
Protesters throng Iowa capitol to decry bill to roll back trans rights protections
Both the house and senate were expected to vote on the legislation on Thursday, the same day the Georgia house backed away from removing gender protections from the state's hate crimes law, which was passed in 2020 after the death of Ahmaud Arbery.
Iowa's bill, first introduced last week, raced through the legislative process, despite opposition from LGBTQ+ advocates who rallied at the Capitol on Monday and Tuesday.
On Thursday, opponents of the bill filed into the capitol rotunda with signs and rainbow flags to rally before, during and after a 90-minute public hearing, shouting, 'No hate in our state!' There was a heavy police presence, with state troopers stationed around the rotunda and hearing room.
Of the 167 people who signed up to testify at the public hearing before a house committee, all but 24 were opposed to the bill. Each time a person who had spoken opened the hearing room door to leave, the roar of protesters outside filled the room, forcing repeated pauses.
To avoid delays, state troopers blocked off the hallway outside the room, creating a 'natural buffer', said the department of public safety commissioner, Stephan Bayens. The move was intended to allow the public hearing to proceed while also protecting first amendment rights to demonstrate, Bayens said.
In Iowa, gender identity was added to the civil rights code in 2007 when Democrats controlled the legislature. If removed, Iowa would be the first state to undo explicit non-discrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project.
In Georgia, the changes to the hate crimes law were proposed in a bill that would restrict sports participation for transgender students. That is something the state's high school athletic association now does by policy but that Republican leaders insist needs to be in law and also apply to colleges and universities.
A Georgia house committee rewrote the bill at the last minute on Wednesday to leave the word 'gender' in the state's hate crimes law after Democrats warned removing the word could end extra penalties for crimes motivated by bias against transgender people.
Iowa's bill would remove gender identity as a protected class and explicitly define female and male, as well as gender, which would be considered a synonym for sex and 'shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role'.
Supporters of the change say the current code incorrectly codified the idea that people can transition to another gender and granted transgender women access to spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams that should be protected for people who were assigned female at birth.
Iowa Republicans say their changes are intended to reinforce the state's ban on sports participation and public bathroom access for transgender students. If approved, the bill would go to the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, who signed those policies into law. A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment on whether she would sign the bill.
V Fixmer-Oraiz, a county supervisor in eastern Johnson county, was the first to testify against the bill. A trans Iowan, they said they had faced their 'fair share of discrimination' already and worried that the bill would expose trans Iowans to even more.
'Is it not the role of government to affirm rather than to deny law-abiding citizens their inalienable rights?' Fixmer-Oraiz said. 'The people of Iowa deserve better.'
Among those speaking in support of the bill was Shellie Flockhart of Dallas Center, who said she was in favor as a woman and a mother, a 'defender of women's rights' and someone 'who believes in the truth of God's creation'.
'Identity does not change biology,' Flockhart said.
About half of US states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights thinktank. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.
Iowa's supreme court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.
Several Republican-led legislatures are also pushing to enact more laws this year creating legal definitions of male and female based on the reproductive organs at birth following an executive order from Donald Trump.
