Trump-Mamdani Meeting: An Unexpected but Constructive Moment

In an unusually cordial Oval Office meeting, President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani set aside months of mutual criticism to explore areas of cooperation. The encounter between two ideologically opposite figures was striking not only for its substance but for its tone. Gone were the harsh labels and charged rhetoric. Instead, both men emphasized affordability, shared responsibility, and their mutual interest in seeing New York City thrive.

Trump, who had previously characterized Mamdani in stark ideological terms, repeatedly stepped in to shield the mayor-elect from adversarial questions. The president even joked about photo angles and urged reporters to acknowledge areas of agreement. Mamdani, for his part, maintained his positions while stressing that ideological differences should not impede work on the city’s urgent economic challenges.

For the 34-year-old mayor-elect, the meeting was politically advantageous. He demonstrated a willingness to engage constructively with the president without compromising on principle. Trump’s warm remarks — including saying he would feel comfortable living in New York under Mamdani — undercut months of attempts by critics to paint the mayor-elect as a radical threat. The optics alone blunted a central Republican attack line heading into the midterms.

Trump also gained from the interaction. By surprising observers with an affable, conciliatory tone, he created a media moment that highlighted his ability to find common ground across ideological lines. His focus on affordability resonated with voters who have long cited economic pressures as their top concern, and he capitalized on the contrast between expectations of conflict and the reality of cooperation.

The sharpest blow fell on GOP strategists and media voices who had sought to build a sustained anti-Mamdani narrative. Trump’s own comments deflated that effort in minutes, raising questions about the future viability of that messaging. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s media critics found their lines of attack weakened as Trump dismissed hostile framing during the press exchange.

Beyond the political theater, the meeting holds meaningful implications for New York. Trump’s earlier signals about potentially withholding federal funds now seem remote, and the prospects for coordination on affordability have improved. If both leaders maintain this pragmatic tone, New York City stands to benefit from a rare moment of cooperation at the highest levels.

In a polarized era, the encounter offered a refreshing reminder that dialogue — even between unlikely partners — can still yield positive outcomes for all involved.

Different Narratives on MBS Visit to the US

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the United States should have been a major diplomatic moment. Washington is reportedly seeking up to one trillion dollars in Saudi investment and is pushing to secure large-scale defence deals—developments that would ordinarily draw substantial media attention. Yet the muted coverage reveals a deeper divergence in narratives, shaped by political interests, historical biases, and selective framing within the US media.

American media reporting on the visit was surprisingly limited, and when it did appear, it was often filtered through familiar lenses. One reason lies in the highly polarized nature of US media, where influential lobbies and advocacy groups help shape editorial priorities.

Coverage of Middle Eastern leaders—especially from the Muslim world—tends to be influenced by domestic political calculations and long-standing geopolitical alliances. The result is not necessarily overt hostility but selective emphasis. In the case of the Crown Prince, this has meant that past allegations continue to overshadow the strategic dynamics of the visit.

A second dimension is the recurring focus on old controversies. Even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Riyadh have evolved substantially, parts of the US press remain firmly tied to earlier narratives.

Over the past several years, both countries have recalibrated their relationship, recognizing shared interests in energy stability, defence cooperation, and regional security. The Biden administration’s strategic engagement with Riyadh—especially in the face of global competition and shifting economic centers—underscores this recalibration. Yet certain media outlets still prioritize revisiting past accusations rather than analyzing the present-day stakes.

A third narrative thread centers on the Abraham Accords. Much of the American media continues to portray Saudi Arabia as the “missing link” in the normalization framework, framing Riyadh as hesitant or resistant. However, such portrayals often overlook the Kingdom’s stated position - normalization cannot move meaningfully forward without addressing Palestinian rights and a credible path to peace. This is not a rejectionist stance but one rooted in longstanding regional consensus. Oversimplifying it into reluctance ignores the political and moral considerations shaping Saudi policy.

What the muted media response fails to capture is the broader significance of the visit. The U.S. push for extensive Saudi investment—at a time of domestic economic uncertainty—reflects both economic urgency and geopolitical necessity. Saudi Arabia’s global profile is expanding, backed by deep financial reserves, ambitious economic reforms, and growing ties with China, South Asia, and emerging markets. For the U.S., maintaining strong ties with the world’s largest energy exporter remains strategically vital. For Saudi Arabia, diversifying partnerships does not mean distancing itself from Washington; rather, it reflects a more assertive, multi-vector foreign policy.

