Trump gains Native American support amid economic concerns
Nita Mexican, a 77-year-old Navajo Nation resident, voted for Trump last November, citing his hardline stance on immigration and focus on American jobs. 'America has to come first,' she told AFP.
'Us Natives, we are Americans and we should have the jobs first.'
Mexican, a former power plant worker, lives in Tuba City, a remote Arizona desert town within the vast Navajo reservation. She and her husband spend $40 (RM170) daily on gasoline to tend to their sheep, a financial strain worsened by inflation. 'Sometimes we don't have enough to get groceries for the both of us,' she admitted.
Trump made notable gains in Navajo County during the last election, doubling his margin from 2020. Similar shifts were seen in other Native American communities, where economic concerns outweighed traditional Democratic loyalty.
However, not all residents support Trump. Gilberta Cortes, a 42-year-old mother, criticises his policies and rhetoric, including his mockery of Senator Elizabeth Warren's Native heritage. 'You see a lot of racism,' she said. 'When I go out, I feel like I'm just walking on eggshells.'
Others worry about Trump's environmental policies and potential cuts to federal assistance programs. Elbert Yazzie, a Navajo resident, fears reduced food aid will hurt low-income families. 'They voted for him because they thought there would be more jobs,' he said. 'But instead, he's cutting off food stamps.' - AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
11 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
'Gloves are off': cancelled Late Show host comes out swinging for Trump
NEW YORK: Stephen Colbert had an unflinching message for US President Donald Trump in his first broadcast since his "Late Show" was cancelled amid a political firestorm – "the gloves are off." Colbert, who addressed the cancellation of his show by a broadcaster that has been widely accused of seeking to curry favour with Trump for business reasons, came out swinging – telling Trump to "go fxxx yourself." "The Late Show," a storied US TV franchise dating back to 1993 when it was hosted by David Letterman, will go off the air in May 2026 following a surprise announcement by broadcaster CBS last week. The channel is part of Paramount, which is in the throes of an US$8 billion takeover that requires approval by the Trump-controlled Federal Communications Commission. It pulled the plug three days after Colbert skewered CBS for settling a lawsuit with Trump. He accused it of paying what he termed a "a big fat bribe" of US$16 million to the president for what he called "deceptive" editing of an interview with his 2024 election opponent, former vice president Kamala Harris. Trump revelled in the firing of one of his most prolific detractors, posting on his Truth Social platform that "I absolutely love that Colbert was fired." Colbert joked Monday that it had always been his dream starting out as an improv comic in Chicago in the 1980s to have a sitting president celebrate the end of his career. He also disputed the logic of CBS who insisted the cancellation was "purely a financial decision." He said that in an anonymous leak over the weekend, CBS had appeared to suggest his show lost US$40 million last year. Colbert joked that he could account for losing US$24 million annually – but wasn't to blame for the other US$16 million, a reference to CBS News's settlement with Trump. Monday's cold open was an unsparing riff on Trump demanding that the Washington Commanders change its name back to its former name which was widely considered a slur against Native Americans. The segment suggested Trump sought to rename the franchise the "Washington Epsteins", in reference to pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein whom it has been widely reported was close to Trump. Colbert returned to this topic after addressing his show's cancellation, proclaiming that they had killed his show but not him, and doing a deep dive on reporting about just how close Trump and Epstein were. It was a formula that would have been familiar to fans of the show: the deadly serious leavened with humour and quick wit. Outside the taping at Midtown Manhattan's Ed Sullivan theatre, protesters held placards that said "Colbert Stays! Trump Must Go!" Audience member Elizabeth Kott, a 48-year-old high school teacher, called Colbert's firing "terrible." "It's really awful that it's come to that in this country, where companies feel the need to obey in advance. It's really awful," she told AFP. Colbert's lead guest Monday, acclaimed actress Sandra Oh, did not hold back, proclaiming a "plague on CBS and Paramount" – the network on which Colbert's channel is broadcast and its media giant proprietor. Colbert's lip trembled as Oh paid tribute to his work speaking truth to power while staying funny. His other guest, actor Dave Franco, said he had loved Colbert's work in everything from "The Daily Show" to "The Colbert Report" and then "The Late Show." It was on "The Daily Show," under the supervision of comic "anchor" Jon Stewart, that Colbert perfected his alter-ego – a blowhard conservative reporter whose studied ignorance parodied actual right-wing broadcasters night after night. He moved up to a show of his own on the same network, Comedy Central, which was then part of Viacom and today is part of Paramount. Before long he took one of the most coveted chairs in US television – host of the CBS late-night slot. Colbert dropped his arrogant conservative persona and cultivated a reputation as one of the most trusted yet funniest figures on US television. Through the coronavirus pandemic he became a reassuring presence for millions, broadcasting from a spare room in his house and narrating the challenges he faced alongside his wife Evelyn. He also became an arch-critic of Trump, skewering the president for everything from his policies to his fondness for Hannibal Lecter. Skipping a promised question and answer session following the taping of Monday's show, Colbert told his studio audience that "I was nervous coming out here."
