French pop band cancels North American tour over 'very worrying' US political climate
The band cited concerns over immigration and freedom of speech as part of the reason they are canceling their North American tour dates — adding that since they are traveling as a family with their young child, they "need to feel safe."
"Today we have made the immensely difficult decision to cancel our North American tour. There are multiple reasons why we came to this decision," Yelle told their Instagram followers. "The current political climate in the US, especially in regard to immigration and freedom of speech, is very worrying. We are now traveling as a family with our young child, so more than ever, we need to feel safe," the band shared on their Instagram page.
Aside from their worries about the U.S. political climate, the band also expressed concerns over the "great financial burden" the tour has placed upon them.
"In addition, the overall costs of this tour are becoming barely possible to balance and it is putting a great financial burden on us," they stated.
As noted by online music outlet Pitchfork, Yelle is part of a growing list of international acts who have expressed concerns over performing in the U.S. following President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Members of the British punk band U.K. Subs claimed that they were denied entry into the U.S. in March, citing incorrect visas and other undisclosed reasons. The band's bassist, Alvin Gibbs, theorized that his "regular and less than flattering public pronouncements regarding [Trump] and his administration were a factor" in his entry being denied.
Bob Vylan, the British punk duo whose anti-Israel set at the Glastonbury Festival drew widespread condemnation, had their U.S. visas revoked by the State Department following their controversial performance.
Another international artist, Bells Larsen — a transgender singer-songwriter from Montreal — said he had to cancel his tour after being unable to apply for a visa due to new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that do not recognize transgender identities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert Schmuhl: Winston Churchill responded to political defeat by linking arms with America
Winston Churchill knew political defeat but never quite like the one he suffered nearly 80 years ago on July 26, 1945. For this notable tippler, it was more humiliating than losing his seat in Parliament to a prohibitionist opponent two decades earlier. In the United Kingdom's election of 1945, Churchill won his own campaign to remain in the House of Commons — but the Conservative Party he led received a drubbing. Labour captured 393 seats to 197 for the Conservatives. Churchill, prime minister since 1940, was immediately shown the door of 10 Downing Street. Clementine Churchill tried to console her husband of 37 years: 'It may be a blessing in disguise.' Her distraught spouse snapped: 'At the moment, it's certainly very well disguised.' Churchill's loss couldn't have come at a worst time, as far as he was concerned. The Potsdam Conference, involving the 'Big Three' of President Harry Truman, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Churchill, was in full swing. Decisions about the postwar world, Germany's future and concluding hostilities against Japan remained unresolved. The new prime minister, Clement Attlee, replaced Churchill at the conference eight days before it ended. Between April and late July of that year, Franklin Roosevelt had died, and Churchill was removed as head of the British government. Key World War II architects were no longer making decisions, leaving Stalin senior partner of the alliance battling the Axis powers. But why, people today ask, did Churchill lose? British voters regarded Churchill an inspiring wartime commander. He rallied people during dark hours and many months of fighting alone against Adolf Hitler's Germany. But as much as they admired him under fire, the United Kingdom citizenry harbored doubts about Churchill's capability to switch gears and lead in peacetime with different social and economic demands. To them, it was time for a change. Dejected from rejection, Churchill went off on an Italian holiday to paint — and plot. The trouncing cast him in a new role, leader of the opposition, but he continued to scrutinize world affairs, as he'd done the decade before with Nazism and fascism on the rise. Less than a year after being tossed out, he visited Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, to speak truth about power. He sounded the alarm that former ally Stalin was responsible for an 'iron curtain' descending across Europe, creating Soviet satellites to Kremlin rule. From Churchill's perspective, the 'Soviet sphere' operated with pernicious intentions. 'I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war,' he argued. 'What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.' Churchill's return to global attention received mixed reviews. Some commentators labeled his speech unduly bellicose; others applauded his courage to define ominous realities. Churchill deliberately chose the U.S. rather than his homeland to plant his flag against Soviet expansionism. As prime minister, he'd made five transatlantic trips for extended meetings with Roosevelt. He understood America was the 'leader of the free world,' and he wanted to strengthen ties between his country and this one. In his 'iron curtain' speech, Churchill spoke of the need for 'a special relationship.' He even proposed common citizenship. That phrase 'special relationship' entered common parlance and still reverberates in transatlantic affairs affecting the two nations. But Churchill did more than compose and deliver memorable orations. He kept brawling in the political arena, winning back 10 Downing Street in 1951 and remaining in power until he resigned in 1955 at the age of 80. Churchill considered Russia 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.' That convoluted, inscrutable description holds true today, as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin seem to talk past each other whenever they address the war in Ukraine and other subjects. By contrast, America was an open book to Churchill and, in his opinion, 'at the pinnacle of world power.' He wanted the British empire, then showing definite signs of decline, to link arms in facing the future. With shrewd foresight, he conducted personal diplomacy to nurture the 'special relationship,' scheduling regular parleys with presidents. Between 1946 and his last White House visit in 1959, he met with Truman and Dwight Eisenhower six times in Washington and New York. On the day Churchill resigned 70 years ago this past April, he told his cabinet, 'Never be separated from the Americans.' The decade between his humiliation of 1945 and his departure as prime minister was marked by cataclysmic change and unrelenting Cold War danger. Yet as storm clouds gathered, he worked to disperse them. During those years as before, he championed freedom and democracy. 'Trust the people' was his mantra — and his bulldog determination helped him rebound from defeat to return to the world stage, this time as a seeker of peace.
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
