TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-10-14 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029105

COMMENTARY DEMOCRACY NOW ... AUGUST 31ST 2025 Democracy Now! U.S. & World August 31, 2025 \| Trump moves to fire VOA journalists. PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrPtDfyo0Ig
Democracy Now! U.S. & World August 31, 2025 \| Trump moves to fire VOA journalists. NEWS U.S & WORLD Aug 31, 2025 2.78K subscribers ... 134,993 views ... 3.5K likes #democracy #democracynow #news Democracy Now! U.S. & World August 31, 2025 \| Trump moves to fire VOA journalists. democracy now, democracy now richard wolff, democracy now today, democracy now live, democracy now today's news, democracy now top u.s. & world headlines, democracy now headlines today, democracy now full show today, democracy now ryan coogler, democracy now amy goodman, democracy now headlines, democracy now angela davis, democracy now amy goodman today, democracy now april 17 2025, democracy now april 25 2025, democracy now april 10 2025, democracy now april 14 2025, democracy now al green, democracy now april 16 2025, democracy now april 8 2025, amy goodman democracy now, amy goodman democracy now today, angela davis democracy now, amy goodman democracy now today's complete broadcast, al green democracy now, alan dershowitz norman finkelstein democracy now, arundhati roy democracy now, ana tijoux democracy now, alan dershowitz vs. norman finkelstein democracy now, ani difranco democracy now, democracy now bill moyers, democracy now burkina faso, democracy now bill clinton, democracy now bernie sanders, democracy now bishop, democracy now beinart, democracy now bibi files, democracy now biden, democracy now brazil, democracy now basel, boots riley democracy now, bill clinton democracy now, bill moyers democracy now, burkina faso democracy now, bernie sanders democracy now, bibi files democracy now, brad lander democracy now, brics democracy now, bell hooks democracy now, big beautiful bill democracy now, democracy now channel, democracy now climate scientist, democracy now chris mcgreal part 1, democracy now coogler, democracy now ceasefire, democracy now columbia, democracy now china, democracy now columbia university, democracy now chase strangio, democracy now cory doctorow, coogler democracy now, congo democracy now, chris hedges democracy now, crack up capitalism democracy now, cory doctorow democracy now, chomsky democracy now, claudia sheinbaum democracy now, columbia university democracy now, can't look away democracy now, curtis yarvin democracy now, democracy now democracy now, democracy now doge, democracy now daily show, democracy now documentary, democracy now dershowitz finkelstein, democracy now dei, democracy now department of education, democracy now duterte, democracy now david cole, democracy now daniel levy, dershowitz finkelstein democracy now, david cay johnston democracy now, david sirota democracy now, doge democracy now, deepseek democracy now, daniel levy democracy now, democracy now ukraine debate, democracy now español, democracy now elie mystal, democracy now edward snowden, democracy now education, democracy now ellen schrecker, democracy now ecuador, democracy now egypt, democracy now el faro, democracy now elon musk, democracy now el salvador, elon musk democracy now, edward snowden democracy now, el salvador democracy now, empire of ai democracy now, elie mystal democracy now, democracy now full episode, democracy now latest episode, democracy now espanol, how to hide an empire democracy now, democracy now feb 3, democracy now full show, democracy now february 4 2025, democracy now feb 12 2025, democracy now february 19 2025, democracy now february 27 2025, democracy now february 6 2025, democracy now feb 3 2025, finkelstein vs dershowitz democracy now, freedom flotilla democracy now, from ground zero democracy now, forest of noise democracy now, norman finkelstein democracy now, fatima bhutto democracy now, finkelstein dershowitz democracy now, finkelstein democracy now, franke democracy now, norman finkelstein democracy now debate, democracy now greta thunberg, democracy now general wesley clark, democracy now gabor mate, democracy now gaza doctor, democracy now greg stoker, democracy now guantanamo bay, democracy now glenn greenwald, democracy now greenpeace, democracy now germany, democracy now george floyd, general wesley clark democracy now, general wesley clark interview democracy now, greta thunberg democracy now, gabor mate democracy now, gen wesley clark democracy now, gaza news today democracy now, gore vidal democracy now, grace lee boggs democracy now, greg stoker democracy now, general clark democracy now, democracy now haiti, democracy now harvard, democracy now headlines today youtube, democracy now headline news, democracy now how to hide an empire, democracy now hasanabi, democracy now hegseth, democracy now hind rajab, hasanabi democracy now, headlines democracy now, howard zinn democracy now, harvard democracy now, #democracy #democracynow #news #usa How this content was made Auto-dubbed Audio tracks for some languages were automatically generated. Learn more NEWS U.S & WORLD Peter Burgess COMMENTARY This 'content' is difficult to characterise ... interesting but doing more to confuse than to clarify. I am struck by the number of people who have 'given up' on 'staying informed' because of the chrnonic disconnect between the available information and the reality of daily life. In my own case, I have moved from newspapers to the Internet to get my daily news and more and more to YouTube as my primary news feed. It seems that I have 'bought in' to a fast track to 'stupid' rather than being super-well informed. How on earth did this turn out to be the outcome of 'amazing progress'. Why is the US Stock Market at record high levels while the general population of the USA is having to face all sorts of economic woes? In the USA, the socio-enviro-economic system is completely 'out of kilter!'. Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 from New York. This is Democracy Now. When her phone finally rang, Yianazi Fernandez's hands shook as she answered. On the other end of the line was her son, Michael, who had been seized by immigration officers and vanished without explanation. For days, she had no idea where he was. No record appeared in the official databases, no word from lawyers or officials. Now, at last, his voice reached her, but the relief was fleeting. 