The Star
41 minutes ago
- The Star
Enhancing economic resilience crucial in trying times
How should China strengthen the resilience of its economy? In April, the Trump administration announced a surge in global tariffs, triggering strong responses from governments around the world and causing sharp turbulence in financial markets. Within three days of the announcement, global stock markets lost over $9.5 trillion in market capitalization, and volatility intensified significantly across bond, foreign exchange and commodity markets. In the United States, stocks, bonds and the dollar all fell simultaneously. The yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds also posted its biggest weekly gain since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. The shockwaves from the tariff moves continue to ripple across the world, with escalating confrontations on all sides. Faced with the Trump administration's high tariffs and erratic behavior, China must resolutely implement countermeasures. Any concession would only lead to further pressure from the other side. Only through firm resistance can space for negotiation and cooperation be created. On April 25, a high-level meeting for the first time proposed coordinating domestic economic work and international economic and trade struggles, aiming to use the certainty of high-quality development to cope with the uncertainty of dramatic changes in the external environment. On May 7, the People's Bank of China, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and other government authorities jointly introduced a package of incremental policies to stabilize market confidence. On May 12, China and the US released a joint statement after economic and trade talks in Geneva, in which the US agreed to remove some additional tariffs, and China reciprocated accordingly, temporarily easing tariff pressures. However, over the medium-to-long term, challenges in Sino-US economic and trade relations persist. It is worth noting that tariffs may not be the Trump administration's ultimate goal, but rather a bargaining tactic aimed at achieving the dual objectives of reducing the US trade deficit and maintaining the dominance of the greenback. In fact, since the onset of the trade conflict in 2018, the US government has been exerting significant pressure and imposing extreme restrictions on China in both trade and technology sectors. We must be fully aware of the worsening international economic and trade environment in the foreseeable future and recognize that China and the US will continue their strategic contest for a long time. So, against this backdrop, how should China enhance the resilience of its economy? We believe the most important approach is to focus on doing our own job well, remain self-reliant and persist in expanding domestic demand. At the same time, we must unswervingly expand high-level opening-up. Expanding domestic demand is the top priority for 2025. Following the directives from the Central Economic Work Conference in December 2024, expanding domestic demand became the top priority of economic work this year. This is because insufficient domestic demand is currently the main stumbling block in China's economy. In 2024, total retail sales of consumer goods grew by only 3.3 percent year-on-year, significantly lower than the 9.7 percent average between 2015 and 2019. From the perspective of the three engines of GDP — consumption, investment and exports — final consumption in 2024 contributed an average of only 2.3 percentage points per quarter to GDP growth, much lower than the 4.2-percentage point average between 2015 and 2019. Breaking down the three factors influencing household consumption — changes in income, wealth and expectations — we find that in the short term, the main constraint on consumption growth is the sharp slowdown in household income growth since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, cumulative year-on-year growth in per capita disposable income was 4.6 percent in urban areas and 6.6 percent in rural areas, well below the 7.9 percent and 9.6 percent levels of 2019. Over the long term, two main factors constrain consumption: first, weak expectations and confidence about future employment and income; second, evident imbalances in income distribution across households, the government and enterprises, as well as within the household sector itself. Rising risk aversion among residents has led to an increase in precautionary savings, reflected in the sharp rise in new deposits and continued decline in new loans since 2022. In terms of income distribution, profits generated by enterprises have not been sufficiently transferred to households, and the income distribution within the household sector also needs improvement. Beyond the income gap between urban and rural residents, an even more important issue is the much wider gap in property and social security entitlements. To sum up, we believe that to stimulate consumption, macroeconomic policy stimulus is needed in the short term, while structural reform should be accelerated in the medium term. Based on the logic of moving from short-term stimulus to long-term reform, the following policy recommendations are proposed. First, a more proactive fiscal policy and a moderately accommodative monetary policy are keys to driving a rebound in China's nominal GDP growth. The main issue facing the Chinese economy is insufficient aggregate demand and a negative output gap. In the short term, to address the lack of domestic demand, central government finances should increase borrowing and spending to drive a rebound in consumption and investment. In addition to promptly implementing the expansionary policies outlined in the Government Work Report, additional stimulus measures should be planned for the second half, especially through greater issuance of special treasury bonds. To make full and effective use of proactive fiscal policy, we recommend accelerating the issuance of the remaining quota of local government special bonds and special treasury bonds in the second quarter, and issuing an additional 2 to 3 trillion yuan ($411.6 billion) in special treasury bonds for the year. Second, increasing short-term incomes for low and middle-income households through fiscal subsidies is advised. We recommend issuing universal consumption vouchers to encourage spending, especially among low and middle-income earners. To maximize the multiplier effect of consumption vouchers, they should be issued without being tied to