” She is far from the only person of color in Democratic politics to face this specific attack from Trump. Other targets have included U.S. Representatives Jasmine Crockett, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Green, Rashida Tlaib and Maxine Waters. When targeting Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, Trump extended the slur beyond the lawmaker to broadly brand all immigrants from the Horn of Africa nation as “low IQ people.” He has also applied the label to his 2024 presidential election rival Kamala Harris, calling her “a moron,” “stupid” and “a very low IQ individual.”

    Though Trump has occasionally used the same insult against white political opponents and critics — including former Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a loyal ally, and conservative commentators Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, who have broken with Trump over his stance on the Iran conflict — the phrase is deployed far more often against people of color, and particularly Black women.

    Experts emphasize that the slur is deeply offensive to the Black American community due to its long ties to white supremacist ideology that has falsely claimed Black people have inherently diminished cognitive capacity, justifying their forced exploitation for manual labor throughout centuries of slavery and oppression.

    “Trump’s characterization of people of color as ‘low IQ’ is a racist dog whistle with a long history in the US,” Karrin Vasby Anderson, a communication studies professor at Colorado State University, told Agence France-Presse. During the era of colonialism and 19th-century chattel slavery, Anderson explained, “white male elites took for granted that they were cognitively superior to women and people of color and, thus, divinely appointed for leadership.”

    Trump’s repeated recent use of the phrase aligns with a growing preoccupation among the American far-right with discredited pseudosciences including phrenology — the debunked field that claims skull size and shape can be used to measure a person’s intelligence — and race-based pseudoscience around genetics. “An interest in phrenology has resurged during Trump’s second presidential campaign,” Anderson noted.

    This discredited “race science,” which claims IQ is inherently tied to racial characteristics, has long festered in private far-right online chat groups. But in recent years, it has increasingly moved into mainstream right-wing media platforms that reach audiences of millions. Earlier this month, right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson, who counts six million YouTube subscribers, hosted a Republican lawmaker for a discussion claiming that many migrants from “third world” countries are incompatible with American culture. Johnson explicitly suggested that lower average cognitive capacity should be a reason to restrict immigration from these nations, claiming “The average IQ in Somalia hovers around 70, and that’s the threshold for mentally handicapped.”

    Robert Sternberg, a psychology professor at Cornell University, told AFP that IQ tests are widely overvalued in public discourse, and only offer “moderate” utility for predicting real-world professional and personal success. Even so, their reputation as a rigorous scientific metric gives bigoted claims about racial differences in IQ a false veneer of academic credibility, lending cover to openly racist arguments.

    While some high-profile far-right figures — including white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who has dined with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort — openly promote extremist racial ideology, Trump has generally steered clear of explicitly racist language. Anderson explains that coded phrases like the “low IQ” slur offer a key rhetorical benefit: built-in deniability for both the speaker and their audience. “So, Trump and his audience can say that there’s nothing racist about ‘low IQ’ because that label could be applied to anyone,” she said. “When Trump uses it primarily against Black people, however, and when it’s connected to this very specific history of how Black people have been framed in US culture since the 19th century, the white supremacists and casual racists in Trump’s audience will respond favorably.”

    For his part, Jeffries — who Trump called a “totally low IQ person” earlier this week — pushed back quickly against the attack. “What’s so ironic is that Donald Trump is clearly the dumbest person ever to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” he told MSNBC.

  • High-stakes West Bengal election begins in India amid voter roll row

    High-stakes West Bengal election begins in India amid voter roll row

    India has entered a critical phase of state-level general elections on Thursday, with two of the most closely watched contests unfolding in the eastern state of West Bengal and the southern state of Tamil Nadu. These multi-phase elections are widely viewed as a critical early barometer of public support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s national Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of upcoming national elections, testing the ruling party’s ability to expand its footprint into regions it has long struggled to penetrate, while also gauging whether fragmented opposition blocs can mount a credible challenge to Modi’s national dominance.