'Mom,' he said. They took me to the facility of the crocodiles. That is how he described the place to her. The detention center hastily erected in the Florida Everglades. Its reputation already dark enough to earn the nickname Alligator Alcatraz. The center built in only 8 days at the end of June was intended to house thousands of detainees as part of Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. Situated in the wetlands, famous for their alligator population, the facility seemed from the outset designed as much for symbolism as for security. Within weeks, it became one of 1:03 the most notorious immigration detention centers in the United States a flash point in the fight over deportations, asylum, and the limits of presidential power. Now, barely two months after it opened, Alligator Alcatraz is closing. A federal judge ordered its shutdown, finding that the government bypassed required protocols when building it. The Department of Homeland Security, DHS, though appealing, has agreed to comply. Border SAR Tom Hman told reporters that only half the detainees remain as the process of dispersing them to other centers accelerates. The dismantling of the Everglades camp is not simply a logistical matter. It is an autopsy of policy, exposing how America treats the vulnerable and how quickly institutions can slide from legality into chaos. For families, the headlines about injunctions and appeals obscure the human reality. Giannis's son, Michael, entered the United States from Cuba in 2019 and was granted temporary political 2:04 asylum. His troubles began years later after a construction job turned into legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to grand theft in 2021, claiming he had no idea the company was defrauding clients. A judge issued a removal order, which Michael says he never knew existed. In January, while driving his niece to school, police pulled him over. By June, he was in ICE custody, swallowed into a system that moves people like pieces on a board inside alligator Alcatraz. Michael's health collapsed. Within days, fellow detainees told his mother he had woken up covered in blood. He had developed stage 4 hemorrhoids, the most severe type. Surgery followed, but recovery inside the detention center was brutal. In short, monitored calls, he told his mother he was in agony, denied adequate pain medication, forced to sleep in handcuffs that prevented him from lying face down as required post operation. His underwear was soiled with blood and stool. Yet he was not allowed 3:06 to shower or change. 'They left him there like a dog,' Yianzi said, her voice breaking. 'Michel's ordeal is now part of a lawsuit alleging detainees at Alligator Alcatraz were denied confidential access to lawyers.' DHS has dismissed the claims as false, insisting medical care was provided, but attorneys representing detainees describe conditions as degrading and dangerous. Immigration detention is supposed to be non-punitive, merely supervisory, said lawyer Mitch Gonzalez. But inside the Everglades camp, it was degrading and deadly. The lawsuit touches on a central contradiction. Immigration detention is officially civil, not criminal. Yet in practice, detainees endure conditions harsher than many prisons. Reports from Alligator Alcatraz described crowded dorms, poor sanitation, inadequate medical treatment, and opaque communication. 4:03 When lawmakers toured in July, Republicans declared it safe and well-run. Democrats emerged, calling it vile and unsanitary. The political divide played out on the ground with protesters outside waving close the camp's banners while others posed for selfies beside the sign, proud of what they saw as tough border enforcement. The symbolism was potent. The Florida Republican Party even sold alligator Alcatraz merchandise caps, shirts, beer coolers, celebrating the camp as a victory for Trump's immigration agenda. 'People are fired up,' said state GOP chair Evan Power. 'We are finally closing the border. The spectacle of families separated, asylum seekers imprisoned in swamp camps turned into political branding.' But the judge's order to shut the facility within 60 days was a reminder that even hardened policies can hit legal limits. The ruling came after lawsuits argued the government failed to follow proper 5:00 protocols in building the camp. I disagree with the judge, Homeman insisted, claiming he saw a clean, well-maintained facility. Yet legal process prevailed and the Everglades experiment is ending. The human toll, however, lingers. Another detainee, Marco Alvarez Bravo, vanished into the system for over a week after his arrest. His wife, Glattis, had no idea where he was. Marco, a Chilean national who overstayed a visa and applied for asylum, was married to Glattis, a US citizen, just 11 days before his arrest. He also suffered from a genetic heart condition, Wolf Parkinson White syndrome, and had recently undergone surgery. When ICE agents pulled him over, he was still recovering from pneumonia. Initially, Marco did not appear in ICE's online locator database. Lawyers and families say such disappearances are common. Detainees vanish from public records, leaving families in terror. Eventually, Glattis 6:02 learned from another detainee that Marco had suffered a kidney rupture and was hospitalized, at one point confined to a wheelchair. She did not hear his voice again for 8 days. Where's my husband? She asked repeatedly. Panic growing. DHS later insisted he was receiving care and could call any time when he finally phoned he was back in Alligator Alcatraz awaiting yet another transfer. Today he is in Chrome, a facility 35 miles away. Marco's story illustrates a broader pattern. Immigrants are treated less like people than like files. Move from place to place. their health and humanity secondary to bureaucratic process. For Glattis, the experience was devastating. 'I cannot believe this is actually happening,' she said. 'I am nervous, confused, and my nerves are a total wreck.' The rise and fall of Alligator Alcatraz encapsulates the contradictions of Trump era immigration 7:00 policy. It was built quickly, without consultation, to project toughness. It was celebrated by supporters as proof the system could finally detain and deport at scale. It was condemned by critics as a cruel stunt. And within two months, it was undone by the courts. Yet, its closure does not signal the end of the policy. Other temporary facilities are already planned, including a deportation depot elsewhere in Florida and a speedway slammer in Indiana. Hman himself called the Everglades camp a great transitional facility and stressed that ICE needed more permanent infrastructure. We've got the money now, he said, to build brick and mortar. What remains then is not reform but relocation. People like Michael and Marco are transferred to new facilities, their struggles continuing out of sight. Families like Yasian and Glattis live in fear, their loved ones slipping through cracks in a system designed to detain first and answer 8:00 questions later. For human rights advocates, Alligator Alcatraz is both a cautionary tale and a rallying cry. It shows how quickly a government can build walls and cages when fear drives policy. It shows how fragile due process becomes when emergencies are invoked. And it shows how easily human suffering is hidden behind slogans and merchandise. The Everglades themselves