Last Wednesday, October 28, the United Nations General Assembly voted (for the thirty-fourth time) in favor of ending the economic and commercial embargo – which many refer to as a blockade – that the United States has unilaterally imposed on Cuba for more than sixty years.

With 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions, the international community once again demanded that the United States end an embargo that has caused unimaginable hardship for the Cuban people and has slowed the Caribbean nation’s development.

One of the countries that voted against the embargo was South Africa, whose ambassador emphasized his concern about the negative consequences the Cuban people are suffering as a result of Washington’s decisions. He also called for Cuba to be removed from the list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism, a designation that prevents many companies from doing business on the island.

In recent years, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denounced that high-level US diplomats had pressured several of its partners to vote against such resolutions concerning the embargo on Cuba, under threat of serious consequences. The denunciation was repeated this year by Cuba’s top diplomat.

Despite these efforts, the overwhelming majority of countries once again called on the United States to end the embargo. Washington appeared to have successfully influenced only its closest allies (those fully aligned with its geopolitical ideology) to vote against it. Thus, among the countries that voted against the resolution are several signatories to “Shield of the Americas,” the new international military initiative led by Washington, to which several right-wing and far-right governments in Latin America have aligned themselves.

For its part, the UN news portal reported: “The Assembly expresses its concern that, after decades of votes and appeals, the measure remains in force and continues to negatively affect the Cuban population and Cuban nationals residing abroad, without the expectations of economic normalization having been met.”

A multimillion-dollar blockade

According to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, Cuba’s annual losses are estimated at about 8 billion dollars. The total economic losses since the embargo began amount to the astronomical figure of 178 billion dollars, which is a huge sum considering the relatively small size of a country with a population of 10 million.

In this regard, the US economic and trade embargo – the longest-lasting in recent modern history – has been denounced by Cuban authorities as a perverse mechanism employed by Washington to boycott, almost from its inception, the Cuban Revolution, which proclaimed itself anti-imperialist and socialist.

Added to this prolonged damage are the recent energy restrictions that Washington has imposed on Cuba. Since early 2026, when Washington targeted Venezuela (Cuba’s main energy partner), the possibility of sending oil to Cuba has been cut off by a unilateral US order; the United States warned it would increase tariffs on any country that sends crude oil to Cuba. Only one Russian tanker managed to navigate the waters and reach Cuba – a resource appreciated by Cubans but one that ran out quite quickly.

The Caribbean nation depends almost entirely on petroleum for generating electricity, production, trade, and providing hospital care to its population. Added to this are the difficulties in distributing water and meeting other basic needs of the Cuban people, who are the true victims of a new strategy aimed at overthrowing the revolutionary government.

In this regard, the support of the international community – the vast majority of which has called for an end to the embargo, considering it a measure that undermines the sovereignty and self-determination of the Cuban people – provides a platform to remind the world of the situation Cuba is facing.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said on X: “Today at the UN, the international community’s overwhelming support for Cuba was evident in its condemnation of the blockade and the US government’s policy of maximum pressure. Most of the speakers, some representing regional blocs, were clear in their condemnation.”

He added: “It is a despicable act on the part of the empire’s representatives to claim they are defending collective punishment – which exacts a high human cost – against the Cuban people, in violation of human rights. It is a futile effort. They are not convincing, and they achieve nothing except through gangster-like coercion.”

Exchange of accusations between Havana and Washington

But the vote was not without controversy. During his address, the US representative to the UN, Mike Waltz, said that concentration camps existed in Cuba where “thousands of homosexuals, Christians, and Afro-Cubans” were allegedly detained.

In response to the statement, the Cuban delegation, visibly upset, began banging on the table and requested a “point of order.” When the Assembly president did not respond, Foreign Minister Rodríguez and the rest of the Cuban delegation approached the presiding officers and Waltz and demanded that he stop lying.

Following the protests, the Assembly president gave the floor to Rodríguez, who said that Waltz was “blatantly lying” and that his “attitude is disgraceful.” He further stated: “Mr. Waltz is lying again, and I wish him a better future in other roles, but at the United Nations and on the Security Council, his performance leaves much to be desired … He is undermining the dignity of the Cuban people and the Cuban government.”

💾

©

Beijing has vowed to defend its firms after Washington blocked imports from China’s leading genomics group, extending the two countries’ trade war into biotechnology weeks before their leaders are due to meet in Shenzhen. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday added three Shenzhen-based companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) […]

The post Pre-APEC US ban on Chinese genomic giant widens biotech decoupling appeared first on Asia Times.

Netanyahu sta dicendo a Trump che ora deve portare a termine l’opera di distruzione dell’Iran

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il «Grande Progetto» volto a «mantenere [la civiltà occidentale] al vertice del mondo» (come ha affermato il Segretario di Stato statunitense Marco Rubio) richiede che gli strumenti per garantire l’obbedienza siano di due tipi: La creazione di un fervore rivoluzionario distruttivo dal basso (oggi definito «cambio di regime»); e, in secondo luogo, l’uso di ciò che Theodore Herzl, in una famosa frase, definì «il terribile potere del denaro di esercitare una pressione irresistibile sulla politica internazionale», al fine di cooptare gli strati dominanti in una rete di potere che promuovesse il «progetto» del Grande Disegno.Questo è ciò che stiamo osservando nella guerra di Trump contro l’Iran.

L’attacco israelo-americano del giugno 2025 era principalmente un attacco di decapitazione volto a neutralizzare sia la leadership politica che quella militare dell’Iran, mentre elementi armati addestrati dal Mossad, il MEK e i separatisti baluchi tra gli altri sarebbero stati infiltrati in Iran per fomentare la rivoluzione dalla base. A quel tempo, il figlio dell’ex Scià – in modo poco plausibile – veniva presentato ai media occidentali come il futuro leader dell’Iran.

Non ha funzionato. E ora Netanyahu sta sostenendo che Israele disponga di «nuove prove» del fatto che l’Iran si stia orientando verso la produzione di un componente bellico nell’ambito del proprio programma nucleare. Sta dicendo a Trump che ora deve portare a termine l’opera di distruzione dell’Iran. E per motivare ulteriormente Trump, il principale quotidiano israeliano Ma’ariv riporta che Israele ha trasmesso direttamente alla Casa Bianca i sondaggi del Likud, secondo cui Netanyahu potrebbe vincere le elezioni israeliane del 27 ottobre. Secondo l’articolo, queste informazioni del Likud (che contraddicono la maggior parte degli altri sondaggi israeliani) hanno spinto Trump a esprimere il proprio pieno sostegno elettorale a Netanyahu.