    In West Bengal, the most hotly contested of this round of elections, Thursday’s voting marks the first phase of balloting across 152 of the state’s 294 assembly seats, spread across 16 districts. A total of 1,478 candidates are vying for voter support in this opening phase, with a second round of polling for the remaining 142 seats scheduled for April 29. Incumbent Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is leading her Trinamool Congress (TMC) party in a bid to secure an unprecedented fourth consecutive term in office, marking the first time the BJP has mounted a full-scale challenge to unseat Banerjee in a state the national party has never controlled.

    The entire electoral process in West Bengal has been overshadowed by a bitter controversy surrounding a sweeping Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the state’s electoral rolls, a process designed to remove outdated entries of deceased or absentee voters from registration lists. The exercise has resulted in the removal of roughly nine million voters – approximately 12% of the state’s entire electorate – while the registration status of another 2.7 million eligible voters remains pending review. Although India’s Election Commission (EC) maintains the revision is a routine effort to clean up inaccurate voter rolls, the policy has spawned widespread legal challenges and deepened political tensions across the state.

    Political friction has been further inflamed by rhetoric around the revision. Prime Minister Modi has framed the clean-up as a targeting of so-called “illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators”, a framing the TMC argues is a dog whistle targeting West Bengal’s large Muslim community. Independent observers and local officials have noted, however, that excluded voters include large numbers of Hindu residents as well, with many eligible voters reporting their names were struck from rolls despite holding valid identity documentation. Disputes over voter eligibility are still working their way through adjudication tribunals even as voting gets under way, leaving millions of residents uncertain whether they will be able to cast a ballot in this election.

    Notably, the first phase of polling covers constituencies in West Bengal’s less developed northern, central, and southwestern regions, which include the state’s three Muslim-majority districts: Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, and Malda. This same geographic area also holds a disproportionate share of the 2.7 million voters whose eligibility remains in limbo, raising concerns about disenfranchisement among minority and marginalized communities. The second and final phase, by contrast, will cover seats in and around Kolkata, the state capital, and the lower Gangetic plains of south Bengal – a region that has been a TMC stronghold for the past three consecutive election cycles.

    In a nod to West Bengal’s long history of election-related violence and political intimidation, security officials have deployed a record 240,000 federal personnel across the state, backed by armored bulletproof vehicles patrolling all poll-bound districts. The EC has also implemented strict security restrictions ahead of the first phase, including a ban on daytime bike rallies, pillion passenger riding, and non-essential two-wheeler travel after dark across all 152 first-phase constituencies. Authorities have also implemented an extended 96-hour ban on liquor sales, double the standard 48-hour restriction implemented in most Indian elections. West Bengal’s Chief Electoral Officer Manoj Kumar Agarwal confirmed the extended ban came in response to a dramatic 30% to 240% spike in liquor purchases from state-run retail outlets, noting that officials are investigating where the stockpiled alcohol is being stored to prevent its use as an inducement for voters.

    Beyond West Bengal, all eyes are on Tamil Nadu, where the entire 234-seat state assembly will be contested in a single phase of voting on Thursday, with more than 57 million eligible voters registered to cast ballots. Tamil Nadu’s politics have long been dominated by two regional Dravidian parties: the incumbent Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, who is seeking a second consecutive term, and the opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), which has formed an electoral alliance with the national BJP.

    This election cycle has shaken up the state’s traditional two-party dynamic, however, with the entry of popular Tamil actor-turned-politician Vijay and his newly formed Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, creating the prospect of a competitive three-way race that could reshape the state’s political landscape. The BJP has historically struggled to gain traction in Tamil Nadu, where regional identity, linguistic pride, and welfare-focused policy have long dominated electoral politics. For the national party, even modest gains in Tamil Nadu would mark a significant breakthrough in its efforts to expand its influence across southern India, a region that has long resisted the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda. Ongoing debates over delimitation – the redrawing of electoral constituencies to reflect population shifts – have also amplified regional concerns about fair political representation in the state, adding an extra layer of tension to the contest.

    These two state elections are the final phase of a broader round of regional contests that have already seen polling held in Kerala, Assam, and the union territory of Puducherry. The overall results of these elections will provide critical insight into the political mood of India ahead of the next national general election, shaping expectations for Modi’s third term bid and the future of national opposition politics.

