Latest news with #NewAmerica
ABC News
3 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Putin's Sledgehammer
In 2023, the disgraced chief of the mercenary Wagner group Yevgeny Prigozhin, took off in his private jet from Moscow airport. The flight did not last long. Nine people died with him when the plane – it seems – blew up in midair. A few weeks earlier, Prigozhin had led his mercenaries fighting in Ukraine on a march towards Moscow. Vladimir Putin did not pretend to mourn his death. So what's been the fate of the Wagner Group? GUEST: Candace Rondeaux, Senior Director for the Future Frontlines program at New America, and author, 'Putin's Sledgehammer: The Wagner Group and Russia's Collapse into Mercenary Chaos'. Candace Rondeaux, Senior Director for the Future Frontlines program at New America, and author, 'Putin's Sledgehammer: The Wagner Group and Russia's Collapse into Mercenary Chaos'. PRODUCER: Ali Benton
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Trump White House makeover: How does it compare to past presidential renovations?
Over the past six months, President Donald Trump has made a series of sweeping changes to the White House, transforming both its interior spaces and its exterior landscape. He adorned the Oval Office with numerous portraits — including of Presidents George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan — and installed gilded appliques and embellishments throughout several rooms. More substantive alterations include erecting two towering 100-foot flagpoles on the lawn and paving over the historic Rose Garden. He's also said he plans to construct a large ballroom, modeled after one at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. 'It's gonna cost nothing, I'll spend the whole thing myself,' he said in February 'We'll do a big, beautiful room.' How does Trump's White House makeover compare to those of his predecessors? Are his restylings and renovations unprecedented? McClatchy News has reached out to presidential historians for answers. 'Every president wants to leave their mark on the White House,' Alexis Coe, a presidential historian and fellow at New America, told McClatchy News. Most, though, 'are satisfied with a portrait swap.' Recent predecessors When compared to other recent occupants of the executive mansion, Trump, a former real estate developer, is indeed in a league of his own. 'Trump's proposed changes to the White House are more extensive than those made by his recent predecessors,' Nicole Anslover, a history professor at Florida Atlantic University, told McClatchy News. 'Most changes made by Presidents Biden, Obama and Bush were mainly cosmetic. Think new furnishings and artwork.' For example, Obama added a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. to the Oval Office, and Bush hung several paintings depicting Texas landscapes. Clinton undertook a refurbishing of the West Wing. 'These were updates — some thoughtful, some cosmetic — but nothing intended to dominate the space or erase historical context,' Taylor Stoermer, a history lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, told McClatchy News. 'They abided by the norms and traditions of the office and the place.' 'Trump's changes are different,' Stoermer added. 'They're part of his usual assertion of personal branding.' The Republican president's degree of involvement in the restylings is also somewhat unique. 'In the past, stylistic concerns have largely been the purview of the first lady,' Thomas Balcerski, a presidential historian at Eastern Connecticut State University, told McClatchy News. 'Trump has once again broken with tradition by insisting that cosmetic improvements around the White House be driven by his own personal tastes and preferences.' Earlier presidents That said, Trump's alterations pale in comparison to the lasting structural and design changes made by several earlier presidents, historians said. For example, during the 1880s, President Chester Arthur ordered 'major renovations,' including by installing an elevator and plumbing system. Arthur, a New Yorker like Trump, also undertook changes that evoked 'a Gilded Age fever dream,' Coe said. 'He auctioned off (Ulysses) Grant's old furniture and enlisted Louis Comfort Tiffany to design stained-glass windows.' But, the biggest transformation came during the presidency of Harry Truman, which spanned from 1945 to 1953. When he took office, the aging mansion — with its uneven floors and damaged walls — was deemed unsafe to live in. As a result, 'the entire interior was gutted and reconstructed,' Stoermer said. 'The restoration under Truman was so extensive that he actually lived across the street at Blair House for several years,' Anslover said In fact, it was so all-encompassing that it altered the White House more than the fire of 1814, started by the British during the War of 1812, according to the White House Historical Association. Then, similarly extensive decorative changes came in the early 1960s, during the presidency of John Kennedy, though they were spearheaded by his wife, Jackie Kennedy. 'She launched the White House Historical Association, strong-armed Congress into protecting historical furnishings, and essentially went on a nationwide treasure hunt for authentic pieces,' Stoermer said, noting that 'It was an almost obsessive mission…' She also redesigned the Rose Garden — which is now being converted into a patio — beautifying it with rows of clipped hedges and multi-colored flowers. 'Her televised tour in 1962 was a declaration: this place belongs to everyone. It's a symbol of our collective, messy history,' Stoermer said, 'not a private palace for whoever's currently in charge.'