Trump also signed orders laying the groundwork for banning transgender people from military service and keeping transgender girls and women out of girls and women's sports competitions, among other things. Most of the policies are being challenged in court.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Unmasked: the man behind one of the fastest growing far-right YouTube channels
The Guardian has identified the self-described 'national socialist' behind an openly extremist YouTube channel that in just over two months has accumulated 50,000 subscribers, seen more than 2.3m views, and likely made thousands of dollars from YouTube's revenue-sharing monetization program. Johnathan Christopher 'Chris' Booth, 37, lives in the unincorporated community of Coral, a part of Maple Valley Township in Michigan's Montcalm county, and is married to a senior local Republican official. Booth has published more than 70 YouTube videos since May on his Shameless Sperg account, whose graphic design elements feature stylized SS bolts. Titles of his videos – generally a recording of him delivering his views direct to camera – include: 'Why I Dislike Jews. It's not complicated', 'Black Crimes Matter: Never Relax' and 'Jews and FBI hate you and your free speech'. Typically the videos attract hundreds of comments from like-minded YouTube users. His channel has seen such remarkable success that it has drawn apparently baseless allegations from other far-right creators that he is a 'fed'. On an X account that frequently advertises his videos, his posts include antisemitic comments and in one response to a post about actor Jim Carrey he writes: 'All of them deserve rope. I advocate for national socialism though, under which idiots like this would not fare too well.' Despite YouTube's stated policies against hate speech and content that promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race, religion or other protected characteristics, Booth's channel appears to be monetized through the YouTube Partner Program. The channel displays ads and Booth has thanked subscribers for their financial support through the platform. YouTube's community guidelines explicitly prohibit content that 'promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization'. A YouTube spokesperson said: 'Upon review, we terminated the channel for violating our community guidelines. Content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion is not allowed on YouTube.' According to YouTube, another account associated with Booth was terminated, and creators are no longer entitled to earn any revenue if their channel is terminated. The terminations happened after the Guardian reached out to YouTube with questions about Booth's activities. Also according to YouTube, content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion is not allowed on the platform. In the wake of the ban, Booth took to X to say that he would move his content to 'alt-tech' platforms such as Odysee. Booth is married to Meghyn 'Meg' Booth, the Republican treasurer of Maple Valley Township. Meg Booth has 'liked' several posts with extremist themes on Chris Booth's Facebook account with her personal account. Chris Booth's Facebook page also features extensive racist propaganda along with iconography often employed by neo-Nazis. The revelations raise questions about the extent to which YouTube, whose parent company Alphabet also owns Google, Waymo and other tech companies, has backslid on monitoring extremism on its platform. Jeff Tischauser, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), said Booth's operation across YouTube, X and merchandising platforms was a 'boilerplate Nazi grift'. 'He may be earning money from YouTube, as well as hawking these racist and antisemitic items on his website like cups and T-shirts,' Tischauser added. He said that YouTube is 'the premier site that these guys look to in order to expand their following and to make money off of that following'. The Guardian retrieved a Coral, Michigan, street address from EU-mandated General Product Safety Regulation compliance information on the Shameless Sperg merchandise page on the merchandising platform Printify. The property at that address is owned by Meg Booth, according to property records. Data brokers indicate that Chris Booth lives at the same address. Sites including show exterior views of the house at the property. The property's color and cladding match those visible in videos published to YouTube on 14 and 15 May. Chris Booth appears to have made some efforts to remove photographs of himself and other potentially identifying information from his own social media accounts and other online spaces. However, he is visible in 'shorts'-style videos posted by Meg Booth to Facebook. This video of Chris Booth depicts the same person visible in Shameless Sperg videos. The Guardian emailed both Chris and Meg Booth for comment. In an email, Meg Booth appeared to repudiate her husband's views. 