  • Trump alleges Democratic-backed Virginia referendum was ‘rigged’

    Trump alleges Democratic-backed Virginia referendum was ‘rigged’

    Weeks ahead of high-stakes U.S. midterm elections, former president Donald Trump has reignited his long-running pattern of unsubstantiated election fraud claims by labeling a recent Virginia redistricting referendum a “rigged” process that tilted power toward Democrats.

    In a post shared to his Truth Social platform Wednesday, Trump repeated familiar false claims about mail-in voting to back his accusation, writing that Republicans held a clear lead throughout Election Day Tuesday before a last-minute “massive Mail In Ballot Drop” flipped the final result. “A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT,” he wrote, echoing the baseless narrative he pushed to overturn his 2020 presidential loss to Joe Biden.

    The referendum in question approved a temporary redrawn congressional district map that analysts project will give Democrats a dominant advantage in 10 of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats, up from the party’s prior narrow 6-5 edge. The move is the latest flashpoint in a national battle over gerrymandering, the decades-old but widely criticized practice of manipulating electoral boundaries to benefit the party that controls the map-drawing process. That battle has moved to center stage ahead of November’s midterms, when all 435 House seats and one-third of U.S. Senate seats will be up for election.

    Redistricting is typically conducted once every decade following the completion of the U.S. national census, but Trump last year openly urged state legislatures controlled by his Republican Party to redraw district boundaries mid-decade to shore up the party’s narrow House majority. Texas was the first Republican-led state to act, passing a map that could net the party up to five additional House seats. Democratic-controlled California quickly responded with its own ballot initiative to gain five seats for Democratic candidates.

    Democrats have defended Virginia’s new map as a necessary countermove to the aggressive redistricting push led by Trump and national Republicans. But Republicans have pushed back hard, framing the referendum outcome as an illegitimate power grab, particularly in a state that Trump won 46% of the vote in 2024. Trump echoed that criticism Wednesday, arguing that the lopsided 10-1 district advantage is out of step with the state’s nearly 50-50 partisan split in presidential voting. He also claimed the language of the referendum ballot was intentionally confusing and misleading to skew turnout.

    Trump called on state and federal courts to intervene to block the new map, writing “Let’s see if the Courts will fix this travesty of ‘Justice.’” Republican officials have already filed multiple legal challenges to the redistricting plan, with several cases still pending that could ultimately be decided by the Virginia Supreme Court — which previously ruled the referendum could proceed despite Republican opposition.

    Critics have noted that Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting has been inconsistent: he publicly championed Texas’ new Republican-friendly map, which was passed by the state legislature without any public referendum, while condemning Virginia’s Democratic-backed plan that was put to a direct public vote.

    For years, Trump has baselessly claimed that mail-in voting is rife with systemic fraud, even though he and his family have repeatedly voted by mail themselves. No credible election authority or official investigation has ever produced evidence of widespread fraud that impacted the 2020 presidential election or any other recent national U.S. election.

    Beyond the redistricting fight, Trump has also pressured congressional Republicans to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, widely known as the SAVE Act, a sweeping overhaul of federal voting rules ahead of the November midterms. The bill has already passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, but it faces major roadblocks in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans do not hold enough votes to overcome Democratic opposition to the measure.

  • Zambia’s government takes possession of ex-president’s body in repatriation row

    Zambia’s government takes possession of ex-president’s body in repatriation row

    A long-running political and personal dispute between Zambia’s current and former leadership has spilled over into a bitter conflict over the final resting place of ex-president Edgar Lungu, with the Zambian government confirming it has taken custody of Lungu’s remains 10 months after his death in South Africa — a move directly opposed by Lungu’s family. Lungu, who led the southern African nation from 2015 to 2021 before suffering a heavy electoral defeat to current President Hakainde Hichilema, passed away at age 68 last June while receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness at a Pretoria, South Africa clinic. Tensions between the two politicians have persisted long after Lungu left office, creating a bitter backdrop for negotiations over funeral arrangements that ultimately collapsed.