Ultimately, the contrasting narratives surrounding the Crown Prince’s visit say more about American media dynamics than about the visit itself. The gap between U.S. foreign-policy priorities and media portrayals highlights a persistent misalignment: domestic political framing often eclipses strategic realities. In this instance, the real story lies not in how the visit was covered—but in how much was left uncovered.

 

Trump-BBC Rift: A Test of Ego, Power, and Media Credibility

The rift between US President, Donald Trump and the BBC should have been resolved the moment the broadcaster apologized for the flawed edit of his January 06, 2021, speech. The program was not aired in the United States, was not accessible to American voters, and the BBC openly acknowledged the mistake. Any leader genuinely focused on governance would have accepted the apology and moved on. But Trump, driven by a familiar high-handedness, has chosen confrontation over closure.

This is not new territory. Trump has repeatedly used legal threats as political tools, often presenting himself as a victim of vast conspiracies. His latest threat—to sue the BBC for up to US$5 billion—feels less like a quest for justice and more like an extension of his personalized politics, where grievances are amplified and institutions are pressured to bend to his narrative. It is, in many ways, a performance of power.

For the BBC this is no mere drama. As a publicly funded British institution, its credibility directly affects British reputation. Retreating in the face of Trump’s aggressive posture would undermine both its journalistic independence and the trust of licence-fee payers. In an era when media houses worldwide are accused—sometimes rightly—of serving political agendas, the BBC cannot afford to appear intimidated by any leader, foreign or domestic.

The Reuters report makes the legal landscape even clearer. Trump intends to sue in Florida, bypassing the UK where limitations have expired, yet he faces the far tougher American defamation standard. The BBC is expected to argue convincingly that the program was inaccessible to US voters and carried no malicious intent. His claim of reputational harm is further diluted by the fact that he ultimately won the 2024 election.

In broader geopolitical terms, major powers have long used media as instruments of influence—Washington through the CIA, London through MI5 and MI6. If US agencies can leverage media for strategic messaging, British ones cannot stand idle while a national broadcaster’s integrity is questioned on questionable grounds.

Ultimately, this episode reveals more about Trump’s inflated sense of entitlement than about the BBC’s misstep. A leader secure in legitimacy would have accepted the apology. Instead, Trump has once again elevated ego above statesmanship.

Trump’s War on Truth: The King Who Cannot Be Questioned

Donald Trump’s threat to sue the BBC for US$1 billion over an allegedly “deceptively edited” documentary once again exposes his deep hostility toward criticism. Like a self-crowned king, he sees disagreement as defiance and journalism as treachery.

The controversy stems from a Panorama episode that spliced parts of his January 06 speech, implying he urged the Capitol attack. The BBC admitted an editing lapse, apologized, and saw senior resignations—proof of institutional accountability. Trump has turned it into political theater, vowing legal revenge in Florida, where the BBC neither broadcasts nor operates.

This isn’t about defamation—it’s about domination. For years, Trump has branded journalists “enemies of the people.” Now, he uses litigation to muzzle them. His strategy is simple: bully the messenger, rewrite the narrative, and play the victim.

The BBC’s error was human; Trump’s reaction is calculated. The broadcaster remains a pillar of global credibility, its transparency a stark contrast to Trump’s refusal ever to admit fault.

Trump’s narrative fits that of a ruler who cannot bear dissent, intolerant of criticism and allergic to accountability. His attack on the BBC isn’t about protecting truth, but about owning it. The BBC may have faltered—but it cannot be disgraced.

US Double Standards on Display Again

By boycotting the G-20 summit in South Africa, President Trump exposes the US habit of preaching human rights while protecting violators — a hypocrisy the world no longer buys.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that no US official will attend the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa exposes the glaring double standards that define American foreign policy. Citing alleged “human rights abuses” against white Afrikaners, Trump conveniently overlooks the far more serious violations that the United States has enabled and justified elsewhere — particularly in Gaza.

By accusing South Africa of persecution, Trump attempts to claim moral ground that Washington has long forfeited. The United States continues to supply lethal weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used in relentless bombardments of civilian populations. At the same time, it has repeatedly vetoed United Nations resolutions calling for ceasefire or accountability. To preach “human rights” while enabling systematic destruction in Gaza reflects an extraordinary level of hypocrisy.

Pretoria has rightly called Trump’s statements “regrettable” and “unsubstantiated.” South Africa, with its painful legacy of apartheid, understands the meaning of oppression better than most nations. Its willingness to take Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges demonstrates moral consistency — a quality increasingly absent in Washington’s diplomacy. Trump’s boycott of the G-20 appears less about ethics and more about punishing South Africa for standing with the oppressed.