Allo stesso tempo, i miliardari filosionisti stanno esercitando il «terribile potere del denaro» su Trump: «Non accetteremo nulla di meno della sconfitta dell’Iran. Se continuerà a cercare un accordo, le ritireremo il nostro sostegno finanziario».

Alti funzionari della sicurezza israeliani, sia in carica che in pensione, confutano tuttavia la necessità di un attacco imminente all’Iran e l’affermazione di Netanyahu relativa a nuove prove che l’Iran si stia muovendo verso l’arma nucleare –il Capo di Stato Maggiore delle Forze di Difesa Israeliane (IDF) Zamir ha dichiarato al Canale 13 israeliano: «Non vediamo la necessità di attaccare l’Iran prima delle elezioni»; Il principale stratega militare israeliano Udi Evental ha messo in guardia: «Una guerra per ostacolare le elezioni e la democrazia, non per ostacolare il programma nucleare dell’Iran. Netanyahu, che si sospetta sia immerso fino al collo in considerazioni politiche e personali estranee alla questione, non è idoneo a prendere una decisione del genere. Non glielo si deve permettere».

Che esistano o meno prove del genere non ha davvero importanza. Probabilmente non esistono. L’affermazione costituisce semplicemente il pretesto con cui si sta esortando gli Stati Uniti ad agire per ‘portare a termine l’opera’ contro l’Iran. Come sempre, Netanyahu ha dichiarato negli ultimi giorni: «L’Iran sta ancora una volta cercando di sviluppare le sue armi di morte… C’è un solo modo per eliminare questa minaccia una volta per tutte: rovesciare il regime in Iran, e questa è la mia direttiva all’IDF, al Mossad e alle agenzie di sicurezza».Un alto funzionario iraniano ha dichiarato a Drop Site che l’attuale valutazione dei servizi segreti interni di Teheran indica un’elevata probabilità che possano iniziare bombardamenti su larga scala – anche prima delle elezioni israeliane di martedì.

Il punto è che all’Iran non interessa chi vincerà le elezioni di medio termine, né chi conquisterà la presidenza degli Stati Uniti nel 2028. Per la leadership iraniana è tutto uguale. Comprendono bene il concetto del «Grande Disegno» (come potrebbero non farlo?).In Iran è ben chiaro che il Paese è impegnato in una lunga guerra contro l’intero blocco atlantista: Israele, i suoi servizi di intelligence, i suoi arsenali, i suoi satelliti, la sua industria militare e la sua macchina mediatica. Non importa se alla Casa Bianca ci sia un repubblicano o un democratico. Gli alti funzionari iraniani ritengono che entrambi i partiti siano stati comprati dal terribile potere sionista del denaro.

Comprendere il «Progetto» significa comprendere che la classe dei finanziatori sionisti non si accontenterà mai di un «accordo o compromesso». Essi sostengono con certezza che l’Iran alla fine verrebbe meno a qualsiasi acconsentimento ipotizzato alle richieste statunitensi. Gli israeliani e i loro alleati della classe dei finanziatori semplicemente non credono (e lo ripetono incessantemente) che l’Iran accetterebbe mai di sottomettersi a Israele, né di accettare il dominio politico e culturale degli Stati Uniti. Potrebbero avere ragione. Perché? Semplicemente perché l’Iran possiede una civiltà profonda, che affonda le sue radici in un complesso di credenze e pratiche specificamente persiano-iraniane risalenti al secondo millennio a.C.: il mazdeismo, una cosmologia del dramma divino, rappresentata dalla lotta continua tra Luce e Oscurità.

Il rinomato studioso, il professor Henri Corbin, ha sostenuto che «l’Iran era situato in una posizione centrale… non essendo solo una nazione o un impero, ma un universo spirituale». Egli concepiva quindi l’Iran come una forza mediatrice, sia geograficamente che metafisicamente.

Per millenni, gli iraniani hanno percepito il mondo come dotato di una chiara dimensione metafisica – e di una storia. È quindi improbabile che possano essere attratti da un atteggiamento materialistico e nichilista di stampo occidentale. Gli Stati civilizzatori, siano essi l’Iran o la Russia, che abbracciano valori contrari non soccomberebbero mai al «Grande Disegno». Di conseguenza, devono essere distrutti.

Cosa significa questa storia metafisica? Significa che l’Iran si sta preparando alla guerra, non a un «accordo». Mohsen Rezaei, segretario del Consiglio Supremo di Sicurezza Nazionale iraniano e rappresentante personale della Guida Suprema, l’Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, ha affermato che, «Se la domanda è se l’Iran abbia ancora la capacità di proseguire le operazioni con missili e droni [in caso di attacco], la risposta è “sì” … Gli Stati Uniti dispongono di risorse preziose nella regione. In caso di guerra, anche cavi, centri dati e strutture di intelligenza artificiale potrebbero rientrare nel raggio d’azione. Se il conflitto dovesse riprendere, avremo un piano più ampio». «Tutti devono comprendere che un’azione contro l’Iran comporta un costo».

Alti funzionari iraniani ritengono che la guerra sia imminente. L’Iran dispone di piani di ampia portata (in caso di attacco) che coinvolgono anche l’Arabia Saudita e la sua leadership, ha lasciato intendere un alto funzionario iraniano. Karl Miller (dal campo) afferma che, a questo proposito, un quarto della produzione petrolifera saudita è già stato distrutto e che i danni causati dagli attacchi di rappresaglia di AnsarAllah interessano l’intera catena produttiva saudita – «dalla testa di pozzo alla stazione di servizio» – e che l’Arabia Saudita sta colmando il deficit attingendo alle proprie riserve.