    Zambian authorities have argued that as a former head of state, Lungu is entitled to official state honors and burial at the capital Lusaka’s dedicated presidential cemetery alongside all previous Zambian heads of state. Lungu’s family, however, has pushed back against a state-led ceremony, stating the former president never wanted Hichilema to attend his funeral and has insisted on a small, private burial. The deadlock between the two sides has moved through South Africa’s judicial system for months: in August 2024, a South African court ruled in favor of the Zambian government’s bid to repatriate the body for a state funeral. The family immediately launched an appeal against the ruling, but the transfer of Lungu’s remains to Zambia moved forward after Zambia’s Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha released a statement claiming the family had failed to advance their appeal at the appellate court, making the initial ruling enforceable.

    The family has pushed back strongly against the government’s narrative. In an interview with a Zambian YouTube news channel on Wednesday, Lungu family spokesperson Makebi Zulu rejected claims that the appeal had lapsed, insisting the family had followed all required judicial protocols correctly. Legal representatives for the family have now filed an urgent application with South Africa’s High Court, demanding Lungu’s body be returned to the Pretoria funeral home where it was initially held. The high-stakes conflict over Lungu’s remains has amplified long-simmering political divisions in Zambia, turning a posthumous diplomatic and legal dispute into a major public issue that tests the balance of state protocol and family wishes in the southern African country.

  • Trump extends ceasefire but continues blockade of Iran

    Trump extends ceasefire but continues blockade of Iran

    In a Tuesday announcement posted to his Truth Social platform, former U.S. President Donald Trump has extended an existing two-week ceasefire in the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, though he has ordered U.S. military forces to maintain a strict naval blockade of the country and remain on high alert for potential renewed hostilities.

    The ceasefire extension comes just two weeks after Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” hours before the initial truce took effect. In his post, Trump framed the extension as a response to two key factors: the deep internal political fragmentation within Iran’s government, and a formal request from Pakistan’s top military leader Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to delay new attacks to allow Iranian officials time to draft a unified negotiating proposal.

    “I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other,” Trump wrote in the statement, offering no fixed end date for the extended truce.

    The U.S. naval blockade was implemented after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for international fossil fuel trade connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. Over the weekend, Trump confirmed that U.S. forces had seized the Touska, a 900-foot Iranian-flagged cargo vessel, as part of the blockade operation.

    Regional and policy analysts have painted a grim picture of the current stalemate, warning that the lack of trust between Washington and Tehran leaves the door open for sudden conflict resumption. Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, assessed that the current arrangement aligns with the most likely outcome: a frozen conflict with no major breakthroughs. “No deal, no sanctions relief, no nuclear compromise, no return to war, while Iran continues to control the strait,” Parsi said, noting that Trump achieves his core goal of exiting full-scale war while Iran fails to secure its top demand of sanctions lifting, leaving the region in an unstable limbo.

    While the United Nations has welcomed the ceasefire extension – with a spokesperson for Secretary-General António Guterres calling it “an important step toward de-escalation and creating critical space for diplomacy and confidence-building between Iran and the United States” – Iranian officials have rejected the status quo and pushed back against the continued blockade.

    Drop Site News co-founder Jeremy Scahill reported Tuesday that an anonymous Iranian official confirmed Iran’s core position remains unchanged: full lifting of the U.S. naval blockade is a non-negotiable precondition for any further negotiations. An advisor to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf went further, telling Reuters chief national security reporter Phil Stewart that the ceasefire extension is meaningless, and may even be a U.S. tactic to buy time for a surprise offensive. The advisor added that maintaining the blockade is equivalent to military bombardment, and must be met with a military response from Iran.

    Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, warned that after two surprise attacks on Iranian soil, hardline factions in Tehran are now pushing for pre-emptive military action against U.S. military and commercial vessels operating near the Strait of Hormuz. “Trust between the sides remains at zero and renewed war could break out at any time,” Toossi stressed. He also dismissed Trump’s framing of the extension as a response to Pakistan’s request, noting “Pakistan isn’t deciding whether the U.S. goes to war with Iran. They’re a conduit, not a driver. More a convenient excuse and diplomatic cover than having any sort of actual influence over Trump on Iran.”