This episode once again highlights America’s tendency to divide the world into allies and adversaries, applying one set of principles to itself and another to others. When convenient, Washington invokes democracy and rights; when inconvenient, it dismisses or undermines them. The decision to skip Johannesburg, while proudly preparing to host the 2026 summit in Miami, symbolizes this duplicity.

In a changing global order, such selective morality only erodes US credibility. The world is no longer willing to accept Washington’s self-appointed role as the arbiter of virtue. True leadership demands courage to face criticism, not avoidance of it. Trump’s refusal to attend the G-20 is not a statement of principle — it is an admission of moral weakness.

The First Casualty of Trump’s Stubbornness Is His Own Voters

The longest US government shutdown has exposed a painful irony — those most hurt by political rigidity are the very people who supported it. When governance becomes hostage to pride, it is citizens, not opponents, who pay first.

From federal paychecks to public benefits, the ongoing US government shutdown—the longest in American history—has disrupted daily life across the country. Ironically, many of those hit hardest are the very voters who helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

At the center of this standoff lies the administration’s refusal to compromise on the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies. What began as a fiscal debate has turned into an economic blockade. As Reuters reports, many Trump supporters now face halted incomes, cancelled contracts, and delayed benefits, yet continue to defend him—loyal even as their own livelihoods deteriorate.

This crisis is less about partisan politics and more about consequence. When governance becomes a test of endurance rather than judgment, it punishes the very citizens it is meant to protect. The small business owner in Florida losing contracts, the federal worker in Washington without pay, and the retiree in Arizona waiting for reimbursement—all stand as reminders that political rigidity carries real-world costs.

True leadership demands a balance between conviction and flexibility. By mistaking obstinacy for strength, the administration risks eroding not only economic stability but also the trust of its most loyal supporters. Each passing week of paralysis deepens uncertainty, weakens household confidence, and damages America’s broader economic reputation.

Defiance may be a political strategy, but governance requires adaptability. When pride replaces prudence, it is not opponents who suffer first—it is supporters. Trump’s base, once convinced that his unbending will serve their interests, now bears the burden of that same inflexibility.

In essence, this shutdown offers a sobering lesson in political consequence: stubbornness in power can inflict deeper wounds on one’s own camp than on any rival. The first casualty of Trump’s stubbornness is, indeed, his own voters.

“Tariff Fassad” Initiated by Trump May Trigger Global Meltdown

The global economy today resembles a pressure cooker — silently building steam, waiting for the smallest policy misstep to explode. The “Tariff Fassad” initiated by US president, Donald Trump during is not an isolated episode but the beginning of a dangerous shift toward economic nationalism. Its aftershocks are now resurfacing as governments across continents flirt with protectionism, weaponized trade, and retaliatory tariffs. If not checked, this confrontation could unleash consequences far worse than “Subprime Loan Crisis of 2008”.

Unlike 2008 — which was rooted in irresponsible lending and Wall Street malpractice — this crisis is being fueled by deliberate political choices. Tariffs have distorted supply chains, raised input costs, and crippled export-oriented economies. From Chinese manufacturers to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Global trade volumes are shrinking, and markets are reacting nervously.

The irony is striking, while tech giants continue to report record profits and soaring valuations, this growth stands on a very fragile foundation. Analysts are calling it a “Tech Bubble”, and not without reason. When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately banks, small businesses, and industrial shares come under pressure, it is not growth — it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are bleeding, consumer demand is weakening, and yet Big Tech is being priced as if the world economy is booming. This is speculation masquerading as optimism.

Banks, the backbone of any financial system, are showing worrying signs. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-dependent industries have started to appear on their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is eroding. Smaller financial institutions are especially at risk as their exposure to fragile sectors grows unchecked. This may not be a sudden collapse like Lehman Brothers — it could be a gradual suffocation, where trust quietly disappears from the system.

Emerging economies are caught in a chokehold. Currencies are under pressure, foreign exchange reserves are being depleted to manage imports, and inflation is creeping upward. For countries dependent on exports or imported raw materials, Trump-style tariff aggression has become an economic nightmare. Meanwhile, global institutions like the WTO and IMF remain spectators — issuing statements rather than solutions.

Markets do not collapse only due to bad economics; they collapse when confidence dies. Tariff wars, geopolitical brinkmanship, and speculative bubbles are collectively eroding that confidence. The threat today is not of a market crash alone — it is of a systemic disintegration of trust, credit, and cooperation.