Il rapporto di Miller, citato da Larry Johnson, avverte che,«se i canali di esportazione dell’Arabia Saudita dovessero chiudersi, il suo petrolio non avrebbe altra destinazione se non le proprie raffinerie, le proprie centrali elettriche e i propri serbatoi di stoccaggio. Una volta che lo stoccaggio fosse pieno, si raggiungerebbe all’incirca il limite massimo di produzione che l’Arabia Saudita potrebbe mantenere. Se Ras Tanura e Yanbu venissero chiusi contemporaneamente, il Regno sarebbe costretto a chiudere la maggior parte dei propri giacimenti petroliferi. Questo è esattamente lo scenario che la campagna di Ansar Allah contro l’oleodotto, il Mar Rosso e i terminali del Golfo è volta a provocare». «Qualsiasi nuova campagna americana o israeliana contro l’Iran si abbatterà su un sistema energetico saudita che non dispone più di margini per assorbirla», osserva Larry Johnson.

Qualsiasi nuovo attacco all’Iran, per estensione, significherà la fine del Golfo così come lo conosciamo, la fine del petrodollaro e la fine del Golfo come principale fornitore di liquidità per Wall Street e il mondo della tecnologia.

Ciononostante, secondo quanto riferito, Trump avrebbe affermato che gli Stati Uniti non stanno attualmente negoziando con l’Iran e che qualcosa accadrà «molto presto».

Forse. (Ma con Trump tutto si riduce a speculazioni). Se però sta bluffando, non funzionerà, e la sua umiliazione sarà ancora più profonda.

Un uomo che conosce Trump meglio di molti altri (avendo scritto quattro libri su di lui), Michael Wolff, sostiene che se i Democratici vinceranno nelle elezioni di medio termine del 3 novembre –

«Cercheranno di far capire al mondo che è “un nuovo giorno”. Trump, dal canto suo, cercherà di far capire al mondo che è ancora lui a controllare la scena. Ci sarà una serie di eventi di questo tipo (come una presunta invasione di Cuba, ad esempio) di portata superiore a qualsiasi cosa possiamo immaginare. Non si mostrerà umile. Il concetto di umiltà non esiste nell’animo di Donald Trump. Pertanto, farà esattamente il contrario».

«Non ritirarsi, ma attaccare».

A líder da oposição venezuelana, María Corina Machado, afirmou nesta quinta-feira (29) que os Estados Unidos sugeriram que o país realize eleições presidenciais no próximo ano — um cronograma que ela já havia defendido anteriormente.

Essa foi a primeira declaração de peso de Machado desde que retornou ao país, no último fim de semana.

O retorno de Machado à Venezuela traz o risco de tensionar suas relações com a administração do presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, cuja gestão esteve envolvida na operação que resultou na captura do ditador Nicolás Maduro, em janeiro. Maduro enfrenta acusações nos EUA por tráfico de drogas e tortura — alegações que ele nega.

Leia Mais:

Washington declarou que Machado — que já foi indicada ao Prêmio Nobel da Paz — tem todo o direito de estar na Venezuela; contudo, Trump também elogiou a presidente interina, Delcy Rodríguez.

A administração Trump apoia negociações entre o governo de Rodríguez e grupos de oposição — das quais o movimento “Vente Venezuela”, de Machado, não participa — visando a uma reestruturação do Conselho Nacional Eleitoral e da Suprema Corte da Venezuela antes do próximo pleito.

Machado agradeceu a Trump e ao secretário de Estado dos EUA, Marco Rubio, pelo papel que desempenharam na destituição de Maduro, ressaltando que a relação entre os dois países baseia-se no respeito mútuo e atende aos interesses de ambas as nações.

“O secretário de Estado Marco Rubio estabeleceu uma sequência de etapas para avançar rumo a uma transição democrática, deixando claro que eleições presidenciais serão realizadas em 2027″, afirmou Machado, acrescentando que trabalhará para garantir que todos os venezuelanos aptos a votar possam exercer seu direito em qualquer eleição futura.

O Departamento de Estado dos EUA não respondeu prontamente a um pedido de comentário.

Anteriormente, Rubio havia manifestado a expectativa de que Machado apoiasse as negociações.

Em uma coletiva de imprensa em Caracas, Machado evitou responder a perguntas sobre declarações feitas por Trump — em janeiro, quando ele disse que ela não teria apoio suficiente para liderar a Venezuela de imediato; e nesta semana, quando sugeriu que a Venezuela poderia se tornar o 51º estado americano.

Há anos, Machado cultiva uma relação com Trump, tratando-o como um aliado.

A líder opositora acrescentou que viu com bons olhos o fato de Rodríguez — em declarações feitas mais cedo naquele dia — também ter defendido a realização de eleições.

Ela ressaltou que aqueles que auxiliarem o país em sua transição de volta à democracia precisarão de garantias. Machado defendeu a necessidade de um processo de justiça de transição, a criação de uma comissão da verdade e uma reestruturação das forças de segurança estatais.

Machado, de 59 anos, retornou à Venezuela no domingo (25), após várias tentativas frustradas ao longo deste ano. Ela foi impedida de concorrer na eleição de 2024, mas seu representante obteve uma vitória expressiva, segundo a contagem de votos apresentada pela oposição na ocasião. As instituições venezuelanas, contudo, apoiaram Maduro.

Alterações em contratos

A Venezuela precisa de contratos transparentes, licitações abertas para projetos públicos e arbitragem internacional, a fim de garantir que tanto os investidores quanto o povo venezuelano obtenham o máximo proveito de futuros investimentos, afirmou Machado.

O governo interino de Rodríguez firmou acordos com diversas empresas interessadas nos setores de petróleo, gás e mineração, com o apoio dos Estados Unidos. Entre eles, destaca-se um acordo entre a norte-americana Blue Energy Partners e o governo dos EUA para a exportação da produção proveniente de 17 campos venezuelanos.

Machado declarou que o contrato da NABEP (Blue Energy Partners) — ​​o qual ela não chegou a examinar — “evidentemente não reflete os níveis de transparência que a sociedade venezuelana deseja”, especialmente devido à figura do CEO da empresa, Alejandro Betancourt. Betancourt já foi alvo de investigações nos Estados Unidos, na Espanha e na Suíça — inclusive por lavagem de dinheiro —, embora nunca tenha sido formalmente denunciado.

