logo
Home discomforts send Trump rushing to project image of global patriarch

Home discomforts send Trump rushing to project image of global patriarch

The Guardian4 hours ago

'Daddy's home.' So said a social media post from the White House, accompanied by a video featuring the song Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) by Usher and images of Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague.
The US president's fundraising allies were quick to market $35 T-shirts with his image and the word after Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, referred to Trump's criticism of Israel and Iran over violations of a ceasefire by quipping: 'And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get [them to] stop.'
Yet even as Trump seeks to project an image of global patriarch, there are signs of trouble on the home front. His polling numbers are down. His party is struggling to pass his signature legislation. Millions of people have marched in the streets to protest against him. Critics say the president who claims to put America First is in fact putting America Last.
Trump is not the first president to find the foreign policy domain, where as commander-in-chief he recently ordered strikes on nuclear sites in Iran, less restrictive than the domestic sphere, where a rambunctious Congress, robust judiciary and sceptical media are constant irritants. But rarely has the gap between symbolic posturing abroad and messy politicking at home been so pronounced.
'There's two presidencies,' said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. 'The one on the domestic front is gruesome and involves long-drawn-out and disappointing negotiations with Congress and that's exactly what Donald Trump is engaged in now. What emerges from Congress is not going to be as 'big' or 'beautiful' as he promised.
'Meanwhile you've got staggering photographs of bombs falling from the sky, Donald Trump's flamboyant description of what he's achieved in Iran and Europe. That's the kind of Hollywood performance that Donald Trump wants.'
The president stunned the world last Saturday by announcing, on his Truth Social platform, that he had ordered more than 125 aircraft and 75 weapons – including 14 bunker-busting bombs – to hit three targets in Iran to prevent the country obtaining a nuclear weapon.
He followed up with a White House speech, choreographed to project an image of power, in which he declared: 'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.'
That narrative has since been cast into doubt by a leaked intelligence report suggesting that the operation set back Iran's nuclear programme by only a few months. Still, Trump pivoted to the role of peacemaker, again using Truth Social to announce a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, prompting Republicans to gush that he should win the Nobel peace prize.
Trump's barrage of speeches, interactions with reporters and social media posts about the Middle East were likened by some to a daily soap opera, dominating Americans' attention and distracting them from his one big beautiful bill, a budget plan that threatens to slash the social safety net that many of his own supporters depend on.
Jacobs observed: 'This is a classic deception. He's like the carnival barker who's waving his hands to keep the attention of the audience even as he's hiding the part for the next trick.
'What's coming out of Congress is going to absolutely harm many of his voters. Politicians like to cover their tracks; there's no covering the tracks here. There will be known cuts to widely used popular programmes like the healthcare for Medicaid and there will be no doubt as to who's responsible. These are traceable, highly visible consequences of Donald Trump.'
Now in the sixth month of his second presidency, Trump's domestic honeymoon is over. A poll of 1,006 likely voters nationwide by John Zogby Strategies on 24 and 25 June found the president's approval rating down three points to 45%. About 49% of voters approve of his handling of immigration while 47% disapprove but on the economy 43% approve and 54% disapprove.
Asked if they expect Trump's presidency will make them financially better off or worse off, 40% said better and 50% said worse. Zogby commented: 'There is a lot of anxiety domestically, first and foremost on the economy. People are confused and insecure. The numbers are plunging.'
Consumer confidence unexpectedly deteriorated in June, a sign of economic uncertainty because of Trump's sweeping tariffs. The anxiety reported by the Conference Board was across the political spectrum, with the steepest decline among Republicans. And the share of consumers viewing jobs as plentiful was the smallest since March 2021.
Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator, argued in a floor speech this week that Trump had broken him promise to lower costs 'on day one'. She said: 'American families don't need another war – they need good jobs and lower prices, and that is what we should be focused on.'
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Warren listed 10 ways in which the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would raise costs for families, from rent to groceries to prescription drug prices, and warned that it will take healthcare away from more than 16 million people. Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate continue to haggle over the contents of the bill as a 4 July deadline looms.
Neera Tanden, president and chief executive of the Center for American Progress and a former domestic policy adviser to President Joe Biden, told an audience on Thursday: 'This legislation is the greatest Robin Hood-in-reverse legislation that I have ever seen in my lifetime. It is cutting healthcare for working-class people and using those dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.'
Meanwhile discontent is simmering over Trump's signature issue of immigration, even among some of his own voters. Videos of people being snatched off the streets or beaten by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents have provoked widespread revulsion.
There have also been cases such as that of Ming Li Hui, a popular member of staff at a restaurant in rural Missouri who was arrested and jailed to await deportation. Her friend Vanessa Cowart told the New York Times: 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here. But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.'
Meanwhile aggressive workplace raids are hurting hotels, restaurants, farms, construction firms and meatpacking companies, including in conservative states. The alarm recently got through to Trump, who admitted that some undocumented immigrants were actually 'very good, longtime workers' and ordered a temporary pause, only to then yield back to hardliners in his administration.
Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said: 'In a restaurant, if you lose your cooks, you can't serve people and you lose money. If you are in a factory where people have been swooped up by Ice, you have to do more work.
'It puts more of the burden on the same people who might have voted for Donald Trump – lower-income or middle-income factory workers or meat-processing people. They're feeling the effects of this immigration sweep in ways that the administration did not anticipate.'
Trump's second term has been further marred by the tech billionaire Elon Musk leading a 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, that fired thousands of federal workers but fell far short of its cost-saving target before Musk left amid acrimony. The president's authoritarian attacks on cultural institutions, law firms, media organisations and universities fuelled 'No Kings' protests involving more than 5 million people in more than 2,100 cities and towns across the country on 14 June.
In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that Trump should relish the global stage, where any world leader is just a phone call away and where he is now being feted as statesman and father figure. It has proven easier to drop bombs on Iran or pressure Nato to agree to a big increase in military spending than to tame Thomas Massie, a rebellious Kentucky Republican defying him over both Iran and the spending bill.
Schiller added: 'It is true for every president, Republican or Democrat, that when things are going south domestically they turn to foreign affairs. Trump feels in some ways more powerful on the global stage than he does trying to get Congress to do what he wants. The House Republicans are giving him a hard time. The Senate Republicans are giving him a hard time. He's annoyed by this so then he goes, well, we're a global military power.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Will I get deported for sharing this meme of JD Vance?
Will I get deported for sharing this meme of JD Vance?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Will I get deported for sharing this meme of JD Vance?