The world must realize that economic wars have no winners. If this tariff-driven arrogance continues, the global economy will not fall off a cliff — it will slide slowly into chaos. Policymakers still have time to act, but the clock is ticking fast.

 

Trump to cut funds for NYC if Mamdani wins

US President Donald Trump endorsed former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor of New York City on Monday and threatened to hold back federal funds to the city if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the mayoral election on Tuesday.

Trump, a Republican who has offered frequent commentary on the New York mayoral election, injected himself further into the race by crossing party lines to support Cuomo over Mamdani and the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, who trails badly in public opinion polls in the heavily Democratic city.

Cuomo, a longtime stalwart in the Democratic Party, is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary.

Tuesday's New York City election has been closely watched nationally as one that could help shape the image of the Democratic Party as it seeks its identity in opposition to Trump. Mamdani, 34, a self-described democratic socialist who is leading Cuomo in the polls, has energized younger and more progressive voters, but he has also alarmed more moderate Democrats who fear a shift too far to the left may backfire.

Republicans have attacked Mamdani's candidacy throughout the campaign, with Trump casting him as a communist.

"Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump said a vote for Sliwa would only help Mamdani.

"If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home," said Trump, a native New Yorker.

The US federal government is providing US$7.4 billion to New York City in fiscal year 2026, or about 6.4% of the city's total spending, according to a report from the New York State Comptroller.

 

Trump’s Belligerence Toward Venezuela

US Representative Ro Khanna has called for urgent congressional action to prevent “another endless, regime-change war,” following reports that President Donald Trump is considering military strikes against Venezuela. Khanna warned such actions would be “blatantly unconstitutional,” emphasizing that no president has the authority to launch attacks without Congress’ approval.

Reports from the Miami Herald claimed the Trump administration has decided to strike Venezuelan military installations, while the Wall Street Journal reported that potential targets—mainly military facilities allegedly used for drug smuggling—have been identified, though Trump has not made a final decision. According to unnamed officials, the goal of these strikes would be to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

While the White House denies any finalized plans, Trump said aboard Air Force One that he believes he has the authority to act without congressional approval. Last week, he suggested land strikes could follow recent unauthorized and deadly attacks on boats in waters near Central and South America.

Despite growing concerns about a possible unauthorized military escalation, only a handful of lawmakers have voiced strong opposition. Senators Tim Kaine, Rand Paul, and Adam Schiff have backed a resolution to block Trump from launching strikes without congressional authorization. Other lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Ruben Gallego, have condemned Trump’s aggressive posture.

Sanders argued Trump is “illegally threatening war with Venezuela,” stressing that only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war. Public opposition is also evident; Dylan Williams from the Center for International Policy noted that most Americans oppose forcibly overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

Williams urged citizens to contact their senators and support S.J.Res.90, a resolution to block unauthorized military action. In the House, a similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow has gained over 30 cosponsors. Representative Joe Neguse, who supports the measure, said Trump “does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without specific authorization by Congress,” calling any unilateral action reckless and unconstitutional.

Neguse added that the American public does not want another endless war and that constitutional norms require congressional deliberation—period.

Dichotomy of Western Media

The Western media’s claim of being the custodian of truth and free expression has long lost its moral weight. What remains is a sophisticated machinery of selective storytelling that serves political convenience rather than journalistic integrity. The recent contrast between the “royal welcome” headlines of Donald Trump’s visit to Japan and the near-total blackout of mass demonstrations against him during the ASEAN summit speaks volumes about this duplicity.

When Trump landed in Tokyo, Western networks and newspapers competed to romanticize his reception — highlighting ceremonial gestures, lavish banquets, and supposed diplomatic warmth. Yet, when he visited Southeast Asia shortly after, facing widespread protests and public outrage, the same media either looked away or buried the story in a few inconspicuous lines. The silence was not accidental; it was calculated.

This pattern exposes the deep bias embedded in Western media — a bias not of ideology alone but of power. Stories that reinforce Western dominance are amplified, while narratives that challenge its legitimacy are suppressed. Such editorial selectivity does not merely distort facts; it shapes public consciousness and global opinion in favor of Western interests. It turns journalism from a public service into an instrument of geopolitical influence.

The hypocrisy is glaring. Western outlets spare no opportunity to lecture developing nations on press freedom and transparency, yet they themselves censor, filter, and manipulate when the truth threatens to unsettle their political comfort. They spotlight dissent in non-Western capitals but turn blind when protests erupt against their own leaders or allies.

In the age of digital information, this arrogance is being exposed. Independent media from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are challenging the monopoly of Western narratives, revealing what global audiences were never meant to see. The supposed guardians of democracy in media now stand accused of practicing the very propaganda they denounce elsewhere.