    In a pre-extension op-ed for The Guardian, Toossi argued that Iranian officials have little incentive to offer major concessions after holding their ground through the initial U.S.-Israeli offensive. “Having fought what they see as an existential war with the US and Israel and held their ground, Iranian officials see little reason to rush into major concessions. The priority is not a sweeping deal, but reducing the risk of war while preserving core sources of power, from Hormuz to its nuclear program,” he wrote. Toossi added that the most likely long-term outcome is not a full peace deal, but a fragile interim arrangement that manages rather than resolves the conflict, with Iran betting that global economic pressure from energy market disruptions will eventually force the U.S. to back down.

    The human and economic costs of the two-month conflict continue to mount. Climate advocacy group 350.org estimates that global consumers and businesses have paid an extra $158.6 billion to $166.9 billion in fuel costs over the first 50 days of the war alone, driven by supply disruptions and price volatility. Since the U.S. and Israel launched their initial offensive in February, thousands of people have been killed across Iran and the broader region, and tens of thousands of Iranian civilian infrastructure sites have suffered significant damage.

  • US Navy chief leaving post ‘effective immediately’, Pentagon says

    US Navy chief leaving post ‘effective immediately’, Pentagon says

    In a sudden announcement that underscores a period of unprecedented turnover at the highest levels of the U.S. national security establishment, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday that Secretary of the Navy John Phelan has departed the Trump administration, with his departure taking effect immediately.

    Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell broke the news of Phelan’s exit in a post on social media, confirming that current Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao will step into the role as acting secretary to oversee the service branch in the interim. Notably, no official explanation for Phelan’s departure has been released by the U.S. Navy, leaving room for speculation amid growing tensions in the Middle East.

    Phelan’s exit comes at a defining moment for U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf: the U.S. maintains an ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for oil and commodity shipping, while armed conflict escalates between U.S. ally Israel and Iran. This high-stakes geopolitical context makes the sudden leadership change at the top of the Navy particularly noteworthy.

    A civilian without prior military service, Phelan was first tapped for the role by President Donald Trump in 2024, and officially sworn into office as the 78th Secretary of the Navy just 13 months ago, in March 2025. He is now the latest in a growing string of high-ranking uniformed and civilian military leaders to leave the administration in a series of shake-ups that have unfolded over the past several months under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    Just weeks before Phelan’s departure, Hegseth requested that Army Chief of Staff Randy George step down from his post. Two other senior Army leaders – General David Hodne and Major General William Green – have also been removed from their leadership positions in recent weeks. Since taking command at the Pentagon, Hegseth has overseen the firing of more than a dozen top military officers, including the Chief of Naval Operations and the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. The sustained purge of senior military leadership has drawn widespread attention for its scale and speed, as the administration reshapes the top ranks of the U.S. armed forces ahead of a pivotal period in global geopolitics.

  • More than 1,600 candidates in May local elections make major pro-Palestine pledge

    More than 1,600 candidates in May local elections make major pro-Palestine pledge

    Ahead of the United Kingdom’s May 7 local elections, exclusive data obtained by Middle East Eye shows more than 1,600 candidates across major and minor political groups have signed a pro-Palestine rights pledge organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). The commitment, which binds signatories to advance Palestinian rights through their elected office, puts candidates at odds with the national Labour government’s official policy that bans local council boycotts of Israeli-linked businesses.

    The core of the PSC pledge requires elected officials to push for local councils to divest public pension funds and other administered assets from companies complicit in Israel’s violations of international law. Signatories also vow to oppose all forms of council complicity in normalizing Israel’s actions, and commit to upholding what the pledge calls the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, as well as supporting accountability for alleged Israeli crimes of genocide, military occupation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

    Breakdown of the signatory data reveals a stark partisan divide. More than 1,000 Green Party candidates, over 200 Labour aspirants, more than 200 independent candidates and small local party groups, along with a handful of Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates have added their names to the pledge. This divide plays out across key battleground councils, many of which are expected to see major shifts in control following the election, which is being framed as the first major national electoral test since Keir Starmer took office as prime minister in July 2024.