'I am not involved in my husband's content or political views, and I do not share or support any form of racism, antisemitism, or hate speech,' she wrote, adding: 'My values are my own and are grounded in respect, inclusion, and service to the community.' Meg Booth concluded: 'As an elected official, I've always acted independently, with integrity, and in line with the expectations of my office. I respectfully decline further comment.' Chris Booth did not directly respond, but in the day after the email he took to X to reaffirm his views, including a post in which he wrote: 'I've come to believe fascists are born, not made. Discovering real fascism in my early thirties was like looking into a mirror and finally realizing why commies have called me a fascist for so long. They spotted it before I could, but then I wholeheartedly embraced it.' In his videos and on X, Booth explicitly embraces neo-Nazi ideology and promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories. On his Shameless Sperg X account, Booth writes: 'I am the Shameless Sperg, I am a National Socialist, and I do sperg rants here,' with a link to his YouTube channel. On the YouTube channel, he writes: 'This channel is a collection of sperg rants and commentary on the news & issues of the day, or whatever else is on my mind, from an autistically dissident and NS perspective.' 'Sperg', an abbreviation for Asperger syndrome, is used pejoratively in far-right circles for those whose obsessive and open extremism might put off normal people or draw unwanted attention. 'NS' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'national socialist' in far-right circles. His videos almost all contain neo-Nazi perspectives, enunciating conspiratorial antisemitism, anti-Black racism and claims that white people are superior to all other races. In a June video titled 'There is no Anti-Semitism without Semitism', Booth states in relation to interwar Germany: 'Extreme sadism and humiliation towards Gentiles is a Jewish tradition … Now, you might begin to understand why, after 14 years of seeing their people tormented by the Jews, millions of Germans organized, gained political power and broke the chains of Jewish tyranny in Germany.' The video continues with Booth arguing that antisemitism is a just response to the behavior of Jews, and sarcastically dismisses the idea that it is 'just some ancient mental pathogen in the minds of the goyim, it just springs to life for no reason just to make things harder for the Jews'. In a July video, Booth defended recent attempts to create a whites-only community in Arkansas. He said: 'White people are allowed to congregate together without being accompanied by some fucking Black person or some Jew.' In another July video Booth said: 'Black people oppress themselves. I don't do it. I have no interest in it. I, you know, I just want them away from me. You know, I want them away from me, my community, my state, my country. I don't know. Just, I don't know, get the fuck away from me.' In a May video supporting Trump's program of allowing Afrikaner refugees into the country on the basis of a fictional 'white genocide' in South Africa, Booth said: 'You know, I'm hoping that they don't completely lose South Africa to the Black plague, but, um, but in any event, uh, things are going to fall apart for them and go shit sideways.' Tischauser, the SPLC analyst, said that the themes of Booth's videos mix 'crass racism, basic historic white power talking points' and 'pseudo-academic kind of takes on Black criminality or Black behavior'. Meg Booth, Chris Booth's wife, was in November elected as the treasurer of Maple Valley Township running as a Republican. Her public social media profile does not feature the kind of extremist messaging that Chris Booth offers on his platform, though she has interacted with posts on his Facebook account, which is also freighted with racist messaging and neo-Nazi imagery. Chris Booth also 'liked' posts in which his wife discussed her candidacy.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nobel Peace Prize winner? Trump faces serious challenges on conflicts
Serving both Republican and Democratic administrations, including under the presidencies of George W Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross for decades was one of those tasked with navigating the most dangerous of diplomatic waters. It was interesting then to hear him opine last week on current US President Donald Trump's diplomatic negotiating style. 'There is a difference between producing cease-fires and pauses and ending wars,' noted Ross, speaking to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). 'The former stops fighting, the latter deals with the causes of the conflict and forges agreements that resolve the differences - or at least gets both sides to adjust their thinking and produces a modus vivendi.' Ross's comments came in a week that saw Trump issue a deadline of '10 or 12 days' to Russian president Vladimir Putin to agree to a cease fire over Ukraine. This weekend that agreement seems further away than ever after Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to 'be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative' comments by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. (Image: Jehad Alshrafi) Ross's remarks also came in a week when Washington's allies, France, the UK and Canada, broke with Trump to force a diplomatic shift on Gaza. For despite the US leader's boastful promises on bringing calm to the region as with his claim to be able to bring peace to Russia's war with Ukraine within 24 hours of returning to office, all of Trump's peace-making promises to date have been colliding with a more complicated reality on the ground. In short, Trump's supposed prowess on the peace-making front is not all it's cracked up to be, a point wryly made by Susan B. Glasser of the New Yorker magazine a few days ago. 