teameming with wildlife, a protected ecosystem where an unlikely backdrop for human incarceration. To build a camp for thousands in such a place was to juxtapose the natural with the unnatural, the swamp with steel fences. Its nickname Alligator Alcatraz captured both the geography and the cruelty. People isolated in the land of predators, cut off, dehumanized. As the final detainees are moved out, as the fences come down, questions remain. Will justice be served for those denied medical care? Will lawsuits bring accountability, 9:01 or will the swamp camp fade into memory, replaced by the next iteration of detention? For families, the answers cannot come soon enough. Giannisy still worries about Michael's health. Fearful infections will spread, that scars from surgery will deepen into permanent harm. Glattis praise her husband's heart condition does not worsen in yet another facility. Lawyers brace for more cases, more disappearances, more lawsuits. And America continues its unresolved debate over immigration, how to enforce laws, protect borders, and still uphold human dignity. The Everglades camp may close, but the crisis it symbolizes remains open. On a gray morning in Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson signed a document that might soon define the city's relationship with Washington. With a penstroke, he issued an executive order declaring that the nation's third largest city would resist what he described as an unconstitutional and illegal military occupation threatened 10:04 by Donald Trump. The order, dry in its legal language but fiery in its intent, signaled defiance. Chicago would not bow to a president intent on turning immigration enforcement into spectacle. The order comes amid escalating tensions between Trump's White House and Illinois officials, particularly over crime and immigration. Trump has repeatedly called Chicago a killing field, using its struggles with gun violence as justification for extraordinary measures. Already, he has sent roughly 2,000 troops into Washington DC. He now threatens to do the same in Chicago, pairing military deployment with a surge of federal immigration agents. For Johnson, a Democrat who won office as a progressive reformer, the stakes are personal as well as political. We do not need nor want an unconstitutional and illegal military occupation of our city,' he said, flanked by aldermen and 11:01 community leaders. His order instructs city agencies on how to respond if federal troops or agents arrive, no cooperation in joint patrols, clear identification requirements for law enforcement, expanded no your rights programs for residents. In short, the city will resist, not assist. The symbolism is not lost on anyone. Chicago is home to more than one in five residents who are immigrants, over half of them from Latin America. Families and neighborhoods like Pilson, Little Village, and Albany Park have lived with uncertainty for years as Trump's policies ricochet through their lives. The threat of troops on their streets turns fear into dread. This order is about telling our people they will not be abandoned, Johnson said. Yet for Trump and his allies, the order is posturing. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed it as a publicity stunt, accusing Democrats of politicizing crime rather than 12:01 addressing it. If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the president, their communities would be much safer. She said the divide is stark. One side frames the crisis as authoritarian overreach. The other is civic neglect. Governor JB Pritsker, also a Democrat, weighed in with blistering criticism, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis to distract from economic pain. Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families, he declared. To him, the proposed deployment of the National Guard is not about security, but about consolidating power through intimidation. The conflict between federal power and local autonomy is hardly new. Chicago has long been at the heart of debates over sanctuary cities, police reform, and immigrant rights. But 13:04 rarely has the language of occupation entered official discourse. Johnson's order explicitly demands that Trump and federal agents stand down from any attempts to deploy the US armed forces in Chicago. It also reiterates city policies requiring body cameras, visible identification, and a ban on masks for law enforcement measures aimed at preventing the anonymity that has shrouded immigration and customs enforcement raids in other cities. Those raids have left scars in neighborhoods across the US. ICE officers have been criticized for concealing identities, wearing plain clothes, or using unmarked vehicles to seize people in the early morning hours. In Portland, federal agents and camouflage pulled protesters into vans during demonstrations, igniting outrage. Chicago officials say they will not allow such tactics to become normalized. Our people deserve to know who is policing them, why, and 14:02 under what authority, Johnson said. Behind the policy debate lies the human reality. Chicago's immigrant communities live in constant tension. For families without papers, even a traffic stop can spiral into deportation proceedings. Children worry whether their parents will return from work. Churches host know your rights workshops. Lawyers scramble to keep up with case loads. The threat of federal troops adds another layer of fear, conjuring images of armored vehicles on city streets. For Trump, however, the strategy is political as much as practical. By framing Chicago as a violent, lawless city, he positions himself as the only leader willing to impose order. His rhetoric of killing fields is designed to shock to paint urban America as a place in need of rescue. Deploying troops becomes, in this narrative, a heroic act. Yet critics argue that it is a manufactured crisis with Chicago's real struggles exploited to justify 15:04 unprecedented federal intervention. The clash raises constitutional questions as well. The Posi Kamatus Act generally restricts the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Exceptions exist, but deploying troops to enforce immigration or crime policy in a single city is legally dubious. By preemptively rejecting cooperation, Johnson's order sets up a potential legal confrontation. Federal authority against municipal autonomy. Who controls the streets of Chicago. The locally elected government or the commander-in-chief. History offers sobering precedents. In the civil rights era, presidents deployed federal troops to enforce desegregation orders against resistance states. Those interventions expanded rights, not curtailed them. Johnson and Pritsker argue that Trump's threat inverts that legacy, using federal power to strip rights rather than protect them. To 16:02 them, the occupation is not about enforcing law, but about silencing disscent and intimidating immigrants. For