    In Camden, the London borough that contains Starmer’s own parliamentary seat, 33 Green candidates signed the pledge, while not a single Labour candidate did. In east London’s Newham, where Labour holds 56 of 66 current council seats and faces a strong challenge from left-wing and Green challengers, only five Labour candidates signed, compared to 28 Greens and 19 Newham Independents. In Hackney, where polls indicate Labour is likely to lose its long-held council majority to the Greens, 31 Green candidates including the party’s mayoral hopeful Zoe Garbett signed, while just two Labour candidates joined.

    Similar gaps appear across regions of England. In the northern city of Bradford, 16 Greens, 12 members of the independent Your Bradford Independents Group and six Labour candidates signed. In the Midlands’ largest city Birmingham, 27 Greens, four independents and only one Labour candidate committed to the pledge. In Newcastle, where Labour holds 34 of 78 seats and risks losing control to a coalition of Greens and independents, two Greens and five Labour candidates are signatories.

    The pledge comes amid growing tensions between grassroots pro-Palestine activists and the national Labour government, which earlier this year doubled down on a 2016 national policy prohibiting local councils from implementing procurement boycotts targeting Israeli firms and businesses that trade with Israel. In January, Communities Secretary Steve Reed issued a formal warning to Labour-run councils, noting that municipalities could face legal action if they move forward with boycotts of Israeli-linked businesses.

    Despite the national warning, a growing grassroots movement across UK local government has pushed for divestment over the past two years. Multiple local authorities have passed votes to cut ties with companies that profit from Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or supply arms to Israel, and several major councils including Islington, Lewisham, Wandsworth and Caerphilly have already removed companies listed by the United Nations as operating in occupied Palestinian territories from their pension fund portfolios.

    PSC deputy director Peter Leary emphasized that the widespread support for the pledge demonstrates cross-party backing for Palestinian rights, even as many national party leaderships reject divestment. “Councillors who can get their councils to stop all complicity – such as divesting pension funds that are linked to companies that are enabling Israel’s crimes – can play a crucial role, and voters at these local elections will be looking carefully to see who stands on the side of freedom and justice for Palestine,” Leary said.

    Green Party national elections coordinator Faaiz Hasan framed the divestment push as a link between international policy and domestic economic pain, noting that the ongoing conflict in Gaza and tensions across the Middle East have exacerbated the UK’s cost of living crisis. The Greens are campaigning for local councils to divest pension funds not just from companies linked to human rights abuses in Palestine, but from fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers that profit from conflict and climate damage, Hasan added.

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, now heading the Your Party which backs independent local candidates across the UK, said his party’s challengers stand in stark contrast to right-wing alternative parties, campaigning on domestic progressive policies including free school meals, expanded social housing and the insourcing of public services, while unapologetically opposing the Labour government’s stance on Gaza. “They will be standing fearlessly against this government’s shameful complicity in genocide,” Corbyn said.

    The May 7 election will see more than 5,000 council seats across 136 local authorities contested, with the conflict in Gaza and UK foreign policy toward Israel emerging as one of the most salient issues in the campaign.

  • Trump claims Virginia redistricting election was ‘rigged’

    Trump claims Virginia redistricting election was ‘rigged’

    A fresh wave of political tension has swept across the United States ahead of November’s midterm congressional elections, after former President Donald Trump made baseless claims of electoral cheating surrounding a recent Virginia ballot measure that could hand Democrats up to four additional U.S. House seats currently controlled by Republicans.

    Virginians headed to the polls on Tuesday to vote on a redrawn congressional district map, a decision that carries outsized national implications for control of the lower chamber of Congress. This vote comes as part of a growing national “redistricting arms race” that launched after Trump encouraged conservative-led states to revise their voting maps to help Republicans defend their narrow current majority in the House.

    On his social platform Truth Social, Trump issued an unsubstantiated warning: “A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT.” The claim echoed the same false assertions of systemic fraud he pushed following his 2020 presidential election loss. “All day long Republicans were winning, the Spirit was unbelievable, until the very end when, of course, there was a massive ‘Mail In Ballot Drop!’” he wrote. To date, no U.S. investigative body has ever uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud, including in the nation’s mail-in voting system.