'Wars, it turns out, do not end magically because Trump clicks his heels and demands that they do so,' wrote Glasser in a recent column. 'Wars we end' AS even the most cursory of glances across the global geo-political landscape will quickly confirm, the prevailing reality is a far cry from when Trump in his January 20, 2025, inaugural address proclaimed that 'we will measure our success…by the wars we end.' And 'my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.' Despite the obvious shortcomings to date in this regard though, America's peacemaker-in-chief - in characteristic mode - has continued to claim great success, a point he was keen to emphasise during his recent trip to Scotland. 'We have many ceasefires going on. If I weren't around, you would have six major wars going on. India would be fighting with Pakistan,' Trump insisted in one of his speeches. As Trump sees it, should that much coveted Nobel Peace Prize come his way then he is only too deserving of it. 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' Trump said in October. Trump's ever loyal mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, never misses an opportunity to remind the world that it's 'well past time' that the president received the prize. Just these past days Leavitt at a press briefing listed the peace deals the Trump administration has supposedly brokered since taking office. Thailand and Cambodia were the most recent of Trump's peacemaker bona fides. Read more Tears and trauma: David Pratt in Ukraine DAVID PRATT ON THE WORLD: Whatever happens in Brazil's resentful and rancorous election, the result will have major repercussions for us all David Pratt in Ukraine: It's hard to comprehend this level of destruction David Pratt: Kremlin's protestations have a hollow ring as atrocities mount up 'The two countries were engaged in a deadly conflict that had displaced more than 300,000 people until President Trump stepped in to put an end to it,' Leavitt insisted. Other conflicts cited by Leavitt included, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) India and Pakistan and Serbia and Kosovo, that were all claimed to have been 'resolved' on Trump's watch. One curious outcome in at least two instances, however, was that in the cases of both Pakistan and Cambodia no sooner were hostilities ceased than their leaders announced that they would nominate Trump for the Peace Prize. Interestingly too in Thailand and Cambodia's case, Trump set a 19% levy on imports from both countries, lower than the 36% they originally faced, after earlier this month he threatened to block trade deals with them unless they ended their deadly border clash. Which brings us to another significant factor that many say undermines Trump's claims to be a peacemaker and mediator and instead casts him as global agitator – trade wars and tariffs. Economy plunge LAST week Trump plunged the global economy into a new round of mercantile competition after hitting dozens of US trading partners with tariffs while formalising recent deals with others, including the UK and EU. While such competition is nothing new in itself, as a Financial Times (FT) editorial on Friday pointed out, in Trump's case they are often flagrantly politically motivated. On the one hand Trump portrays the tariffs he has ordered on US trading partners as a simple rebalancing of global trading that is skewed against America. But as the FT points out, 'what is striking, however, is how some of the harshest new measures reflect blatantly political aims - shaped by presidential whim.' The newspaper cites the example of Canada, which has angered Trump with its own plans to recognise a Palestinian state making it 'very hard' says Trump to reach a trade deal. The FT also highlights India, already hit by a high tariff rate but which Washington has threatened with an additional penalty while rebuking Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government for 'buying Russian oil and weapons'. Trump's stance says the FT also appears to reflect his dislike of India's membership of the Brics' bloc of emerging heavyweight markets and developing nations. During a summit of the 11 emerging economies last month, he threatened an additional 10 % tariff on any countries aligning themselves with the Brics' 'anti-American policies'. More than 100 days on from Trump's 'Liberation Day' set of initial tariffs, many say a new global trading order is taking shape, one that The Economist magazine recently referred to as 'a system of imperial preference.' This, argue some analysts, only adds incendiary economic fuel to an already destabilised world raising the risk that such trade wars might become shooting wars. Allison Carnegie is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and specialises in global governance and international institutions. Writing recently in the widely respected Foreign Affairs magazine, she said that Trump's trade wars are hardly without precedent and that while 'Trump may think his tariff regime will make the United States richer, safer, and stronger… history suggests it will do just the opposite.' 'In the near term, countries can benefit from wielding trade as a cudgel. But in the long term, trade wars leave almost everyone worse off,' Carnegie notes. 