Until the Western media learns to report with honesty — not through the lens of self-interest — its sermons on “press freedom” will continue to sound hollow, and its credibility will keep eroding. The world no longer accepts selective truth as journalism.

Trump and world leaders sign Gaza peace accord

According to the media reports, US President Donald Trump joined more than 20 world leaders in Sharm El-Sheikh on Monday for high level talks on Gaza’s future as the first phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement took effect. The exact contents of the agreement have not yet been made public by the White House.

Noticeably absent from the signing ceremony and discussions in Egypt were representatives of Israel and Hamas, whose ceasefire—brokered by the United States—formally began last week after two years of war in Gaza.

Among those attending the Gaza Peace Summit were Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Qatari Emir Shiekh Tamim bin Hamad, Turkish President Erdogan, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.

The leaders posed for a group photo in front of a backdrop reading “Peace 2025” before a formal signing ceremony tied to the ceasefire deal.

Trump, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani signed the document on behalf of the participating nations, with world leaders seated behind them.

“This took 3,000 years to get to this point. Can you believe it? And it’s going to hold up too. It’s going to hold up,” Trump said as he signed the document.

In his remarks, Trump called the signing “a turning point for the region,” describing it as the culmination of months of diplomacy.

“This is the day that people across this region and around the world have been working, striving, hoping, and praying for,” he said.

“With the historic agreement we have just signed, those prayers of millions have finally been answered.”

 

Neither Trump nor Machado Deserves Praise

Both Donald Trump and María Corina Machado thrive on the politics of illusion. Trump promises to “make America great again,” while Machado vows to “liberate Venezuela.” Behind these slogans lies a familiar playbook — inflame divisions, exploit public despair, and crown oneself the only redeemer of a corrupted state.

Trump’s brand of populism is less about patriotism and more about personal vengeance. His contempt for institutions, judiciary, and even allies is legendary. He has converted grievance into a political doctrine and chaos into an electoral strategy. To his followers, this looks like courage; to the rest of the world, it looks like narcissism on steroids.

Machado, meanwhile, is being hailed by the Western media as the “face of freedom.” But her freedom narrative is selective. She belongs to the same Venezuelan elite that squandered the nation’s oil wealth long before Hugo Chávez arrived. Her sudden rediscovery of democracy sounds less like conviction and more like nostalgia for lost privilege.

In a country battered by sanctions, corruption, and poverty, her promise to “rebuild Venezuela” rings hollow without a plan beyond regime change.

Washington, as usual, has learned nothing. It once sold dictators as “pro-West reformers”; now it packages every anti-Maduro voice as a democrat. In reality, Machado’s politics is no less polarizing than Maduro’s — only more polished in presentation.

Populism, whether draped in Trump’s flag or Machado’s rhetoric, remains a dangerous narcotic. It feeds on resentment, not reason. It dismantles institutions in the name of saving them.

Democracy cannot be rescued by those who believe they alone embody the will of the people. Both Trump and Machado thrive on division and deliver little more than slogans. Their rise exposes not their genius but our collective fatigue with genuine leadership.

Neither deserves praise — because both are reflections of societies that have mistaken noise for change.

 

Hamas succumbs to US Pressure as Arab Support Evaporates

After months of defiance, Hamas is quietly edging toward concessions under mounting US pressure — not because Washington’s diplomacy suddenly turned persuasive, but because the Arab world has walked away.

In earlier conflicts, Hamas could rely on a chorus of Arab solidarity — fiery statements, emergency summits, and token aid. This time, the silence is deafening.

Arab capitals are fatigued, divided, and increasingly indifferent to Hamas’s political theatrics. The group that once claimed to embody the Arab street now finds itself isolated, cornered, and expendable.

Behind the scenes, Washington’s pressure has been relentless. Aid leverage, regional diplomacy, and quiet coordination with Egypt and Qatar have created an environment where Hamas has little room to maneuver. Even its traditional allies — Doha and Ankara — are urging pragmatism over defiance. The message is clear - yield or face total annihilation.

Arab governments, meanwhile, have recalibrated their priorities. Stability, trade, and relations with the West outweigh emotional appeals to Palestinian militancy.

The Abraham Accords, quiet intelligence links, and economic realignments show where the region’s real interests now lie.

For Hamas, this shift is existential — its political survival depends on Arab sympathy, and that sympathy has run out.