“Quero enfatizar, para todos os investidores que hoje analisam a Venezuela, ou que entraram no país recentemente: todo contrato assinado legalmente será respeitado”, disse Machado, acrescentando que alguns contratos poderão ser “ajustados a novas condições que apresentaremos, as quais serão muito mais vantajosas”.

O país necessita de um acordo com o FMI (Fundo Monetário Internacional) para definir como administrará sua enorme carga de dívidas e atenderá às necessidades humanitárias urgentes, afirmou Machado.

Prisioneiros políticos

Machado — que viveu na clandestinidade por mais de um ano antes de deixar o país, período durante o qual muitos de seus colaboradores próximos foram detidos — ressaltou que a libertação dos prisioneiros políticos é fundamental para a restauração da democracia.

Há anos, a oposição venezuelana e grupos de defesa dos direitos humanos denunciam que o governo utiliza detenções para suprimir a dissidência. O governo, por sua vez, nega a existência de prisioneiros políticos.

Segundo a organização jurídica Foro Penal, 322 prisioneiros políticos encontram-se encarcerados na Venezuela; mais da metade deles sequer foi condenada. Cerca de 11 mil pessoas estão submetidas a outras restrições, como a prisão domiciliar.

A Foro Penal tem como foco garantir “a destruição do aparato repressivo” — especialmente no que diz respeito à nova alta corte —, a libertação imediata e integral de presos políticos, a revogação de leis repressivas e a criação de uma eventual comissão da verdade, afirmou à Reuters, nesta semana, o vice-presidente da organização, Gonzalo Himiob.

Rodríguez declarou, ainda nesta quinta-feira, que mais de 9 mil pessoas foram libertadas ou tiveram restrições legais removidas no âmbito de uma lei de anistia limitada.

Na segunda-feira (26), Machado visitou seu advogado, Perkins Rocha, que foi detido após a votação de 2024 e mantido por 18 meses no Helicoide, em Caracas — local onde, segundo defensores e ex-detentos, ocorrem atos de tortura. Rocha permanece em prisão domiciliar e teve seu pedido de anistia rejeitado.

Entenda por que os EUA estão interessados ​​no petróleo da Venezuela

A chegada de Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) aos Estados Unidos gerou forte repercussão no cenário político americano, tornando-se um instrumento de crítica dos democratas contra o presidente Donald Trump.

Congressistas apontaram uma contradição na postura da administração Trump: ao mesmo tempo em que nega asilo a refugiados de países em conflito, estenderia um “tapete vermelho” ao ex-candidato à presidência do Brasil.

Segundo a analista de Internacional da CNN Fernanda Magnotta, no CNN 360°, que acompanhou o desdobramento do caso de Nova York, mais de duas dezenas de páginas oficiais de autoridades no Congresso e no Senado dos Estados Unidos publicaram comentários sobre a decisão da administração Trump de acolher Flávio Bolsonaro.

A analista destacou que existe uma clara coordenação de comunicação entre os democratas, que utilizam o episódio para atacar o que chamam de política imigratória seletiva.

“Eles usam esse episódio para atacar a política imigratória de Trump e dizer que ela é uma política imigratória seletiva”, afirmou Fernanda Magnotta. Os democratas citaram exemplos como Sudão e Haiti, cujos cidadãos teriam solicitado apoio humanitário e refúgio nos Estados Unidos sem terem seus pedidos reconhecidos, mesmo em casos de comprovada violência e perseguição.

Timing favorável à narrativa democrata

O episódio ocorre em um momento particularmente delicado para Trump, a apenas uma semana das eleições de meio de mandato. Magnotta observou que, embora o dia pudesse ter sido menos problemático para o governo americano — dado que dados sobre o crescimento do PIB americano no trimestre vieram acima das projeções —, a boa notícia econômica acabou sendo ofuscada pela crise gerada pela acolhida ao brasileiro.

A analista ressaltou que a questão da imigração aparece nas pesquisas como o segundo elemento de maior sensibilidade para o eleitorado americano, e que o caso Flávio Bolsonaro abriu um novo capítulo nesse debate.

“O Brasil veio parar no coração da disputa eleitoral aqui, ainda que por razões instrumentais no momento-chave”, destacou Magnotta.

Reação republicana

Do lado republicano, a resposta foi de distanciamento do tema. Segundo Magnotta, as principais lideranças do partido tentaram desviar do assunto, sugerindo que ele ficasse em segundo plano.

Enquanto isso, os democratas não pararam de explorar a narrativa, questionando como um governo tão restritivo com imigrantes poderia oferecer acolhimento a um aliado que perdeu uma eleição e contesta seus resultados.

“Muita gente dizendo que o timing favoreceu a narrativa de acusação dos democratas”, concluiu a analista.

 

A recent New York Times article presents evidence that Alaska Democrats sought to confuse voters in that state's 2026 Senate election by introducing a second candidate with a name very similar to that of the Republican incumbent, thereby potentially siphoning off some of the latter's voters. The incumbent senator is named Dan S. Sullivan, while the other candidate is Dan J. Sullivan. As the Times reports, some of the facts here are disputable, and it is not entirely clear whether Democratic candidate Mary Peltola knew about this effort or approved of it. But it seems likely that at least some of her staffers and other Democratic operatives were involved.

Before going further, I should emphasize that this effort is worthy of condemnation. Trying to confuse voters into voting for the "wrong" candidate in this way is not how democratic political participation should work. And the fact that other politicians (including Republicans) engage in various electoral "dirty tricks" doesn't justify this one.

Elsewhere, I have explained why these kinds of actions are not illegal, and why the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block certification of the Alaska Senate result deserves to fail. I stand by that conclusion. Legal scholar Rick Hasen (a leading election law expert) has a helpful recent post explaining why the New York Times revelations do not change anything from a legal point of view. But the fact that this scheme is legal doesn't make it right.

That said, it is important to keep this issue in proper perspective, and especially to recognize that many other types of lies and efforts to exploit voter ignorance are much worse. Confusion caused by candidates with similar names is relatively rare, and it is difficult to find examples where it affected more than a small fraction of voters. I am not aware of even one case where it was decisive to the outcome of an election. But I welcome correction on that latter point.