I have a very important public service announcement to make. Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, make fun of Vice-President JD Vance by sharing one of the millions of unflattering memes dedicated to him. Don't you dare chuckle at the images of him looking like the 'lollipop kid' in Shrek (the resemblance is uncanny) or a chicken nugget. And, whatever you do, do not share the meme that you can find here, where he looks like a big bald baby. You risk hurting the poor man's feelings and, also, you might get kicked out of the country. So says a 21-year-old Norwegian called Mads Mikkelsen, anyway. Mikkelsen recently accused American border officials of denying him entry into the US because he had a meme of a bloated baby Vance saved on his phone. Mikkelsen, who had travelled to the US to visit friends, told the Norwegian paper Nordlys that immigration officers at Newark airport interrogated him, forced him to give fingerprints and blood samples, and went through his phone. After they found the Vance meme, as well as a picture of Mikkelsen holding a homemade wooden pipe, they sent him home. 'Both pictures had been automatically saved to my camera roll from a chat app, but I really didn't think that these innocent pictures would put a stop to my entry into the country,' Mikkelsen told Nordlys. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rejected Mikkelsen's claim that he was kicked out of the country for disrespecting the vice-president. 'FACT CHECK. Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a meme are unequivocally FALSE,' they posted on Facebook earlier in the week. 'TRUTH: Mikkelsen was refused entry into the US for his admitted drug use.' A homeland security assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, also called the story 'BS' in a post on X. Mikkelsen, meanwhile, insisted to the fact-checking website Snopes that the meme played a role in getting him denied entry. The 21-year-old claimed border officials told him he was getting sent home because of 'extremist propaganda [the meme] and narcotic paraphernalia'. However, that claim hasn't been verified. We may never know if the Vance meme really did play a role in getting Mikkelsen kicked out of the country. While I don't normally side with border officials, one imagines the pipe picture was probably the actual culprit. Still, the story, which made headlines around the world, won't help America's tourism industry. International visitors are staying out of the US after a spate of stories about tourists getting sent to Ice detention centers without any explanation. The World Travel & Tourism Council has said the country could lose $12.5bn in international visitor spending this year. The story has also reignited interest in JD Vance memes, which have been circulating for months now, peaking at end of February after the vice-president scolded Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an exchange that launched a million memes. Indeed, the Irish lawmaker Ivana Bacik recently held up the Vance baby meme while speaking in the Irish parliament about the Mikkelsen story. While claims that making fun of Mr Hillbilly Elegy may get you deported might be exaggerated, the fact that so many people immediately believed Mikkelsen's claims is a sign of just how badly the US's international image has been damaged and how dystopian the country has become. The US is heading very quickly towards authoritarianism. It is cracking down on dissent and protest. Book banning has surged and the Trump administration has instructed the Department of Education to end their investigations into these bans, calling them a 'hoax'. Free speech rights are being shredded. And the people responsible for all this? They're not evil geniuses, they're embarrassing dweebs with massively meme-able faces. 'I knew that one day we might have to watch as capitalism and greed and bigotry led to a world where powerful men, deserving or not, would burn it all down,' Rebecca Shaw said in a Guardian piece earlier this year. 'What I didn't expect, and don't think I could have foreseen, is how incredibly cringe it would all be.' 'The Alliance for Immigrant Survivors, a national network of advocates for those hurt by domestic violence, found that 75% of the 170 advocates they surveyed across the country said the immigrants they serve fear they'll face arrest or deportation if they contact authorities,' reports USA Today. Meanwhile the Fox News host Jesse Waters seems to think all this is hilarious. 'I bet a bunch of guys that are dating illegal alien Spanish girls are like Ice, here's the address! She hasn't been very good,' Watters recently said. In related news, a man was recently arrested for allegedly impersonating an Ice officer and sexually assaulting a woman, saying he'd deport her if she didn't comply. Mark Rutte made a weird statement in which he referred to Trump as 'Daddy' and then quickly walked it back. Speaking at an office hours event, the Michigan representative Karl Bohnak (a Republican), said 'I don't' after a constituent asked him, 'So you don't support a woman's autonomy over her own body?' The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 'is part of a longstanding effort by anti-abortion activists to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by cutting it out of Medicaid', the Guardian reports. 'Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid.' The prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, told his Facebook followers that he was prepared to expose himself to the head of the Armenian church, to prove they were wrong that he had been circumcised. This is just the latest development in an ongoing spat between Pashinyan and the head of the Armenian Apostolic church. And they say women are too emotional to lead! Sign up to The Week in Patriarchy Get Arwa Mahdawi's weekly recap of the most important stories on feminism and sexism and those fighting for equality after newsletter promotion As the title suggests, the game involves a male protagonist who is looking to get revenge on 'gold-digging' women. After a lot of controversy it's been renamed Emotional Fraud Simulator, but the content is the same. 'I cannot go into further detail about the number of victims in the case beyond confirming that it is a double-digit number,' the Oslo police attorney said. Mel Owens, a 66-year-old former NFL player, who is the new star of ABC's senior-focused dating show, has said he is only looking to date women between 45 and 60. 'If they're 60 or over, I'm cutting them.'' The handful of attenders included a local podcast host who praised the city's lack of Black residents. '[A] job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values,' Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, said. That's according to a brilliant advertising campaign which aimed to destigmatise herpes via a spoof tourism advertisement. Israeli officers and soldiers said that they were ordered to fire at unarmed civilians waiting for humanitarian aid, Haaretz reports. Here's something to mews about: is it disgusting to kiss your partner after kissing your cat? You still have time to vote on this very im-paw-tant question via a Guardian poll.