Critics say, Hamas’s own strategy hastened this moment. By aligning with Iran, alienating Arab governments, and launching attacks that invited catastrophic retaliation, Hamas burned the very bridges it now desperately needs. Even street protests across Arab cities have failed to translate into meaningful state action.

As US pressure mounts, Hamas’s bravado is giving way to backdoor bargaining. The Arab world’s silence has become Washington’s strongest weapon.

Hamas may yet sign a ceasefire, not as a victor of resistance, but as a movement abandoned by its own region.

For Gaza, this is not just political defeat — it is a painful reminder that Arab solidarity ends where national interest begins.

 

 

Donald Trump: Loose Bull or Fearless Leader

Donald Trump is no longer just a political figure — he has emerged as a major force of disruption. To his critics, he’s a loose bull, to his loyalists, he’s a fearless fighter standing alone. Both sides may be right, that makes him dangerous.

The general impression is that Trump doesn’t follow rules; he tramples them. He doesn’t debate ideas; he dominates the stage. Every insult, every indictment, every scandal seems to fuel his sense of destiny. For millions of disillusioned Americans, he’s not the problem — he’s the rebellion.

A rebellion without restraint easily turns into wreckage. Trump’s politics are built on grievance, not governance. He thrives on outrage, feeds on division, and weaponizes mistrust. His rallies ignite passion but also paranoia; his promises stir hope but sow hostility. Underneath the red caps and roaring crowds lies a country tearing itself apart.

His defenders say he speaks truth to power. May be yes, but he also speaks poison to democracy. The media is “the enemy,” the courts are “corrupt,” and the system — unless it serves him — is “rigged.” It’s not leadership; it is demolition disguised as defiance.

The tragedy is that Trump didn’t create America’s anger — he merely harnessed it. He turned frustration into a political movement and chaos into a campaign strategy. That’s his genius, and his curse.

Trump may call himself the voice of the forgotten, but in truth, he’s the echo of a broken democracy shouting at itself.

Whether the United States can survive another round of his rampage — or finally find the courage to tame its loose bull — will decide not just an election, but the future of its republic.

 

US double standards: Calling Hamas Terrorists, Negotiating Anyway

The United States loves to preach moral clarity - we do not negotiate with terrorists. Hamas, Washington insists, is a terrorist outfit responsible for bloodshed and chaos. Yet when the fighting in Gaza escalates and pressure mounts, the very same US administration finds itself scrambling for ceasefires—talking, directly or through intermediaries, to the very group it vilifies.

This is not strategy; it is double standards dressed up as pragmatism. US labels Hamas terrorists when it wants to project toughness at home, but when hostages are in danger, when civilian deaths spark global outrage, or when Arab allies threaten to break ranks, suddenly those “terrorists” become indispensable negotiating partners. The moral line evaporates the moment US interests are at stake.

The hypocrisy runs deep. The US slammed the Taliban for decades, only to sit across the table with them in Doha. It demonized Iraqi insurgents, then quietly cut deals to protect its own troops. It threatens “rogue states” like North Korea, then rushes into summits when the nuclear rhetoric escalates. With Hamas, the pattern is the same - condemnation in speeches, cooperation in practice.

This duplicity has consequences. By insisting Hamas is illegitimate yet negotiating with it whenever convenient, Washington undermines its own credibility. The message is clear: terrorism is a negotiable label, applied or ignored depending on political expediency. For people in the Middle East, this only confirms what they already suspect—that US policy is not about principles, but about protecting its own interests and Israel’s dominance.

If the US truly believes Hamas is a terrorist organization, then it should be consistent and refuse talks, no matter the cost. If, on the other hand, it recognizes that Hamas is an unavoidable political actor, then it should drop the pretense and admit it. Straddling both positions—condemnation in rhetoric, negotiation in reality—is not statesmanship. It is hypocrisy.

Trump-Netanyahu Peace Plan: Ceasefire or Trap

The Trump–Netanyahu meeting in New York was staged as a diplomatic triumph. Cameras clicked, statements flowed, and a so-called historic deal was announced. Israel has formally endorsed Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, but beneath the fanfare lies a script written as much for domestic politics as for genuine peace.

At the heart of the plan are four pillars: 1) an immediate ceasefire if accepted, 2) release of hostages within 72 hours, 3) a phased Israeli withdrawal, and 4) disarmament of Hamas. On paper, this sounds like a path out of a devastating war. In reality, it looks more like an ultimatum dressed as diplomacy.

The governance structure proposed is even more telling. Gaza would not return to the Palestinians in any meaningful sense but be handed over to a technocratic committee under international oversight. A “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump—flanked by international figures like Tony Blair—would supervise the transition. Hamas, the very power broker in Gaza, is not only excluded but delegitimized entirely. This is less a peace plan than a regime-change blueprint.