The Alaska case is unlikely to be an exception to the above generalization. In the first round of the ranked-choice voting election (which narrows down the candidates to the top 4), only 2.5% of voters picked Dan J. Sullivan. Peltola led the incumbent senator by a much larger margin than that (8.1 points). Even if every single person who voted for Dan J. did so because of confusion (which is improbable), that's unlikely to change the result.

Moreover, the Alaska ranked-choice voting system reduces the risk of error. Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second. After the former gets eliminated, those votes get transferred to the latter. On top of that, as Michael Dorf points out, the Alaska ballot explicit indicates that Dan S. Sullivan is the "incumbent." That further reduces any potential confusion. The widespread publicity this issue has gotten over the last few weeks further reduces the risk of error. Many voters have probably now heard about the two Dan Sullivans and will be on guard against the problem.

It is still theoretically possible that confusion between the two Sullivans will end up having a decisive impact on the election. Some people who voted for Dan J. might not rank the other Sullivan second, or might misunderstand how the RCV system works. And some voters might (understandably) not be very careful about how they mark their ballots, thereby making a mistake despite the various safeguards against it. Still, it seems highly unlikely that such errors will have a decisive impact on the outcome.

Overall, this kind of a thing is relative molehill of a problem. Elections where it makes a decisive difference are likely to be extremely rare, at worst. By contrast, candidate lying about policy issues and exploitation of voter ignorance about them is a veritable mountain. I summarized some of the relevant evidence in an earlier post about the Alaska controversy:

Donald Trump is a particularly egregious example, going all the way back to his first campaign in 2016, and more recently with his lies about the 2020 election and other issues. But more conventional politicians also often resort to lies and deception, even if not to the same degree.  President Obama, for example, famously  lied when he claimed that, under the Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." That deception won the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year award. But it still helped Obama get reelected in 2012. I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care….

Ultimately, both exploitation of voter confusion about names and other deceptions used in campaigns seek to exploit widespread voter ignorance. Because of the combination of "rational ignorance" (lack of incentive to seek out political information) and "rational irrationality" (lack of incentive to engage in unbiased evaluation),  most voters know little about government and public policy, and often do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. This makes them vulnerable to deception and manipulation, and incentivizes politicians to lie and otherwise distort the truth.

I would add that lies and deceptions about policy issues affect vastly more voters and have vastly bigger impacts on electoral outcomes than confusion about candidates' names. To take just a few recent examples, Trump in 2016 and 2024 and Obama in 2012 probably could not have won without the former. If, in 2024, key swing voters had realized that Trump's policy agenda of tariffs and mass deportations was likely to raise prices (as it predictably went on to do) rather than lower them (as he promised to do), he likely would have lost. Polls showed that prices were the biggest issue in the election for key swing voters. Trump also might well have lost if GOP base voters realized he was lying about the 2020 election, among other issues. In 2012, Obama might have lost if swing voters realized that he was lying when said that, under his signature policy initiative (the Affordable Care Act), "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

Effective lies and deceptions about policy issues (often exploiting preexisting voter ignorance and bias, but also deliberately seeking to create more of it) are ubiquitous. And they very often affect electoral outcomes. Even when they don't change the outcome between the candidates who run, they often have an impact on the policies those candidates adopt in the first place. As described more fully in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, political parties and their strategists know most voters are ignorant, and often deliberately select policy agendas based on the likelihood of successfully exploiting that ignorance. The result is that even the lesser of the evils on offer in a given election (or the less egregious liars) are often still very bad.

From a moral point of view, I don't see any reason to believe lying about policy issues and exploiting voter ignorance about them is any worse than trying to trick voters into selecting the "wrong" candidate out of confusion. In practical terms, the former happens much more often than the latter, and has a far bigger effect).

Cornell law Prof. Michael Dorf recognizes that lies about policy issues are bad, but suggests that efforts to create confusion about candidate names are worse, because the latter are harder to combat with "counter-speech." I think the truth is the exact opposite. People can and do use counter-speech to oppose lies and deceptions about policy issues. But "rationally ignorant" voters will often ignore the counter-speech (not wanting to take the time and effort to study it) or reject evidence that goes against their preexisting biases. Many policy issues require considerable time and effort to understand well.

By contrast, it's much easier to find out there are two candidates with similar names in the election, and to take precautions against accidentally voting for the "wrong" one. Counter-speech to that effect need not be very complicated at all, or take a long time to understand.  In the Alaska case, for example, you just need to remember to vote for Dan S. rather than Dan J. or just know to vote for the one marked "incumbent." And figuring this out does not require going against any partisan or ideological biases.

As I have emphasized in previous writings about voter ignorance, I do not believe we can or should fight it by trying to punish politicians for their lies, or by censoring "misinformation." There is, in fact, no easy solution to the problem. But I assess a range of  options in my 2023 article on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance, and in Democracy and Political Ignorance. I believe the best approach is to make fewer decisions at the ballot box and more by "voting with your feet," where incentives to seek out information and evaluate it wisely are much better.  In the works linked above, I also argue that we should give consideration to simply paying voters to increase their knowledge levels (e.g. by establishing a "Voter Achievement Test" and offering rewards to high scorers). But I  recognize that any effective approach will take time, and there may be no one fix that is sufficient by itself.

The beginning of wisdom here is to recognize we have a wide-ranging problem of voter ignorance, and to prioritize the most significant types of ignorance and exploitation thereof. On that scale, ignorance about policy issues should rank high, while voter confusion about candidates' names is a very minor problem, by comparison.

UPDATE: I have made minor additions to this post.

The post Creating Voter Confusion About Candidates' Names is Bad - But Exploiting Voter Ignorance About Policy Issues is a Much Bigger Problem appeared first on Reason Magazine.

US President Donald Trump said that Vice President JD Vance’s outreach to Iran was about helping the country get medical supplies, after US media reported Vance had written to Tehran’s top security official to revive peace talks.

Iran has received a letter from Vance but it has not responded to it yet, the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Thursday, while adding that Tehran wants the US to meet its conditions and “any position that contradicts this framework is unacceptable.”

Also on Thursday, the US military’s senior officer overseeing the Middle East, Admiral Brad Cooper, met Trump at the White House to outline military options in Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials and other people with direct knowledge of the meeting.

Reuters could not immediately independently verify this report.