residents like Maria Lopez, a mother of three in Little Village, the politics are less abstract. My kids ask me if soldiers are coming, she said. How do I explain to them that in America soldiers might come to our neighborhood because of where we were born? Her words capture the anxiety that policies made in Washington generate on the ground. Uncertainty, fear, and the erosion of trust. Community organizations are mobilizing. Advocacy groups have launched hotlines, know your rights trainings, and rapid response networks. Churches and schools prepare to offer sanctuary. We cannot wait until the soldiers are here, said Juan Rivera, a local activist. We have to be ready to protect each other now. For many, Johnson's order is less a shield than a signal to prepare, to 17:01 resist, to stand together. Trump's supporters, meanwhile, cheer the possibility of federal intervention. At rallies, he repeats stories of Chicago violence, often exaggerating statistics to paint a picture of chaos. His base applauds the promise of toughness, the image of troops restoring order. For them, Johnson's order is betrayal, proof that Democrats value immigrants over safety. The framing is stark. Law and order versus sanctuary and resistance. Yet, the reality of crime in Chicago is complex. While homicides spiked in recent years, they have begun to decline again. Community leaders argue that long-term solutions lie in investment, education, and economic opportunity, not military patrols. Johnson has emphasized programs to address root causes from youth employment to mental health services. But such initiatives lack the immediate drama of troops on the ground to contrast Trump exploits. As the standoff escalates, legal scholars 18:05 anticipate challenges. If Trump follows through on deploying troops or flooding the city with federal agents, lawsuits will surely follow. Courts will have to weigh executive authority against constitutional limits. The case could set precedents for the balance of power between federal government and cities, especially sanctuary jurisdictions. In the meantime, the political theater continues. Johnson's order draws national attention, energizing his supporters and infuriating opponents. Trump uses Chicago as a symbol of democratic failure. Pritsker positions himself as a defender of state sovereignty. And in neighborhoods across the city, immigrant families brace for uncertainty. The closing words of Johnson's press conference echoed with defiance, but also with resolve. Chicago is not a battlefield. Our people are not enemies. We will protect them. We will stand with them. And we will resist unlawful occupation. Whether those words 19:04 prove prophetic or symbolic depends on what happens next. Will Trump escalate, testing the limits of federal power, will courts intervene, or will the confrontation remain rhetorical, a clash of words rather than soldiers? For now, Chicago prepares for both. What is clear is that the conflict is not only about one city. It is about the meaning of federalism, the rights of immigrants, and the boundaries of presidential authority. It is about whether America's cities can define their own futures in the face of national politics. And it is about families like Yianazis and Maras whose lives are shaped not by ideology, but by the fear of a knock at the door. Chicago's defiance is a reminder that democracy is fought not only in courts or Congress, but in city halls where mayors sign orders and in living rooms, where children ask their parents whether soldiers are coming on a quiet Friday night as Washington's political class 20:04 prepared to slip into the weekend. The Trump administration delivered a shock that reverberated across the globe. nearly 500 employees of Voice of America, the United States storied international broadcaster, would be terminated. The announcement came not in the spirit of bureaucratic housekeeping, but with the blunt force of political reprisal. To its defenders, the move was an overdue pruning of a bloated federal bureaucracy. To its critics, it was nothing less than an attack on press freedom and a deliberate attempt to muzzle a voice that since World War II had been America's most enduring messenger to the world. The decision is the latest in a long-running struggle between Donald Trump and VA. For years, Trump and his allies have derided the network as radical, anti-Trump, and unamerican. where previous administrations saw VO as a tool of soft power countering disinformation, 21:01 projecting democratic values and connecting with audiences in repressive states. Trump saw a nest of critics funded by American taxpayers. The firings carried out by the US Agency for Global Media, USAGM, would slashVOA staff from more than 600 to just over 100. a decapitation that would leave the institution a shell of itself. Kari Lake, the acting CEO of USAGM, presented the move as bureaucratic efficiency. This decision will help reduce the federal bureaucracy, improve agency service, and save the American people more of their hardearned money. she said in a statement. The rhetoric echoed Trump's broader narrative of draining the swamp, trimming what he portrayed as bloated, disloyal government institutions. But employees and their unions saw something else entirely, a purge. VA's journalists, many of whom have spent decades broadcasting in 22:04 nearly 50 languages, called the step illegal. In statements to the press, they argued that the administration had failed to follow required procedures and that Congress had never approved such a sweeping dismantling. A lawsuit filed by agency employees accused the administration of bypassing legal review processes mandated by law. A federal judge ruling just the day before the firings had already determined that Trump's team had not followed proper procedure when it attempted to ou VA director Michael Abramowitz. The judge ordered Kari Lake herself to sit for a deposition, a rare and humiliating rebuke for an agency head. Yet the firings went forward for the journalists of VA, many of whom had already been on administrative leave since March. It felt like the culmination of months of siege. The newsroom had operated under a cloud with staff fearful that Trump would dismantle the institution entirely. A small group 23:04 of Farsy speaking staff were recalled to cover the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran earlier in the summer, but the majority remained sidelined. The new notices confirm their worst fears. Their jobs were over, their voices silenced. The scope of the layoffs is staggering. Of the 532 positions targeted, nearly 500 belong to VA. Only 108 staff would remain, barely enough to maintain skeleton operations. The one exception is the Office of Cuba Broadcasting based in Miami, which errors Spanish language programming to Cuba. Those journalists will keep their jobs, reflecting the political priority Trump has long placed on Cuba policy. The message was unmistakable. Outlets aligned with Trump's foreign policy priorities might be spared, others gutted. For critics, the dismantling of VA represents not only a domestic assault on press freedom, but a strategic self-sabotage. 