The Trump–Netanyahu warning was clear, Hamas must accept the plan “the easy way,” or Israel—with full American backing—will impose “the hard way.” This is not mediation; it is coercion.

For Netanyahu, who faces political vulnerability at home, US cover for renewed aggression is a golden ticket. For Trump, the deal enhances his image as a global dealmaker ahead of a bruising election cycle.

Yet the glaring omission remains Palestinian statehood. By skirting this fundamental issue, the plan buys short-term tactical gains but undermines any sustainable settlement.

Arab capitals, from Cairo to Doha, understand that without Hamas’ consent, the blueprint collapses under its own weight. No technocratic committee or international board can govern Gaza in defiance of its most powerful actor.

Trump and Netanyahu call this peace. In truth, it is a gamble - either Hamas yields, or Gaza is marched toward another round of bloodshed under international applause.

Far from solving the conflict, the deal risks deepening it. A plan that sidelines one side while empowering the other is not peace—it is merely the pause before the storm.

MAGA and Nazism: A Disturbing Comparison

Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan has, for millions of Americans, become a rallying cry for patriotism, pride, and national revival. But peel back the red caps, the rallies, and the rhetoric, and one cannot help but be reminded of the echoes of Hitler’s National Socialism (Nazism) in 1930s Germany. While history never repeats itself in the same form, it often rhymes. MAGA and Nazism may be separated by geography, time, and context, yet the patterns of politics of resentment, identity, and exclusion are hauntingly similar.

Is MAGA just politics, or is it an early verse in a dangerous rhyme of history?

Both Trump and Hitler rose from discontent. Hitler exploited post–World War I humiliation, economic despair, and national insecurity; Trump harnessed the frustration of a middle America alienated by globalization, immigration, and cultural liberalism. Both channeled that anger not toward solutions, but toward scapegoats — Jews and minorities in Nazi Germany, immigrants, Muslims, and “global elites” in Trump’s America.

The rhetoric of victimhood is another striking parallel. Hitler constantly reminded Germans they were betrayed by “traitors” and cheated by the world. Trump, in turn, insists that America has been “stabbed in the back” by foreign nations, immigrants, and even domestic institutions — media, courts, and his political opponents. The cry of “America First” is less about revival than about us-versus-them tribalism.

Though, MAGA has not built concentration camps or embarked on genocide. But the infrastructure of hate is disturbingly familiar - demonization of minorities, delegitimization of institutions, glorification of strongman rule, and calls to suppress dissent. Nazism began not with gas chambers but with words, slogans, and rallies that normalized extremism — precisely where MAGA thrives today.

Critics may argue that comparing Trump to Hitler is alarmist. Yet democracies don’t collapse overnight; they are chipped away, one “movement” at a time. MAGA, like Nazism, cloaks itself in the flag, promises restoration of greatness, and scapegoats the vulnerable. The lesson of history is clear: when leaders weaponize nationalism and fear, the road to authoritarianism is short and perilous.

Donald Trump Wants to Be "Caesar of 2025"

The prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025 has provoked widespread debate over the resilience of American democracy. Beyond the policy agenda he promotes, Trump’s political project increasingly resembles what political theorists describe as Caesarism: the concentration of power in a single leader who claims legitimacy through personal charisma, mass support, and the promise of restoring order to a faltering republic. 

The analogy with Julius Caesar is not merely rhetorical. It highlights structural weaknesses in the American political system, the erosion of institutional checks, and the dangers posed when democratic populism shades into authoritarianism.

The term Caesarism has been used in political thought from Max Weber to Antonio Gramsci to describe moments when parliamentary systems are unable to govern effectively, allowing a charismatic figure to rise above institutions. Such leaders do not necessarily abolish democracy outright but hollow it out by subordinating legal frameworks and representative bodies to their own authority. In ancient Rome, Julius Caesar capitalized on decades of institutional dysfunction, elite corruption, and popular disillusionment to establish personal rule. Similarly, Trump situates himself as the only figure capable of resolving America’s political polarization and institutional “gridlock.”

Cult of Personality

Trump’s political strength lies less in coherent policy proposals than in the loyalty of his supporters. This is reminiscent of the shift in Rome from loyalty to the res publica to loyalty to individual generals. Trump frames his struggles with the judiciary, Congress, and the press not as legal or political matters, but as evidence of systemic betrayal of the people’s will. In this framework, Trump becomes the sole authentic interpreter of popular sovereignty—an attribute central to Caesarist leadership.