Vance sent the letter to Iranian Security Council chief Mohsen Rezaei in a bid to revive peace negotiations, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing US officials and people familiar with the matter. Reuters could not immediately verify the reports.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Vance sent the letter at Trump’s direction. When asked by reporters later on Wednesday if he directed Vance to reach out to Iran to restart peace negotiations, Trump said: “No.”

“What that is is they need help with medical supplies and various things. He (Vance) asked me what I thought. I said, if you want to do that, that’s okay. Basically, it’s getting supplies in to help people that are not well,” Trump told reporters.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter and Trump’s remark. Vance’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

TEHRAN’S CONDITIONS

Iran’s parliament speaker said on Thursday that Tehran’s conditions had been repeatedly and clearly communicated to mediators and that progress can only be achieved if Iran’s seven conditions are met.

The “carrot-and-stick approach has no effect on Iran,” Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf added.

Conditions Iran says must be met before it will reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz shipping route include, among other demands, lifting the US blockade on Iranian ports, lifting US sanctions on Iranian oil exports and ending hostilities on all regional fronts.

The United States and Israel launched a war against Iran at the end of February. The US has also since imposed a naval blockade on Iran to starve it of oil export revenue and escalated efforts to economically isolate Iran.

Iran has long blamed US sanctions for hindering civilian access to medical supplies.

In an August letter to the UN Security Council, Iran accused the US of intentionally depriving civilians “of access to food, medicines, medical equipment, energy and other necessities, with grave consequences for their rights to life, health, food and a decent standard of living.”

Qatari mediators presented Iran with a new draft deal on Sunday to end the war, but a senior Iranian official said Doha had only put forward unacceptable ideas that did not amount to an offer.

The war’s impact on global energy costs has also weighed on support for Republican candidates and hurt Trump’s approval ratings ahead of the US midterm elections that decide control of Congress. Trump’s Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress.

O presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, alegou que os dirigentes do Fed (Federal Reserve) não decidem por um corte nas taxas de juros porque “isso seria positivo” para o mandatário, ao discursar em um comício na Carolina do Sul, às vésperas da eleição americana de meio mandato.

“Hoje vimos dados que mostram que a economia está em expansão”, defendeu, em referência à leitura de aceleração do crescimento do PIB (Produto Interno Bruto) dos EUA no 3º trimestre.

Na ocasião, Trump disse que o número veio “muito acima” das expectativas. A primeira leitura do PIB mostrou expansão a 3,4%. Analistas consultados pela Broadcast (Sistema de notícias em tempo real do Grupo Estado) esperavam alta de 3,2%.

Já sobre geopolítica, o presidente americano voltou a dizer que a guerra contra o Irã acabará “muito, muito em breve”.

The United States has privately warned Middle Eastern allies to prepare for renewed military operations against Iran following the 3 November congressional elections, according to diplomatic sources. Although President Donald Trump has not authorised further strikes, the warnings have heightened concerns about regional escalation, energy infrastructure and the consequences for European economies already facing rising fuel costs.

American officials have advised several governments in the Middle East to prepare for possible new military strikes against Iran after next week’s US midterm elections, raising the prospect of another escalation in a conflict that has already disrupted international energy markets.

According to an Associated Press investigation published on 29 October, two diplomats familiar with the warnings said US officials had urged regional allies to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation against energy facilities and other critical infrastructure.

The diplomats emphasised that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision to resume military operations.

Nevertheless, Washington’s warnings suggest that preparations are being discussed for a potential campaign extending over several days.

Regional governments are concerned that retaliatory action by Iran or organisations aligned with Tehran could prolong the fighting beyond the duration initially envisaged by the United States.

The White House and American officials declined to comment on the reported communications.

Military Preparations and Political Timing

The warnings come as Trump approaches the final days of campaigning ahead of the 3 November elections.

The president has repeatedly suggested that further military action against Iran could follow the vote, although he has also claimed that the conflict may be approaching its conclusion.

During a campaign appearance in Texas, Trump said the war could end within weeks, while reiterating his insistence that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.

The timing of possible military action remains uncertain.

The Pentagon has increased its regional military presence, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and additional amphibious forces.

Approximately 9,000 military personnel were associated with the deployment announced in September.

However, the movement of forces does not establish that an attack has been authorised or that particular targets have been selected.

American military preparations can also serve as deterrence, signalling and contingency planning.

The distinction is important because the political consequences of renewed strikes would depend on their scale, objectives and Iranian response.

Tehran Maintains That Diplomacy Remains Possible

Iran has indicated that it remains willing to pursue negotiations.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 28 October that Tehran was continuing to consider diplomatic proposals and wanted elements of its earlier ceasefire initiative to form the basis for renewed discussions.

That proposal had previously been rejected by Washington.

The continuing disagreement concerns both the conditions for ending military operations and wider questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.

The United Arab Emirates has urged the parties to seek political solutions and avoid returning to large-scale fighting.

Regional governments face a particularly difficult position because they may be exposed to retaliation even when they are not directly involved in American military operations.

Energy facilities, airports, ports and other infrastructure could become targets during an escalation.

Such attacks would also affect civilian populations and commercial activity beyond the immediate combatants.

The Conflict Has Already Spread

The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel began in late February and has subsequently affected other parts of the Middle East.

Iran-aligned Houthi forces have carried out attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and airports, prompting retaliatory operations by a Saudi-led coalition against targets in Yemen.

These developments have complicated attempts to contain the conflict geographically.

The United States has not conducted a strike against Iran since early September, according to the reporting available on 29 October.

However, the absence of recent American attacks has not removed the risk of renewed operations.

Regional governments are therefore considering a range of possible developments, including limited strikes, a longer military campaign or retaliatory attacks preceding any American operation.

None of these scenarios should be treated as inevitable.

Europe Faces Another Energy Risk

For the European Union, a renewed confrontation would have implications extending well beyond diplomatic relations with Washington.

The Middle East remains a major source of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important to international energy shipping, connecting producers in the Persian Gulf with markets in Europe and Asia.

An increase in attacks on shipping, production facilities or export terminals could place further pressure on global energy prices.

The consequences would not necessarily be confined to countries purchasing oil or gas directly from the region.

European consumers compete in internationally connected markets, meaning supply disruptions can influence prices even where import arrangements have been diversified.