specific products or services. Third, lifting asset prices from the bottom can also help restore consumer confidence. On real estate policy, housing prices in core areas of the largest cities should be stabilized promptly, and support should be given to leading well-managed private developers. All purchase and loan restrictions should be lifted to unleash demand from first-time and upgrading buyers. Special-purpose bonds should be issued to provide low-cost, long-term financing for high-quality developers. The government can also purchase idle commercial housing in second and third-tier cities and convert it into rental-based public housing. In the stock market, efforts should be made to cultivate a long bull market. In addition, with an aging population and slowing investment-driven growth, China's potential economic growth rate is trending downward. To reverse this trend and restore confidence among microeconomic actors, bold structural reforms are needed. These include reforms in income redistribution, education, healthcare, pensions, housing, development of a unified domestic market and support for private enterprises. The writer is deputy director of the Institute of Finance and Banking of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily. - China Daily/ANN
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
US Fed reform may move markets more than Powell ouster
LONDON: Changing the way the Federal Reserve operates or assesses the economy may have a more durable impact on policy and markets than firing the Fed boss. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added another twist to President Donald Trump's ongoing criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Monday by claiming he wanted to review the entire Fed institution and its performance. In an interview with CNBC, Bessent claimed the Fed's "fear-mongering over tariffs" without significant signs of inflation was justification for considering a root-and-branch review of the central bank's functioning. "What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful," he said. "All these PhDs over there, I don't know what they do." Featured Videos It's not yet clear whether Bessent was merely heaping more pressure on the Fed to speed up interest rate cuts, as Trump has been demanding almost daily, or whether the administration is actually planning to conduct a formal review of Fed operations, analysis and execution. While recent weeks have been filled with anxious noise about Trump attempting to fire Powell, this latest development - possible changes to the way the Fed ticks - could be much more far-reaching and impactful than simply truncating the tenure of one Chair. Of course, the Fed Chair is an important role, and a politically motivated ouster would be a serious challenge to Fed independence. Yet the Fed boss ultimately remains just one vote on the rate-setting board, and the Fed's policymaking structure is partly designed to insulate the central bank from any undue political influence. The Federal Open Market Committee that sets policy is made up of seven Fed board members and five regional Fed bosses, but the FOMC chair and vice chair are voted in by the committee at the start of each year. The Fed Chair typically takes the helm by convention, but not necessity. If a majority of the FOMC members balked at a politically partisan appointee to the top job, they could theoretically vote for a different Chair of the FOMC in an act of defiance. But, regardless, the Chair is still only one vote. PRICE TOO HIGH Changing the Fed's institutional structure would require Congressional approval, a process likely to be protracted as many Republicans, including strong Trump supporters, may be wary of tampering with the Fed. Moreover, a recent Supreme Court ruling also suggested Fed structures should be left in place due to "a special historical status." But influencing the way the Fed thinks, forecasts and operates is a different matter. To complicate matters further, the Wall Street Journal on Monday claimed Bessent counseled Trump against firing Powell, arguing that the current Fed Chair might sue, or Congress could drag its feet on approving a replacement. Both scenarios could result in a leadership hiatus that would see Joe Biden appointee Vice Fed Chair Philip Jefferson assume the role. Bessent argued the price of removing Powell now was potential market disruption and economic uncertainty for no real gain in influence compared with waiting for Powell's term to just expire in May, the WSJ said. Trump, already battling with the WSJ on another story, dismissed the report as 'fake'. Bessent said the decision was ultimately up to Trump. But the messiness of Powell's removal may be why the administration sees other pressure on the Fed to buckle on rates soon as more fruitful. After all, two Trump appointees to the board - Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman - already arguing for immediate cuts and two more board positions, including Powell's, are likely to come up by this time next year. That would leave a majority on the board being Trump appointees - even though not the FOMC. SGH Macro Advisors' Tim Duy reckons that to reshape the Fed, the White House needs even more seats to shift the board - building a block of Trump nominees sufficient to out-vote the five regional Presidents that make up the rest of the FOMC. Without that, it leaves the Trump team trying to change the DNA of Fed thinking and a major review that shifts standing assumptions, forecasting patterns and public presentations may be significant longer-term. Current favorite to be Trump's pick for the Chair, former Fed policymaker Kevin Warsh, who is a known critic of orthodox Fed analysis, doubts there's a trade-off between jobs and inflation the way it's currently presented and claims rates can move lower if balance sheet policies were tighter. If markets think it's inappropriate to ease now, of course, then inflation expectations may just build on fears of undue political influence and long-term borrowing rates should rise. But it may not be that clean. "The goal appears to be to keep policy rates low while shifting US Treasury issuance to the front end of the curve," wrote SGH Macro's Duy. "While excessively loose policy would be expected to raise long term rates, there is the possibility that Fed and Treasury manage the debt with an eye toward yield curve control." That's a delicate balance that might come off - but guaranteeing the Fed comes on board will not be easy.