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
The ideology behind the ‘New America' is more dangerous than it looks
For the past 500 years, the West has reigned as the world's dominant civilization. Though its grip has loosened in recent years, the West – especially the United States – remains the most powerful force in global politics and the international economy. This power, while capable of building plenty, also carries the potential to destroy a lot. Today, a new ideology is taking shape in the West, particularly in the US. Under the right conditions, it could prove as dangerous to humanity as fascism and Nazism were in the last century. The reelection of Donald Trump may mark a decisive turning point, transferring power to people and ideas that are, at best, deeply ambiguous. This 'New America' is not driven by a single worldview, but rather by a convergence of four ideological factions. At the center stands Trump himself and his allies – throwbacks to the era of great-power imperialism. Trump's inaugural speech to launch his second term left little doubt: He called for territorial expansion, industrial growth, and a resurgent military. America, he declared, is 'the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.' He spoke approvingly of President William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, both architects of American imperialism. The vision is unmistakable: American exceptionalism, enforced by military might and driven by the logic of conquest. It is the language of empire. Then there are the right-wing populists – figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, strategist Steve Bannon, and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their rallying cry is 'America First'. They champion traditional values, claim to speak for the working class, and disdain the liberal elite concentrated in coastal cities. They oppose globalism, support trade protectionism, and promote isolationism in foreign policy. This faction is not particularly new in American politics, but its influence has deepened, especially under Trump's patronage. A newer – and perhaps more unsettling – element of America's emerging ideology is represented by Silicon Valley billionaires. Elon Musk is the most visible figure, briefly heading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025. But the more influential actor may be Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and early internet pioneer who became an informal adviser to Trump. Andreessen's political turn followed his frustration with Biden-era regulations on crypto and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he published a manifesto called 'The Techno-Optimist', a document that preaches unrestrained technological acceleration. In his view, scientific innovation and free markets can solve all of humanity's problems – if only government gets out of the way. Andreessen quotes Nietzsche and invokes the image of the 'apex predator' – a new breed of technological superman who sits atop the food chain. He writes, 'We are not victims, we are conquerors… the strongest predator at the top of the food chain.' Such language might seem metaphorical, but it is revealing. Andreessen's list of intellectual inspirations includes Filippo Marinetti, the Futurist who helped lay the aesthetic groundwork for Italian fascism and died fighting the Red Army at Stalingrad. The most intellectually developed thinker of the techno-libertarian camp is Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and the data surveillance firm Palantir Technologies. Thiel is no longer a marginal figure – he is now arguably the second most important ideologue of the New America, after Trump himself. Thiel is also a master strategist. He personally mentored and funded Vance, now vice president and possibly Trump's heir apparent. At the same time, he backed Blake Masters in Arizona, although that bet didn't pay off. Thiel reads the Bible, quotes Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, and speaks openly about the limits of democracy. 'Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy,' he has said. He has compared modern America to Weimar Germany, arguing that liberalism is exhausted, and a new system must rise. Despite his libertarian leanings, Thiel's companies develop AI tools for the Pentagon and fund next-generation weapons systems through firms like Anduril. Thiel believes that America has entered a long decline – and that radical technological leaps are needed to reverse it. One of his pet projects is the 'Enhanced Games', a competition where doping and biohacking are allowed. Co-organized with Donald Trump Jr., the event reflects Thiel's obsession with transhumanism and human enhancement. In foreign policy, Thiel views China as America's primary enemy. He has called it a 'semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy' and pushed for complete economic decoupling. Interestingly, Thiel is far less hostile to Russia, which he sees as culturally closer to the West. In his view, pushing Moscow into Beijing's arms is a strategic mistake. The final group behind the New America are the theorists of the 'Dark Enlightenment', or neo-reactionary movement. These intellectual provocateurs reject the Enlightenment values that once defined the West. Nick Land, a British philosopher living in Shanghai, is among the founding thinkers of this school. He predicts the end of humanity as we know it and the rise of posthuman, techno-authoritarian systems governed by capital and machines. For Land, morality is irrelevant; what matters is efficiency, evolution, and raw power. Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), an American programmer, is another central figure. A friend of Thiel and an insider in Trump's intellectual circle, Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He imagines a future of sovereign city-states run like companies, where experimentation with laws and technologies is unrestricted. Yarvin is clear in his rejection of American global leadership. He believes the US should withdraw from Europe and let regional powers settle their own disputes. He speaks warmly of China, and his views on World War II are unorthodox to say the least – suggesting Hitler was motivated by strategic calculation rather than genocidal ambition. Many of these ideas may seem fringe. But fringe ideas have power – especially when they echo through the corridors of political and technological influence. Carl Schmitt's legal theories enabled Hitler to seize dictatorial powers in 1933. Today, the intellectual allies of Trump and Thiel are crafting their own narratives of 'emergency', 'decadence', and 'reawakening'. What's emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it. The liberal international order is no longer seen as sacred – even by the country that built it. The new American elite may be withdrawing troops from Europe, the Middle East, and Korea, but their ambitions have not shrunk. They are turning instead to subtler methods of control: AI, cyber dominance, ideological warfare, and technological superiority. Their goal is not a multipolar world, but a redesigned unipolar one – run not by diplomats and treaties, but by algorithms, monopolies, and machines. The threat to the world is not just political anymore. It is civilizational. The superhumans are on the article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Forbes
6 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
New Surveys Contain Good & Bad News About How Americans View Higher Ed
Two new surveys highlight where Americans agree and disagree about higher education. Two recent surveys about how Americans view higher education contain some unexpected good news for the nation's colleges and universities combined with reasons for continuing concerns. The surveys — one conducted by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation and the other by the progressive think tank New America — show that Americans' overall confidence in higher education has increased recently, but that Republicans and Democrats continue to hold sharply divided opinions about some key matters even as they largely agree on others. The Lumina Foundation-Gallup survey was conducted by telephone June 2-26 with a sample of 1,402 U.S. adults, including an oversampling of Black and Hispanic Americans. New America's ninth annual Varying Degrees survey about Americans' perceptions of higher education, was conducted in March, with more than 1,600 adults polled. Here are ten take-aways from the two polls, starting with the good news. This year, 42% of those surveyed by Gallup said they had 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in higher education, a six percentage-point gain over the past two years. Similarly, those saying they had little or no confidence declined from 32% a year ago to 23% today. This gain in confidence represents the first time the Gallup survey has seen an increase in a decade, but confidence in higher education remains substantially below where it was in 2015, when a majority of Americans (57%) were confident about it. Confidence among college graduates was up six percentage points to 48% in the new Gallup poll; while for those without a four-year college degree, confidence increased by seven points to 40%. Confidence among Democrats gained five points (to 61%), and for independents and Republicans it was up six points each — to 41% and 26%, respectively. According to Gallup-Lumina, more Americans are confident today than a year ago in both four-year colleges (up 11 points, to 44%) and two-year colleges (up eight points, to 56%). However, partisan gaps are substantial on this matter; 66% of Democrats, 40% of independents and only 26% of Republicans are confident in four-year colleges. Political party gaps in confidence in two-year colleges are smaller than for four-year institutions because Republicans and independents are significantly more confident in two-year than four-year colleges, while Democrats now have similar confidence in each type of institution. Compared to last year, more people — 12%, compared to 5% — who are confident in higher education cited the innovations that flow from it as a reason. Among the Gallup-Lumina respondents, 14% agreed that 'U.S. colleges are some of the best in world,' double the percentage of a year ago, and 24% pointed to the fact that U.S. institutions provide good training, up from 19% a year ago. About three-quarters of U.S. adults agreed that higher education led to greater innovation and discovery in the Gallup-Lumina survey; 69% said it results in better jobs and career advancement; and 66% agreed that it promotes higher household incomes. More than half of these respondents also believed that higher education makes the population more knowledgeable, gives the U.S. a competitive edge over other countries, and results in greater entrepreneurship and business creation. New America's survey found similar results when it comes to the vision that Americans have for their colleges and universities. Nine in 10 Americans think that it's important for post-secondary education to train students for the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in their chosen fields and help them become informed citizens. Similar percentages endorsed the importance of colleges improving students' ability to write and communicate well and to think critically There were only small differences between Republicans and Democrats on the importance of college cultivating these abilities. Three in four Americans believe that education after high school offers a good return on investment for students, and 72% would recommend their children or close family members pursue at least some post-secondary education for a financially secure life. Republicans and Democrats showed minor differences in how they answered these two items. Now, for some of the findings that should cause concern for higher education leaders. In 2025, according to New America's survey, only about 40% of Americans think that higher education is fine as it is. Although that number has varied slightly the past few years, it did improve over last year, in line with the Gallup/Lumina findings. Still, most citizens, regardless of political party affiliation, perceive the need for higher education to make major changes in the way it operates. In addition, only about half believe colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the country. While a majority of Democrats (74%) believe that institutions are having a positive impact on the