The EU has substantially reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since 2022, but growing reliance on liquefied natural gas creates exposure to fluctuations in international supply and demand.

A further Middle Eastern escalation could therefore complicate Europe’s efforts to rebuild gas reserves and contain industrial energy costs before winter.

Higher fuel prices would also affect transport, food production and household expenditure.

The Strategic Dilemma for European Governments

European governments must balance several interests.

They support efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain relations with the United States and preserve stability in the Middle East.

At the same time, they have a direct economic interest in avoiding prolonged disruption to maritime trade and energy production.

A new American military campaign could revive debates concerning the legality, necessity and proportionality of military action, particularly if diplomatic alternatives remain available.

European governments may also face decisions about the protection of their nationals, regional diplomatic missions and commercial shipping.

The immediate significance of Washington’s warnings lies in the possibility of renewed hostilities, not in confirmation that such hostilities have been ordered.

With the American elections approaching, governments across the Middle East and Europe are preparing for developments that remain contingent on decisions in Washington and Tehran.

Whether the warnings lead to military action or renewed diplomacy will determine the next phase of a conflict whose economic effects are already being felt far beyond the region.

Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaylianna Genier / US Navy / Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).

Democrats lead national polls as Trump and Obama campaign in key states six days before the US midterm elections. See their positions on Israel-Palestine...

Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) deve fazer a solicitação de residência permanente nos Estados Unidos “em algum momento”, e o pedido seria processado rapidamente pelo governo de Donald Trump, assim como ocorreu com Eduardo Bolsonaro, segundo o NYT (New York Times).

O green card, documento que deve ser solicitado por Flávio, permite que estrangeiros residam e trabalhem legalmente nos EUA por tempo indeterminado, desde que cumpram as regras da legislação migratória norte-americana.

Eduardo conseguiu o green card em julho deste ano, após mais de um ano esperando pelo atendimento da solicitação à administração federal.

Atualmente, o senador e sua família receberam do governo de Trump uma autorização condicional para permanecer nos Estados Unidos por até um ano. Assim, poderão ficar no país até outubro de 2027, pelo menos.

Essa permissão é concedida em casos específicos, incluindo casos de urgência humanitária.

Assessor de Trump providenciou jato em que Flávio fugiu

Ainda segundo o NYT, Jason Miller, um funcionário da área de comunicação da Casa Branca, providenciou o jato utilizado por Flávio Bolsonaro na fuga para os EUA.

O senador viajou na noite de terça-feira (27) com essa aeronave da Argentina para o Equador, onde foi feito o reabastecimento, e, então, para Miami, de acordo com uma fonte “a par da logística” dessa viagem ouvida pelo jornal americano.

Eduardo Bolsonaro manteve contato com o assessor de Donald Trump, ainda de acordo com o NYT. “O plano foi colocado em prática na segunda-feira, depois que o Sr. [Flávio] Bolsonaro foi orientado a entregar seus passaportes, informou a fonte”, pontua a reportagem.

Questionada sobre o assunto pela CNN Brasil, a Casa Branca redirecionou os questionamentos a Jason Miller. A CNN Brasil também entrou em contato com o Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos e com o assessor de Trump e aguarda retorno.

Trump diz que não vai se envolver

Na quarta-feira (28), Donald Trump confirmou que os Estados Unidos concederam a permissão para que Flávio entrasse no país.

Entretanto, quando foi perguntado por repórteres sobre a carta com teor golpista em que Flávio se autodeclarou “presidente eleito” do Brasil, o líder dos EUA afirmou que não comentaria o caso.

“Não vou me envolver. Foi uma eleição muito estranha, isso é certo”, acrescentou em outro momento.

Trump tem feito acusações, sem mostrar provas, de que a eleição brasileira pode ter sido fraudada. Autoridades do Brasil e de outros países, além de especialistas de órgãos independentes, atestaram a lisura da votação.

O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) foi reeleito no domingo (25) com vantagem de cerca de 4,4 milhões de votos sobre Flávio Bolsonaro. O petista recebeu 64,2 milhões de votos, contra 59,8 milhões do adversário.

A área internacional do Palácio do Planalto avalia que o governo brasileiro deve aguardar a situação envolvendo a fuga do senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) “decantar” antes de conceder o agrément ao indicado por Donald Trump à embaixada dos Estados Unidos no Brasil.

A avaliação é de que não faz sentido dar o aval diplomático ao republicano enquanto o presidente americano questionar o processo eleitoral no Brasil.

Além disso, o Planalto aguarda qual será a estratégia da Casa Branca em relação ao Brasil após o resultado das eleições de meio de mandato nos EUA, que vai definir a composição no Congresso local, se de maioria republicana ou democrata.

Leia Mais:

Até o momento, Donald Trump não parabenizou o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) pela vitória no domingo (25). Pelo contrário, nos últimos dias, o americano tem sugerido, sem apresentar provas, que a votação para a Presidência do Brasil teria sido fraudada. Mas destaca que gosta de Lula e que se dá bem com o petista.

O governo Lula decidiu não se manifestar oficialmente sobre a declaração do republicano, nem sobre uma suposta participação da Casa Branca na fuga de Flávio Bolsonaro.

Embora a avaliação no Planalto seja de “aguardar” conceder as cartas credenciais ao indicado de Trump, a avaliação sobre a concessão de agrément é de competência do Itamaraty, processo que corre sob sigilo.

Até antes do segundo turno das eleições, ainda sob duvidas de quem sairia o vencedor nas urnas, a equipe diplomática do Palácio do Planalto havia sido informada de que o Itamaraty não havia identificado, até o momento, nenhum indicativo que impeça o nome de Daniel Perez para exercer a função de embaixador no Brasil.

Com expectativa de que a concessão do aval poderia acontecer até o fim do ano, mesmo que o petista não vencesse as eleições para um próximo mandato.

Lula suspendeu a concessão de agréments até depois do segundo turno das eleições, o que acabou paralisando a autorização para países como o próprio Estados Unidos, Ucrânia e Síria.

EUA rebaixou visto da embaixadora brasileira

A área internacional do Palácio do Planalto sugere que o governo brasileiro deve condicionar a autorização de visto com livre trânsito a Daniel Perez, indicado pelos Estados Unidos a embaixador no Brasil, ao mesmo tratamento dado pela Casa Branca à embaixadora brasileira em Washington, Maria Luiza Viotti.