24:06 Since its creation in 1942, VA has been America's voice to the world, broadcasting news, cultural programming, and democratic values to countries under authoritarian rule. During the Cold War, it was a lifeline for dissident behind the Iron Curtain. In Iran, China, Russia, and dozens of other nations, VA has been one of the few sources of independent news accessible to ordinary citizens. To strip it down now, critics argue, is to silence America on the global stage at the very moment authoritarian disinformation surges. The timing only adds to the controversy. In an era of information warfare, where Russia floods social media with propaganda, where China expands state-run media across Africa and Asia, where Iran and North Korea amplify state narratives America is voluntarily disarming. This is soft 25:05 power suicide, one former VA director told reporters. At the exact moment when adversaries are pouring billions into their propaganda, we are tearing down the one institution designed to counter them. The origins of the current crisis lie in Trump's broader war on institutions. From the FBI to the State Department, he has branded agencies that challenged him as deep state enemies. VA with its independent journalists and its occasional critical coverage became another target. In speeches and on social media, Trump blasted the broadcaster for airing stories he disliked, accusing it of echoing foreign propaganda. The accusations carried little evidence, but plenty of political weight. Inside VA, morale plummeted. Journalists accustomed to decades of editorial independence found themselves labeled enemies by their own president. Staff were placed on leave on mass. Investigations were launched into foreign journalists on J1 visas, raising 26:05 fears that critical staff could be deported. Curry Lake, the agency head, pushed through restructuring plans while denouncing staff as disloyal. The newsroom, once bustling with polyglot voices, became a ghost town for employees like Maria Sanchez, a Spanish language reporter who had worked at VA for 15 years. The firings were devastating. We came here because we believed in the mission, she said. To tell the truth, to give people in closed societies a glimpse of freedom. Now it feels like we are being punished for doing our jobs. Others echoed her frustration, pointing out that many VA journalists are immigrants themselves who fled censorship in their homelands only to face suppression in America. The lawsuits challenging the firings highlight another dimension, legality. Congress created VA with safeguards to prevent it from becoming a propaganda arm of any president. The firewall protecting editorial independence was 27:05 designed to ensure credibility abroad by attempting to dismantle the institution without congressional approval. Critics argue the administration has violated both the letter and the spirit of the law. Federal judges so far appear sympathetic to that argument. Whether the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in remains uncertain, but with careers and constitutional principles at stake, the fight is far from over. Trump's allies, however, frame the issue differently. They argue that VA lost its way, drifting from its mission to promote America abroad and becoming instead a haven for critics of the president. They point to stories highlighting racial injustice, climate change, and immigration abuses as proof of bias. In their view, VA should amplify America's greatness, not scrutinize its flaws. Curry Lakes's rhetoric about radical staff reflects this perspective. Yet to journalism advocates, such arguments 28:04 miss the point. Credibility abroad depends on independence. When VA broadcasts an unvarnished picture of America warts and all, it builds trust among foreign audiences who know propaganda when they hear it. To sanitize coverage is to forfeit that trust. The day vo becomes state propaganda is the day it loses all value, said Anne Nunan of the committee for US international broadcasting. People in Tyrron or Moscow don't need another government mouthpiece. They need the truth. The consequences of VA's gutting will ripple globally. In Iran, where protests have surged against the regime, VA Persian is a rare independent source of news. In China, VA Mandarin provides reporting on censorship and repression. In Russia, VA supplements coverage blocked by state controlled television. Slashing staff will reduce broadcasts, weaken coverage, and 29:01 embolden authoritarian governments who will claim America has abandoned its own values. Domestically, the firings raise alarms about precedent. If one president can dismantle an independent newsroom for political reasons, what stops future administrations from targeting other outlets? Press freedom in America rests not only on the First Amendment, but on a political culture that values disscent. Trump's actions test that culture, revealing how fragile it may be. For the journalists themselves, the impact is personal and immediate. Careers built over decades end with form letters. Families face unemployment. Immigrants who risk their safety to work for VA face uncertainty about visas. Some describe feelings of betrayal. We thought this was the safest newsroom in the world. One Afghan journalist said. Now it feels like nowhere is safe. The White House remains unmoved. Officials argue that taxpayers should not fund an 30:04 institution they believe has turned hostile. Trump himself responding to the court's ruling against his firing of Abramowit scoffed that judges were undermining his authority. 'If allowed to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States,' he wrote on social media, echoing the apocalyptic tone he uses whenever institutions resist him. 