US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration's ban on birthright citizenship, in a ruling that could strip federal judges of a power they've used to obstruct many of Trump's orders nationwide. The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country's more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states. Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear, despite Trump claiming a 'giant win'. To stymie the impact of the ruling, immigration aid groups have rushed to recalibrate their legal strategy to block Trump's policy ending birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups including Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap) – who filed one of several original lawsuits challenging the president's executive order – are asking a federal judge in Maryland for an emergency block on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They have also refiled their broader lawsuit challenging the policy as a class-action case, seeking protections for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live. 'We're confident this will prevent this administration from attempting to selectively enforce their heinous executive order,' said George Escobar, chief of programs and services at Casa. 'These are scary times, but we are not powerless, and we have shown in the past, and we continue to show that when we fight, we win.' The decision on Friday morning decided by six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and judicial oversight. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll back judicial constraints on executive power. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority's decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven't filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected. 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Jackson wrote. 'Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th amendment following the US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court's 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. The ruling will undoubtedly exacerbate the fear and uncertainty many expecting mothers and immigrant families across the US have felt since the administration first attempt to end birthright citizenship. Liza, one of several expecting mothers who was named as plaintiff in the case challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy, said she had since given birth to a 'happy and healthy' baby, who was born a US citizen thanks to the previous, nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order. But she and her husband, both Russian nationals who fear persecution in their home country, still feel unsettled. 'We remain worried, even now that one day the government could still try to take away our child's US citizenship,' she said at a press conference on Friday. 'I have worried a lot about whether the government could try to detain or deport our baby. At some point, the executive order made us feel as though our baby was considered a nobody.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy. 'The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining was that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that 'birthright citizenship remains the law of the land'. 'We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington state, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 'For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.' Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts had not specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. Reuters contributed reporting

Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling

The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that ​​courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store