Elite Complicity

American democracy, like the late Roman Republic, is experiencing a crisis of institutional legitimacy. Repeated constitutional confrontations, the politicization of the judiciary, and hyper-partisan gridlock in Congress have eroded public trust. In such an environment, many elites, particularly within the Republican Party, have aligned with Trump either out of calculation or fear of alienating his base. This dynamic mirrors the Roman Senate’s oscillation between resistance and acquiescence to Caesar, ultimately hastening the republic’s collapse.

Authoritarian Temptation

Both Caesar and Trump have framed their leadership in restorative terms. Caesar promised to restore stability to Rome after decades of civil war and corruption; Trump pledges to “restore American greatness” in the face of cultural fragmentation, economic dislocation, and geopolitical uncertainty. Yet restoration is often a rhetorical cover for consolidation of power. The risk in 2025 is that Trump’s project of national renewal may require undermining constitutional safeguards, subordinating independent institutions, and weakening democratic accountability.

The comparison between Trump and Caesar is not an exercise in historical exaggeration but a warning grounded in political theory. Republics often fall not because they are violently overthrown but because they erode from within, hollowed out by charismatic leaders and complicit elites.

If Trump seeks to become the Caesar of 2025, the United States faces a critical test: whether its institutions and citizenry can resist the allure of strongman politics, or whether it will follow Rome’s trajectory from republic to empire.

Xi rolls out carpet for Ukraine war aggressors, sidelining Trump

I am disgusted by reading the headline and the wordings of opening paragraph of a news report by Reuters on the meeting of presidents of China and Russia. I also invite the readers to register their like or dislike to the way of reporting by western media, which I term, “dishonest”.  

Reuters reports, “In a show of solidarity with the aggressors in Europe's worst war in 80 years, China's Xi Jinping will convene with his Russian and North Korean counterparts for the first time as Donald Trump and other Western leaders watch from afar”.

It continues, “Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un's visit to Beijing for a massive military parade this week underscore the Chinese president's influence over authoritarian regimes intent on redefining the Western-led global order, while Trump's isolationist stance strains long-standing US alliances”.

It says, “The gathering of what Western analysts have dubbed the 'Axis of Upheaval' could build on a mutual defence pact signed by Russia and North Korea in June 2024, and a similar alliance between Beijing and Pyongyang, an outcome that may alter the military calculus in the Asia-Pacific region”.

Kim crossed into China early on Tuesday aboard his special train, en route to the capital Beijing. Xi and Putin, meanwhile, gathered at the Great Hall of the People for a meeting with Mongolia's leader expected to touch on a vast gas pipeline project and bilateral talks.

Putin thanked his "dear friend" Xi for the warm welcome and said the close communication showed Russia's relations with China were at an "unprecedentedly high level", according to a video of the talks posted on the Kremlin's official Telegram messaging app.

"We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics," Xi told a gathering of more than 20 leaders of non-Western countries at a summit on Monday, a thinly veiled swipe at his geopolitical rival across the Pacific Ocean.

Xi also held talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, resetting strained bilateral ties, as Trump ratcheted up trade pressure on New Delhi over its purchases of Russian oil.

Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday called the summit "performative" and accused China and India of being "bad actors" by fueling Russia's three-and-a-half-year war with Ukraine.

At a time when Trump is touting his peacemaking credentials, any new concentration of military power in the East that includes Russia will ring alarm bells for the West.

"Trilateral military exercises between Russia, China and North Korea seem nearly inevitable," wrote Youngjun Kim, an analyst at the US-based National Bureau of Asian Research, in March, citing how the conflict in Ukraine has pushed Moscow and Pyongyang closer together.

"Until a few years ago, China and Russia were important partners in imposing international sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear and missile tests... (they) are now potential military partners of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea during a crisis on the Korean peninsula," he added, using the diplomatically isolated country's official name.

Kim is an important stakeholder in the conflict in Ukraine: the North Korean leader has supplied over 15,000 troops to support Putin's war.

In 2024, he also hosted the Russian leader in Pyongyang - the first summit of its kind in 24 years - in a move widely interpreted as a snub to Xi and an attempt to ease his pariah status by reducing North Korea's dependence on China.

About 600 North Korean soldiers have died fighting for Russia in the Kursk region, according to South Korea's intelligence agency, which believes Pyongyang is planning another deployment.

Putin also told the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin that a "fair balance in the security sphere" must be restored, shorthand for Russia's criticism of the eastward expansion of NATO and European Security.

 

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.