    Right now, Republicans hold a razor-thin advantage in the House: with 217 Republican seats, 212 Democratic seats, and one independent who aligns with the Republican caucus, following the recent death of a Democratic representative from Georgia. Historically, the sitting president’s party almost always loses House seats during midterm elections. If Democrats flip control of the chamber in November, it would not only derail Trump’s core policy agenda but also clear the way for a wave of Democratic-led congressional investigations into the former president.

    In the U.S., partisan gerrymandering — the practice of redrawing electoral boundaries to intentionally benefit one political party — is only prohibited when it is drawn along discriminatory racial lines.

    Ahead of the vote, Trump, a Republican, warned that a Democratic win in Virginia would be “a disaster.” In response, Democratic Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger pushed back in a post on X, writing that voters “pushed back against a President who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress. As we watched other states go along with those demands without voter input, Virginians refused to let that stand. We responded the right way: at the ballot box.”

    Trump’s false fraud claims come as he continues to press congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping proposal to overhaul U.S. voting rules that would require all voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot. He is also currently facing lawsuits from Democratic-led state governments over a previous executive order aimed at restricting access to mail-in voting.

    The former president has spent years spreading unsubstantiated claims that mail-in voting is rife with systemic fraud. Notably, however, Trump himself recently voted by mail in a Florida election, arguing his status as former president justified the choice; his wife and son have also used mail-in voting in recent elections.

    By federal requirement, U.S. states typically redraw their congressional district maps once every 10 years, following the release of new population data from the U.S. Census. Mid-decade redistricting, like the moves currently underway across multiple states, is an unusual shift that was triggered after Trump pressured Republican states to revisit their maps. Texas became the first state to approve a mid-decade redraw, setting off a cascade of map changes from both major parties to gain electoral advantage.

    Last November, California voters approved new Democratic-drawn maps that give the party an edge in five new congressional districts. On the Republican side, North Carolina and Missouri have both passed revised maps that favor GOP candidates. In Utah, a court-ordered redraw is expected to give Democrats a competitive advantage in one district, making the national map battle far more unpredictable ahead of November’s critical vote.

  • Pentagon says Navy Secretary John Phelan is leaving, in latest departure of a top defense leader

    Pentagon says Navy Secretary John Phelan is leaving, in latest departure of a top defense leader

    In an unexpected announcement that underscores ongoing turmoil in top U.S. defense leadership, the Pentagon disclosed Wednesday that United States Navy Secretary John Phelan is leaving his post effective immediately. The departure makes Phelan the first leader of a U.S. military branch to exit office during President Donald Trump’s second term, and adds to a growing string of high-profile departures and ousters among top defense officials.

    No official explanation has been offered for the sudden exit of the Navy’s top civilian leader, which comes at a tense moment for the service: the U.S. Navy is currently enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports and intercepting vessels tied to the Tehran government across global waters, amid a fragile ceasefire in an ongoing regional conflict.

    Phelan’s exit is the latest in a wave of leadership reshuffles at the Department of Defense, coming just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed General Randy George, the Army’s highest-ranking uniformed officer. Since assuming office last year, Hegseth has removed a number of other top generals, admirals and senior defense leaders from their posts.

    The abruptness of Phelan’s departure was highlighted by his public schedule just one day prior: on Tuesday, he spoke to a large gathering of sailors and defense industry representatives at the Navy’s annual Washington D.C. conference, and held press briefings to outline his upcoming policy agenda for the service.

    Pentagon spokesman Sean Phelan confirmed the leadership change in a social media post, announcing that Undersecretary Hung Cao would take over as acting Navy Secretary immediately.

    Cao, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Navy with combat deployment experience, is no stranger to Republican politics. As a Trump-endorsed candidate in 2024, he mounted an unsuccessful bid to unseat Democratic Senator Tim Kaine in Virginia’s U.S. Senate race. Cao first came to the U.S. as a child refugee, fleeing communist rule in Vietnam with his family in the 1970s. During his Senate campaign, he drew sharp criticism of the Biden administration, comparing Cold War-era Vietnam’s communist government to Biden’s leadership. In a campaign video, he claimed the U.S. was “losing our country,” blaming Biden for the criminal investigations into former President Trump and highlighting issues including border security and retail crime.