'The battle over VA now moves on two fronts. the courts, where lawsuits seek to block the firings, and the newsroom, where remaining staff scramble to cover global crises with dwindling resources. Already, coverage of conflicts in the Middle East and political turmoil in Latin America has been curtailed. The fear is that soon VA will be unable to function at all. In Congress, lawmakers are beginning to stir. Some Democrats have called for investigations, framing the firings as part of a broader assault 31:01 on free institutions. A handful of Republicans, traditionally supportive of VA as a tool of foreign policy, have expressed quiet concern. But partisan divides run deep, and the future of the broadcaster may hinge on court orders rather than legislative action. The story of VA is inseparable from the story of America's global image. Born in the crucible of World War II, it told the world that democracy could triumph over fascism. During the Cold War, it pierced the Iron Curtain, offering hope to those trapped behind walls. In the 21st century, it became a digital lifeline in places where regimes shut down independent media. To dismantle it now is not just to end jobs, but to erase a legacy. As one longtime VA journalist put it, 'We've always said the first casualty of war is truth. Now it feels like truth itself is being declared expendable. The fate of 32:01 nearly 500 journalists and of the institution they represent hangs in the balance. Whether courts or Congress intervene, whether the firings stand or are overturned, one reality remains. America's voice is being silenced at the very moment the world needs it most. The pen strokes of judges written across 127 pages of legal opinion may ultimately do what months of lobbying by corporations, foreign governments, and economists could not unravel the centerpiece of Donald Trump's trade agenda. A 7 to4 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that most of Trump's tariffs, blanket levies slapped on imports from nearly every country were illegal, and overreach of emergency powers that belong not to the president but to Congress. The decision, echoing an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade in May, sets the stage for a titanic legal showdown in 33:00 the Supreme Court and throws America's economic diplomacy into a state of suspension. For businesses, lawmakers, and foreign capitals, the most pressing question is the one that hovers over the headlines. What happens next? A fragile truce until October. For now, the tariffs remain in place. The court allowed them to continue until mid-occtober, giving the administration time to appeal. On October 14th, unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the levies will evaporate, leaving in their wake a host of questions. Whether billions of dollars collected in duties must be repaid, whether trade deals struck under pressure from Washington remain valid, whether markets already shaken by inflation and instability can absorb the shock of reversal. The numbers involved are staggering. Trump's April announcement of a flat 10% tariff on imports from all countries effectively touched trillions of dollars in trade. On top of that baseline, he imposed 34:02 so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries, raising rates in retaliation for their own trade policies. Canada, Mexico, China, South Korea, Japan, and European allies all saw tariffs applied for corporations that rely on global supply chains, auto manufacturers, retailers, technology firms. Costs soared. Consumers paid more at checkout counters. Farmers saw exports shrink when foreign governments retaliated. Now, the legal lifeline keeping those tariffs alive is a thin thread stretched to October. Businesses must make investment decisions without knowing whether import taxes will stand or collapse. Economists warned that uncertainty itself, even more than the tariffs, could dampen growth. Dr. Linda Yu of Oxford University explained it bluntly. Businesses are going to be subject to uncertainty. countries may 35:02 hold off conducting trade with the United States while the case is unresolved which could dampen economic activity. Why? The court said no. At the heart of the ruling is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IPA passed in 1977. Trump argued that trade imbalance was an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security justifying a declaration of emergency and the imposition of tariffs. But the judges found this argument stretched the law beyond recognition. AIPA they wrote neither mentions tariffs or any of its synonyms nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president's power to impose tariffs. In other words, the law gave presidents authority to freeze assets, block transactions, or impose sanctions in response to genuine emergencies. It did not transfer Congress's constitutional power to levy taxes and duties. The ruling is a reminder of a fundamental 36:01 principle. The power of the purse belongs to Congress. By imposing tariffs unilaterally, Trump encroached on legislative territory. The judges were blunt. It is unlikely that when Congress passed the law in 1977, it intended to grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs. Trump's reaction. The former president never wanted to take judicial setbacks quietly denounce the ruling within hours. On Truth Social, he thundered that if allowed to stand, the decision would literally destroy the United States of America. He called the appellet court highly partisan and warned of disaster if tariffs vanished. Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise politicians, he wrote. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our nation and make America rich, strong, and powerful again. The apocalyptic tone was familiar. For Trump, tariffs are not 37:03 just a policy, but a worldview, a tool to recast America's place in the global economy. He dubbed himself tariff man with pride, arguing that duties punish unfair competitors, protect American jobs, and restore sovereignty. To strip him of that tool, is in his narrative to strip America of its defense. The Supreme Court question, the case is now destined for the Supreme Court, where six of nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including three by Trump himself. On paper, that conservative majority might appear sympathetic, but recent juristprudence complicates the picture. The court has leaned heavily on the major questions doctrine, which holds that presidents cannot unilaterally impose sweeping policies without clear congressional authorization. Using that doctrine, the court struck down Barack Obama's climate regulations and Joe Biden's student debt 38:01 forgiveness. Trump's tariffs may fall into the same category, a sweeping economic policy not explicitly authorized by Congress. If the court affirms the appellet ruling, it will curtail presidential use of emergency powers in trade and reassert congressional primacy. If it reverses, it could embolden presidents to invoke AEPA for tariffs or other economic measures far beyond its original intent. Either way, the precedent will echo across administrations. Global consequences. Foreign governments watch closely. Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom all negotiated trade adjustments in response to Trump's tariffs. If those levies collapse, are the deals void? Do governments demand refunds? Are concessions permanent or conditional? The uncertainty destabilizes alliances and complicates negotiations still underway. For China, the stakes are even 39:00 higher. Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports were a cornerstone of his effort to decouple supply chains. Billions of dollars in duties reshaped trade flows, forced companies to relocate production, and fueled inflation. If those tariffs vanish, China may see opportunity to reclaim lost ground. Yet, US firms that relocated operations may not reverse course quickly, leaving confusion on both sides of the Pacific. Domestic consequences at home, the political consequences could be explosive. If tariffs are invalidated, billions of dollars collected from businesses may have to be refunded. The US Treasury faces questions about whether it must pay back companies, potentially draining federal coffers. Lawsuits are inevitable. Meanwhile, industries that benefited from tariff protection, steel, aluminum, certain manufacturers would face renewed competition from imports. Consumers may cheer lower prices, but 40:02 workers and protected industries could face layoff. The political optics are just as volatile. If the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs, he may cast himself as a victim of deep state judges sabotaging America. If the court upholds them, he will claim vindication and expanded presidential authority. Either outcome feeds his narrative, either embattled hero fighting corrupt elites or triumphant leader rewriting the rules. Congress in the shadow. The ruling also exposes Congress's abdication. The Constitution grants it the power to regulate commerce and impose tariffs. Yet lawmakers have repeatedly seated authority to presidents. Both parties have preferred to avoid responsibility for politically sensitive trade decisions. Now courts are forcing the issue back to Capitol Hill. Will Congress reclaim its role or will partisan paralysis prevent action? Some lawmakers are already stirring. 41:00 Critics in both parties warn that allowing presidents to declare emergencies to impose tariffs risks abuse. What if a future president declares climate change or income inequality or immigration a national emergency and imposes sweeping policies? The court's decision may be less about Trump than about preserving constitutional boundaries. The human angle behind the legal and political battles are ordinary Americans. For farmers, tariffs triggered retaliatory measures from China that devastated soybean exports. For small businesses, import costs soared. For families, the price of goods from washing machines to electronics rose. Tariffs or taxes by another name, and consumers bore the brunt. Some industries benefited. Steel mills reopened. Aluminum smelters survived. But the gains were uneven and often outweighed by costs elsewhere. The uncertainty now adds insult to injury. Companies must decide whether to invest, 42:03 expand, or contract without knowing whether tariffs will stand. Farmers must plan crops without knowing export markets. Consumers wait to see whether prices will drop or spike. What happens after October? If the Supreme Court accepts the case, a stay could extend tariffs until a ruling perhaps months or years away. If the court declines, the appellet ruling takes effect in October. Tariffs vanish and chaos ensues. In either scenario, uncertainty lingers. If tariffs are struck down permanently, refund claims will flood courts. The Treasury may obey. Trade deals may unravel. America's credibility as a negotiating partner may suffer. Why sign deals under pressure if US policies can be erased by judges? If tariffs are upheld, presidents gain a powerful new tool. Any future president could invoke 43:00 AIPA to reshape trade without Congress. Trump would hail vindication. Biden might be tempted to use the same authority for his priorities. And the boundary between legislative and executive powers would blur further. Conclusion. A battle for the Constitution. The fight over Trump's tariffs is not only about trade. It is about the constitution, the balance of powers, and the limits of emergency authority. It is about whether presidents can unilaterally declare economic war or whether such decisions belong to Congress. It is about America's credibility abroad and fairness at home. What happens next depends on nine justices in black robes. Their decision will ripple through markets, legislatures, and households. For now, the world waits until October when the legal clock strikes and the fate of tariffs and perhaps the future of presidential power will be decided. The United Nations was founded in the ashes of war with a pledge that every nation, regardless of size or strength, 44:02 could send its representatives to a neutral chamber in New York to be heard. That promise enshrined in the headquarters agreement signed between the United States and the UN in 1947 was meant to ensure that the host country could not pick and choose which voices were allowed inside the glass towers of Turtle Bay. This week that foundational principle was shaken. The United States announced it would revoke visas for Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and about 80 other Palestinian officials, blocking them from attending next month's General Assembly session. The move stunned diplomats, infuriated Palestinians, and was quickly celebrated by Israel. For an administration that has long cast Palestinian institutions as obstacles to peace, the step was consistent. But for the United Nations, it raised an alarming question. If the host country can bar delegations at will, what remains of the UN's universality? Secretary of State Marco 45:05 Rubio, a staunch ally of Trump's White House, justified the decision by accusing the Palestinians of undermining peace. He argued that by seeking the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state, Abbas and his colleagues had forfeited their right to attend. Before the plow and PA can be considered partners for peace, Rubio said they must repudiate terrorism, including the October 7th massacre, and end incitement in education. He also demanded that Palestinian leaders abandon efforts to pursue cases against Israel at international courts. The language was harsh but unsurprising. Since Hamas's October attack on southern Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, Trump and his allies have doubled down on unconditional support for Israel. More than 63,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Israel's retaliatory campaign, according to 46:04 Gaza's Health Ministry. But Washington continues to echo Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's line that recognition of Palestinian statethood would reward terrorism. Yet the visa revocations break with decades of precedent. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States facilitated visas for Soviet officials. Even when Iranian leaders thundered death to America, they were allowed to speak in New York. The headquarters agreement is explicit. Attendance shall not be impeded irrespective of the relations between governments. Spokesman Stefane Dujari was careful in his words but firm in tone. It is important that all member states permanent observers be able to be represented. He noted that France and Saudi Arabia are set to host a high level meeting on the two-state solution during the session. A gathering now 47:00 deprived of Palestinian leadership. For Abbas, the humiliation is personal. As leader of the Palestinian Authority and chairman of the PLO, he has been the internationally recognized voice of his people for nearly two decades. His authority, however, has eroded. Hamas controls Gaza while his Fatalled authority struggles in the West Bank, hemmed in by Israeli settlements that expand each year. At home, many Palestinians view him as ineffective, unable to halt settlement growth or end occupation. Abroad, he is increasingly sidelineed. Being barred from the UN, the one arena where Palestinians have historically secured symbolic victories underscores his diminishing clout. The symbolism matters. In 1974, the UN recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In 2012, the General Assembly upgraded Palestine status to 48:01 that of non-member observer state. Today, 147 of 193 member states recognize Palestine. Yet the US wielding its Security Council veto has blocked full membership. For Palestinians, every appearance at the UN is a reminder that their cause remains alive, to be excluded entirely as a sharp blow. Israel welcomed the decision. Foreign Minister Gideon Sar praised Washington for drawing a red line against what he called Palestinian attempts to bypass negotiations. Netanyahu has long rejected a two-state solution, insisting that recognition of Palestinian statethood rewards violence. For his government, the US ban on Abbas is a victory in the broader battle to delegitimize Palestinian claims to sovereignty. But for much of the world, the ban looks less like strength and more like silencing. France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have all announced they will recognize a Palestinian state at the General 49:05 Assembly. Their move is largely symbolic without borders or control. Recognition does not alter life in Ramala or Gaza City, but symbolism is the currency of diplomacy. By barring Abbas, the US risks appearing not as a neutral broker, but as an enforcer of Israeli policy. Inside Palestinian society, the anger is palpable. Abbas's office released a statement calling the US decision astonishing and a clear contradiction of international law. Lawyers point out that the headquarters agreement is not a courtesy but a treaty obligation. The US, they argue, cannot legally deny visas to delegations seeking to attend UN sessions. Whether the United Nations itself is willing to challenge Washington on that point is another question. The UN relies heavily on U s funding and cannot easily confront its 50:00 host. But silence too carries a cost. If the president stands, any disfavored delegation could be excluded in future. The consequences go beyond legalities. For decades, the UN General Assembly has been the stage where marginalized nations air grievances, where symbolic victories are won, even when material power is lacking. When Yasser Arafat brandished an olive branch in 1974, it was in New York when small island nations warn of climate catastrophe. It is from that podium. If the US can determine who gets to enter the building, the integrity of that stage collapses. The timing of the ban could not be more consequential. The Gaza war grinds into its second year with entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble. More than 1 million displaced and famine looming in Gaza City. The humanitarian toll has shocked global opinion, spurring a wave of recognition for 51:03 Palestine. France has positioned itself as a leader of this effort, seeking to rally Western allies. By blocking Abbas, the US effectively mutes the Palestinian side at a critical diplomatic moment. For Palestinians, the exclusion reinforces a longstanding frustration, that their political fate is decided elsewhere. While Israeli ministers debate annexation, while foreign powers negotiate recognition, Palestinians themselves are often left voiceless. They have taken away even our ability to speak. One Palestinian diplomat lamented privately. For Trump, the move is a political calculation. Domestically, it reinforces his narrative of toughness, aligning him firmly with Israel and appealing to evangelical and conservative voters who view support for Israel as a litmous test. Internationally, it signals disdain for 52:00 multilateral forums, consistent with his broader pattern of sidelining the UN, withdrawing from treaties, and favoring bilateral deals. In Trump's calculus, weakening the UN's role on Palestine is not a bug, but a feature. What happens next is uncertain. The UN Secretariat has signal that will discuss the matter with the State Department, but no enforcement mechanism exists to compel the US to grant visas. Congress is unlikely to intervene. Bipartisan consensus in Washington supports Israel and views Abbas with skepticism. The most likely outcome is that Abbast will remain absent while lower level Palestinian diplomats in New York, those not targeted by the visa ban, represent their delegation. Symbolically, however, the damage is done. The image of an empty Palestinian seat during a debate on two-state recognition would speak volumes. Yet, the story does not end there. History shows that attempts to silence Palestinians at the UN often 53:02 backfire. Each exclusion fuels sympathy. Each denial sharpens the sense of injustice. When Palestinians cannot speak in New York, their allies, France, Saudi Arabia, and dozens of others speak louder. The very act of barring Abus may galvanize support for recognition, accelerating the momentum Trump and Netanyahu seek to halt. Still, the president is dangerous. If the US can block Abbas, could it block Iran's president or Cuba's foreign minister or any leader deemed hostile? The UN was built precisely to prevent such selective gatekeeping. The headquarters agreement was supposed to tie the host's hands. By untying them, Washington risks weakening the institution it helped create. For Palestinians on the ground, though, these legal and diplomatic debates feel remote. In Gaza, families sift through rubble, counting their dead. In the West Bank, settlers expand, soldiers patrol, checkpoints choke daily life. Recognition at the UN may not stop 54:04 the occupation, but it affirms dignity, asserts existence. To lose even that symbolic platform is to feel erased. As the General Assembly approaches, the world will watch how the drama unfolds. Will the UN challenge the US? Will Abbas find another way to make his voice heard? Will recognition votes proceed, rendering the US ban futile? or will the absence of Palestinian leadership weaken momentum for change? What is certain is that this episode crystallizes the imbalance at the heart of the conflict. One side commands armies and enjoys superpower backing. The other struggles even to secure a visa to speak. In that imbalance lies the enduring tragedy of the Israel Palestine conflict and the fragility of the international system meant to address

SITE COUNT