'When countries frequently use economic leverage to secure concessions from vulnerable partners, investment and economic growth go down. Political instability, meanwhile, goes up. States that chafe at economic coercion sometimes turn to their militaries in order to fight back. Countries that once cooperated because of commercial ties turn into competitors. Even close allies drift apart,' Carnegie noted. Few doubt the inherent difficulty in ending protracted conflicts like those in the Middle East and now in Ukraine. Both broke out during the previous administration enabling Trump to dub them 'Biden's wars'. 'Biden will drive us into World War III, and we're closer to World War III than anybody can imagine,' said the same Trump that on Friday moved US nuclear submarines in response to a social media post by Medvedev. On his presidential campaign trail, Trump often railed against Biden and such 'endless wars' and 'forever wars' and mused that he could resolve them. 'He has made comments on all of them that this could be done quickly or easily and that there are solutions to these problems," says Aaron David Miller, a State Department diplomat in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations - now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'And yet, he has not been successful in even identifying what I would consider to be a potentially effective strategy for managing or let alone resolving them. And therein lies the challenge,' Miller told broadcaster ABC News in recent interview. (Image: AP) 'Biden's wars' SIX months after Trump's inaugural address proclaiming that his presidency would bring 'a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable,' and denouncing 'Biden's wars', the data tells a very different story. For in that six months, Trump has already launched nearly as many airstrikes on foreign nations as Biden did within four years. A huge part of this of course was 'Operation Midnight Hammer' when Trump decided that he would order use of 30,000-pound weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an independent international data collection monitoring group, since Trump returned to the White House, the US has carried out at least 529 bombings in more than 240 locations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. His predecessor's administration launched 555 over its entire four years. 'Trump's preference for engagement begs the question: Does this contradict his promise to end America's wars - or are the foreign strikes how he wishes to keep that promise?' ACLED president Clionadh Raleigh said in a statement cited by the Independent last month. 'The recent airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have been framed as a major turning point in US foreign policy. But if you take a step back, they don't stand out - they fit,' Raleigh added. Right now when not riling other nations through his own tariffs and trade wars, ending the fighting in Ukraine and Gaza by far poses Trump's biggest diplomatic challenge. In both cases he has his work cut out, not least say some in that he has appointed the same man, his friend Steve Witkoff, as the US envoy for all three sets of peace talks, involving Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas and Israel-Iran. As the New York Times columnist Max Boot, recently observed this 'would test the powers of even a veteran diplomat' … and 'the task is all the more onerous given that Witkoff is a real estate developer with no background in diplomacy.' Meanwhile as Gaza bleeds and starves, Trump diplomatically muddles through as was poignantly described recently by another American columnist, Susan B. Glasser of the New Yorker. 'In a summer of horror for Gaza, it's hard to recall the unfulfilled promises of last winter, when Trump bragged, in near world-historical terms, of the 'EPIC' ceasefire that he and his team had helped broker,' wrote Glasser recently. 'Now, as Trump stands by and does close to nothing at all, what can we do but wish that he had, for once, been right?' Negotiating style MANY critics maintain that a huge part of the problem with Trump's negotiating style is that it fluctuates depending on the current state of his personal relationships with other world leaders. As his second term progresses Trump's priorities would seem to become more apparent by the day startling observers and US allies alike. Already there have been calls for US intervention in Panama, Canada and as recently as May, Trump announced that he didn't rule out employing military force to seize Greenland. He has also proposed a $1 trillion US military budget for 2026 - a 13.4 % increase - and again took action to withdraw US support from the UN. Critics continue to accuse him of shaping American foreign policy determined primarily by a desire to pursue his own vendettas toward those that rebuff him and in doing so use whatever means, economic or otherwise at his disposal. As Dennis Ross, rightly pointed out recently, there is indeed 'a difference between producing ceasefires and pauses and ending wars,'. To achieve the latter, patience and lengthy negotiations are a prerequisite, and that, as we all know by now, has never been part of the Trump playbook.

The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Donald Trump – peacemaker-in-chief or a global agitator?