    Before his nomination as Navy Secretary by Trump in late 2024, Phelan had no prior military service nor previous civilian leadership experience within any branch of the U.S. armed forces. A prominent major donor to Trump’s 2024 campaign, Phelan made his career as the founder of Rugger Management LLC, a private investment firm. His only formal connection to the U.S. military prior to taking office was an advisory role with Spirit of America, a non-profit organization that provides support for defense initiatives focused on Ukraine and Taiwan.

    As of Wednesday evening, The Associated Press had not succeeded in reaching Phelan’s office for a comment on his sudden departure.

  • Corbyn slams ‘surveillance state’ after UK universities pay firm to spy on pro-Palestine students

    Corbyn slams ‘surveillance state’ after UK universities pay firm to spy on pro-Palestine students

    A joint investigative journalism investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates has ignited fierce public and political backlash across the United Kingdom, after uncovering that 12 leading British higher education institutions have contracted a private intelligence firm led by former military intelligence officials to monitor pro-Palestine student protesters and academic staff. Since 2022, the 12 universities – including globally renowned institutions such as the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London and King’s College London, alongside the University of Sheffield, University of Leicester, University of Nottingham, and Cardiff Metropolitan University – have paid Horus Security Consultancy Limited at least £440,000 (equivalent to roughly $594,000) for the surveillance work. The firm, which brands itself as a “leading intelligence” provider, was tasked with scanning public and private social media accounts of campus community members to track expressions of solidarity with Palestine, as well as compiling purported counter-terrorism threat assessments for the institutions. The investigation also documented specific cases of targeted surveillance: a 70-year-old Palestinian scholar, Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, who was invited to deliver a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University in 2023, was placed under monitoring by Horus agents, alongside a pro-Palestine PhD candidate studying at the London School of Economics. Speaking out about the experience, Abdulhadi condemned the arbitrary surveillance as a fundamental violation of academic freedom and due process. “You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty… but they actually made an assumption of guilt and started investigating me because of my scholarship,” she said. Abdulhadi further questioned what scholars must self-censor in their research and teaching to avoid what she called “this unwarranted, unfair and unjust scrutiny and surveillance.” Founded in 2006 as an internal project within the University of Oxford’s own campus security department, Horus is currently overseen by Colonel Tim Collins, who has held the role of director at the firm’s parent company since 2020. Collins has a well-documented history of controversial public positions: he has publicly called for the deportation of non-British citizens who participate in what he labels “misbehaving” protests, and has repeatedly claimed that pro-Palestine demonstrations across the UK are the product of a “Russian/Iranian orchestrated media campaign.” Multiple human rights and international experts have decried the surveillance program as a dangerous attack on civil liberties. Gina Romero, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of peaceful assembly and association, warned that the use of artificial intelligence by private firms to harvest and analyze personal student data raises “profound legal concerns” and has created a “state of terror” among student activists who wish to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Orlaith Roe, public affairs and communications officer at the UK-based International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), described the revelations as deeply alarming. “It is deeply frightening that some of the UK’s most respected universities have paid a private firm run by former military intelligence officials to surveil their own students and academics, particularly those in the pro-Palestine movement,” Roe said. She added that the UN special rapporteur’s characterization of the surveillance as creating a “state of terror” should be a urgent wake-up call for anyone who defends the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly in the UK. “This is not an isolated incident, but part of a troubling pattern of targeted monitoring of dissent in the UK – and without urgent scrutiny, it will not be the last,” Roe warned. Longtime UK MP and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who leads the Your Party political grouping, echoed these criticisms, arguing that the surveillance program is the latest sign of the UK sliding toward authoritarian surveillance policies. “Britain is becoming a surveillance state,” Corbyn told Middle East Eye. “This is yet another disturbing example of an increasingly draconian crackdown on Palestinian solidarity. Universities are meant to encourage students to learn, not intimidate them into silence.” As of the publication of the investigation, neither Horus Security Consultancy nor most of the universities named in the report have responded to multiple requests for comment from journalists. On its official website, Horus claims it adheres to “the strongest ethics in whatever we do, and are fully transparent and legally compliant in whatever territory we operate in.”