nation, only a minority of Republicans (39%) feel that way. Only about half of Americans think they can get an affordable high-quality college education, according to the New America survey. And here there is bipartisan concurrence, with 49% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans agreeing. The major reason cited for students not enrolling in college or completing their degrees was the cost of attendance, endorsed by 66% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans. Americans may agree that the cost of education is a problem, but New America found that they remain divided — as they have for some time — over who bears the larger responsibility for paying for it. About half of the public believes federal and state governments should be mainly responsible for funding post-secondary education, while 45% think students and their families should fund education. There is a big partisan gap on this question, however. Among Democrats, 71% believe the government should assume the main responsibility for college funding, while 64% of Republicans believe that students and their families should bear the bigger burden. When forced to choose who should fund higher education—government or students—the share of Americans choosing government has fallen from 67% in 2018 to 54% in 2025, a discouraging result for higher education officials seeking to build public support for larger government appropriations for their work. Nonetheless, 75% of Americans overall (91% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans) believe the federal government should spend more money to make college more affordable. According to the New America survey, more than half of Americans (57%) believe that colleges are more welcoming toward politically liberal views; a third think colleges equally welcome liberal and conservative views, and a mere 9% believe they are welcoming towards conservative views. Two-thirds of Republicans say colleges are more welcoming towards liberal views, while half of Democrats do so. Americans are also divided about whether they think that when exposing students to different ideas, colleges push their own viewpoints on students versus encouraging openness to diverse ideas. While 25% of Democrats believe colleges push their own views on students, 68% of Republicans think so. The modestly encouraging findings from the two surveys are noteworthy because they come at a time when colleges and universities have faced months of criticisms and attacks from the Trump administration. From federal cutbacks in research funding to criticisms of the curriculum, allegations of antisemitism, challenges to international students, and claims that they are indoctrinating students with 'wokeness,' institutions have faced a steady campaign of negative rhetoric and financial pressure from the administration. Although some of those critiques appear to resonate with portions of the public, the campaign may also be having something of a paradoxical effect. As Americans watch their colleges come under political attack, they may be beginning to rally to their support, discovering some common ground in recognizing the vital roles they play for individual well-being and the prosperity of the nation.
Politico
7 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
'Contrary to President Trump's goal': Senate Republicans urge administration to release $7B in school aid
Wednesday's letter, led by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), was also signed by Republican Sens. John Boozman (Arkansas), Katie Britt (Alabama), Susan Collins (Maine), Deb Fischer (Nebraska), John Hoeven (North Dakota), Jim Justice (West Virginia), Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mike Rounds (South Dakota). Lawmakers also pushed back on the administration's claims that at least some of the money has been used to subsidize what OMB officials have described as 'a radical leftwing agenda.' OMB has confirmed the education funds are under review as part of Trump's broader agenda of scrutinizing programs related to immigration and LGBTQ+ issues. Public schools in New York used money for students who are immigrants or speak limited English 'to promote illegal immigrant advocacy organizations,' the administration has said, without providing specifics. The budget office also asserted Washington state used funds 'to direct illegal immigrants towards scholarships intended for American students.' Elsewhere, school improvement funds were used 'to conduct a seminar on 'queer resistance in the arts,'' the administration added. OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. 'We share your concern about taxpayer money going to fund radical left-wing programs. However, we do not believe that is happening with these funds,' the senators wrote. 'These funds go to support programs that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support like after-school and summer programs that provide learning and enrichment opportunities for school aged children which also enables their parents to work and contribute to local economies.' The Trump administration told lawmakers and state officials last month that it was reviewing the congressionally appropriated education grant funding that Trump signed into law earlier this year — and will not send the money to states until that review is complete. Vought has suggested to Senate appropriators that the funding could be the target of a future rescissions package — a legislative mechanism for clawing back funds already approved by Congress. Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon have also proposed cutting some of the affected programs in their budget pitch for the coming year. But the current delay is sowing a sense of anxiety and confusion across school systems that rely on federal money to keep programs running and staffed. School districts represented by Republicans in Congress stand to lose more per-pupil dollars from the funding freeze, according to recent estimates published by New America, a progressive-leaning think tank. Across four federal programs for K-12 students, New America estimated the average school district represented by a Republican stands to lose 1.6 times as much funding per pupil as the average school district represented by a Democrat.