Serving both Republican and Democratic administrations, including under the presidencies of George W Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross for decades was one of those tasked with navigating the most dangerous of diplomatic waters. It was interesting then to hear him opine last week on current US president Donald Trump's diplomatic negotiating style. 'There is a difference between producing ceasefires and pauses and ending wars,' noted Ross, speaking to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). 'The former stops fighting, the latter deals with the causes of the conflict and forges agreements that resolve the differences – or at least gets both sides to adjust their thinking and produces a modus vivendi.' READ MORE: John Swinney brands Gaza as 'genocide' for first time as Fringe show disrupted Ross's comments came in a week that saw Trump issue a deadline of '10 or 12 days' to Russian president Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire over Ukraine. This weekend, that agreement seems further away than ever after Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to 'be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative' comments by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Ross's remarks also came in a week when Washington's allies, France, the UK and Canada, broke with Trump to force a diplomatic shift on Gaza. For despite the US leader's boastful promises on bringing calm to the region – as with his claim to be able to bring peace to Russia's war with Ukraine within 24 hours of returning to office – all of Trump's peace-making promises to date have been colliding with a more complicated reality on the ground. Ukraine In short, Trump's supposed prowess on the peace-making front is not all it's cracked up to be, a point wryly made by Susan B Glasser of the New Yorker magazine a few days ago. 'Wars, it turns out, do not end magically because Trump clicks his heels and demands that they do so,' wrote Glasser in a recent column. As even the most cursory of glances across the global geo-political landscape will quickly confirm, the prevailing reality is a far cry from when Trump, in his January 20, 2025 inaugural address, proclaimed that 'we will measure our success … by the wars we end'. And 'my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.' Despite the obvious shortcomings to date in this regard, though, America's peacemaker-in-chief – in characteristic mode – has continued to claim great success, a point he was keen to emphasise during his recent trip to Scotland. 'We have many ceasefires going on. If I weren't around, you would have six major wars going on. India would be fighting with Pakistan,' Trump insisted in one of his speeches. As Trump sees it, should that much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize come his way, then he is only too deserving of it. 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' Trump said in October. Trump's ever-loyal mouthpiece, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, never misses an opportunity to remind the world that it's 'well past time' that the president received the prize. Just these past days, Leavitt, at a press briefing, listed the peace deals that the Trump administration has supposedly brokered since taking office. Thailand and Cambodia were the most recent of Trump's peacemaker bona fides. 'The two countries were engaged in a deadly conflict that had displaced more than 300,000 people until President Trump stepped in to put an end to it,' Leavitt insisted. Other conflicts cited by Leavitt included Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), India and Pakistan, and Serbia and Kosovo – all claimed to have been 'resolved' on Trump's watch. One curious outcome in at least two instances, however, was that in the cases of both Pakistan and Cambodia, no sooner were hostilities ceased than their leaders announced that they would nominate Trump for the Peace Prize. Interestingly, too, in Thailand and Cambodia's case, Trump set a 19% levy on imports from both countries, lower than the 36% they originally faced, after earlier this month he threatened to block trade deals with them unless they ended their deadly border clash. Which brings us to another significant factor that many say undermines Trump's claims to be a peacemaker and mediator and instead casts him as a global agitator – trade wars and tariffs. Last week, Trump plunged the global economy into a new round of mercantile competition after hitting dozens of US trading partners with tariffs while formalising recent deals with others, including the UK and EU. While such competition is nothing new in itself, as a Financial Times (FT) editorial on Friday pointed out, in Trump's case, they are often flagrantly politically motivated. On the one hand, Trump portrays the tariffs he has ordered on US trading partners as a simple rebalancing of global trading that is skewed against America. But as the FT points out, 'what is striking, however, is how some of the harshest new measures reflect blatantly political aims – shaped by presidential whim'. The newspaper cites the example of Canada, which has angered Trump with its own plans to recognise a Palestinian state, making it 'very hard', says Trump, to reach a trade deal. The FT also highlights India, already hit by a high tariff rate but which Washington has threatened with an additional penalty while rebuking prime minister Narendra Modi's government for 'buying Russian oil and weapons'. Trump's stance, says the FT, also appears to reflect his dislike of India's membership of the Brics bloc of emerging heavyweight markets and developing nations. During a summit of the 11 emerging economies last month, he threatened an additional 10% tariff on any countries aligning themselves with the Brics's 'anti-American policies'. More than 100 days on from Trump's 'Liberation Day' set of initial tariffs, many say a new global trading order is taking shape, one that The Economist magazine recently referred to as 'a system of imperial preference'. This, argue some analysts, only adds incendiary economic fuel to an already destabilised world, raising the risk that such trade wars might become shooting wars. Allison Carnegie is professor of political science at Columbia University and specialises in global governance and international institutions. Writing recently in the widely respected Foreign Affairs magazine, she said that Trump's trade wars are hardly without precedent and that while 'Trump may think his tariff regime will make the United States richer, safer, and stronger … history suggests it will do just the opposite'. 'In the near term, countries can benefit from wielding trade as a cudgel. But in the long term, trade wars leave almost everyone worse off,' Carnegie notes. 'When countries frequently use economic leverage to secure concessions from vulnerable partners, investment and economic growth go down. Political instability, meanwhile, goes up. States that chafe at economic coercion sometimes turn to their militaries in order to fight back. Countries that once co-operated because of commercial ties turn into competitors. Even close allies drift apart,' Carnegie noted. Few doubt the inherent difficulty in ending protracted conflicts like those in the Middle East and now in Ukraine. Both broke out during the previous administration, enabling Trump to dub them 'Biden's wars'. 'Biden will drive us into World War III, and we're closer to World War III than anybody can imagine,' said the same Trump who on Friday moved US nuclear submarines in response to a social media post by Medvedev. On his presidential campaign trail, Trump often railed against Biden and such 'endless wars' and 'forever wars' and mused that he could resolve them. 'He has made comments on all of them that this could be done quickly or easily and that there are solutions to these problems,' says Aaron David Miller, a State Department diplomat in the Clinton and George W Bush administrations – now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'And yet, he has not been successful in even identifying what I would consider to be a potentially effective strategy for managing, let alone resolving them. And therein lies the challenge,' Miller told broadcaster ABC News in a recent interview. Six months after Trump's inaugural address proclaiming that his presidency would bring 'a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable', and denouncing 'Biden's wars', the data tells a very different story. For in those six months, Trump has already launched nearly as many airstrikes on foreign nations as Biden did within four years. A huge part of this, of course, was 'Operation Midnight Hammer', when Trump decided that he would order the use of 30,000-pound weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an independent international data collection monitoring group, since Trump returned to the White House, the US has carried out at least 529 bombings in more than 240 locations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. His predecessor's administration launched 555 over its entire four years. 'Trump's preference for engagement begs the question: Does this contradict his promise to end America's wars – or are the foreign strikes how he wishes to keep that promise?' ACLED president Clionadh Raleigh said in a statement cited by The Independent last month. 'The recent airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have been framed as a major turning point in US foreign policy. But if you take a step back, they don't stand out – they fit,' Raleigh added. Right now, when not riling other nations through his own tariffs and trade wars, ending the fighting in Ukraine and Gaza by far poses Trump's biggest diplomatic challenge. In both cases, he has his work cut out, not least, say some, in that he has appointed the same man, his friend Steve Witkoff, as the US envoy for all three sets of peace talks, involving Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas and Israel-Iran. As Max Boot recently observed in The Washington Post, this 'would test the powers of even a veteran diplomat' … and 'the task is all the more onerous given that Witkoff is a real-estate developer with no background in diplomacy'. Meanwhile, as Gaza bleeds and starves, Trump diplomatically muddles through, as was poignantly described recently by Glasser of The New Yorker. 'In a summer of horror for Gaza, it's hard to recall the unfulfilled promises of last winter, when Trump bragged, in near world-historical terms, of the 'EPIC' ceasefire that he and his team had helped broker,' wrote Glasser recently. 'Now, as Trump stands by and does close to nothing at all, what can we do but wish that he had, for once, been right?' Many critics maintain that a huge part of the problem with Trump's negotiating style is that it fluctuates depending on the current state of his personal relationships with other world leaders. As his second term progresses, Trump's priorities would seem to become more apparent by the day, startling observers and US allies alike. Already there have been calls for US intervention in Panama, Canada and as recently as May, Trump announced that he didn't rule out employing military force to seize Greenland. He has also proposed a $1 trillion US military budget for 2026 – a 13.4 % increase – and again took action to withdraw US support from the UN. Critics continue to accuse him of shaping American foreign policy determined primarily by a desire to pursue his own vendettas toward those that rebuff him and in doing so use whatever means – economic or otherwise – at his disposal. As Ross rightly pointed out, there is indeed 'a difference between producing ceasefires and pauses and ending wars'. To achieve the latter, patience and lengthy negotiations are a prerequisite, and that, as we all know by now, has never been part of the Trump playbook.