Em agosto, Viotti teve o visto de entradas múltiplas em território americano, prerrogativa de um embaixador, revogado. A medida foi tomada pelo Departamento de Estado americano, que equivale ao Ministério de Relações Exteriores no Brasil.

Na época, o secretário de Estado, Marco Rubio, alegou reciprocidade em razão de o governo brasileiro ainda não ter autorizado o novo embaixador americano no país.

 

Tankers, tracked by Greenpeace, are first phase of Trump-Putin deal – but there is uncertainty over whether they will unload

Seven oil tankers carrying an estimated 288,000 tonnes of Russian diesel are now sailing towards the US, though it is uncertain if the vessels will be able to unload amid a political row about the legality of the shipments.

The transport, tracked by the pressure group Greenpeace, is the first phase of a contentious supply deal negotiated between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin earlier this month, reversing years of sanctions on Russia oil.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

Tankers, tracked by Greenpeace, are first phase of Trump-Putin deal – but there is uncertainty over whether they will unload

Seven oil tankers carrying an estimated 288,000 tonnes of Russian diesel are now sailing towards the US, though it is uncertain if the vessels will be able to unload amid a political row about the legality of the shipments.

The transport, tracked by the pressure group Greenpeace, is the first phase of a contentious supply deal negotiated between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin earlier this month, reversing years of sanctions on Russia oil.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

Trois semaines après l'annonce d'un accord controversé avec Vladimir Poutine pour importer du diesel russe, Donald Trump n'a pas obtenu la baisse des prix promise. Le gazole a même légèrement augmenté aux États-Unis....

The midterm elections are just days away, and while anything can happen, the broad consensus among pollsters suggests a bad night for Republicans.

Hoping to shore up a victory for his party, President Donald Trump seized upon an idea: bribe the voters.

"If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump pledged in September, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."

According to Vice President J.D. Vance, this "dividend"—which would cost more than $1.3 trillion—would come from the "extraordinary amount of revenue" generated by Trump's tariffs. Of course, that math doesn't work: According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the U.S. took in just under $300 billion in tariff revenue between January 2025 and July 2026, not counting the amount it has had to refund after the Supreme Court found they were illegally imposed.

At that rate, it would take years of tariffs just to pay for Trump's dividend. Adding insult to injury, of course, is the fact that tariffs are paid by Americans, meaning we would be taxing ourselves to pay for our own disbursement.

But in the campaign season's closing days, Trump has made a number of other threats and offers, contingent on his party's success—a completely risible use of government power.

In September, three Ohio Republicans—Rep. Mike Turner and Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted—petitioned the president to build a planned Space Force training academy in their state.

"Every other state wants it," Trump said this month at an Ohio campaign rally. "If we win the midterms, Ohio will be very, very strongly considered."

Some of his pledges have been much more explicitly transactional.

On October 17, the Department of Defense—which Trump calls by its original name, the Department of War—announced a conditional $80 billion loan to pharmaceutical manufacturer Antheia. That same day, at a campaign rally in Kentucky, Trump made a pledge to the state's voters.

"If the Republicans win, the Department of War will be investing $100 million in the pharmaceutical company Antheia to revitalize a gigantic drug manufacturing facility in Winchester, Kentucky," he said. But he prefaced it by telling Rep. Andy Barr, the Republican running for the state's open Senate seat, "you have to win, Andy. Otherwise, forget it."

Days later in both Kansas and Iowa, Trump brought up E15, a gasoline blend that contains up to 15 percent ethanol derived from corn. It has advantages and disadvantages as an alternative to traditional gasoline, but it's a boon for corn-growing states.

"Normally, E15 is not allowed during the summer because warmer temperatures increase fuel evaporation and thus the formulation of ground ozone ('smog')," writes Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute.

The government can waive that restriction to address disruptions in the fuel supply, which it did in March amid gas price shocks related to Trump's war in Iran. The House passed a bill in May to make the waiver permanent and allow E15 to be sold year-round, which Trump backed in June; the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes a year-round E15 amendment, but Democrats have held up its passage.

"With Roger Marshall in the Senate," Trump told Kansans last week, "we will make year-round E15 permanent. But if [Democratic candidate] Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not doing it."

He then made the same pledge in Iowa, where Rep. Ashley Hinson is the Republican Senate nominee. "With Ashley in the Senate, we will make it year-round E15," Trump said. "We'll make it permanent."

Of course, it's nothing new for politicians to make big promises in exchange for your votes. Typically, they're all hollow to at least some degree.

And Trump's pledges do reflect some version of reality: Keeping the Senate in Republican hands will make it easier for him to do certain things. But some of his others have been downright indefensible, less like typical political bribery than outright extortion.

At a rally in North Carolina last month, he tied hurricane disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Senate candidate Michael Whatley's election.

"We spent more than $2 billion [in] FEMA funding," he told attendees. "You're waiting for some additional money…and I'm gonna get that to you, Michael. Now if Michael loses, I'm not sending it." He added right after, "I'm only kidding, you're gonna get it."

Other times, he didn't take it back: Trump appeared at a campaign rally in Georgia this week, stumping for Rep. Mike Collins to unseat Sen. Jon Ossoff, and part of his sales pitch was that if Ossoff wins, he may just ignore the state.

"President has a lot of power," he said, and there's "a big difference when he likes the people representing a state. Collins could call me anytime he wants." But if Ossoff wins, he added, he won't take the call, and he even narrated a hypothetical conversation to make his point: "'Tell him I'm not in.' 'But he needs money for Georgia.' 'I don't give a damn what he wants!'"

Also this week, Trump railed about the Senate race in Alaska, where Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan faces not only former Rep. Mary Peltola but a retired teacher also named Dan Sullivan. The New York Times reported this week that the Peltola campaign actively recruited the second Sullivan to run explicitly as a spoiler, to siphon votes away from the senator.

"I have delivered for Alaska at Historic Levels," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The Democrats are trying to steal this important Republican Seat and, if that happens, everything we've done for Alaska will come to an immediate hault [sic]."

It's one thing to say the federal government shouldn't provide aid to states—and since taking office, the administration has cut or paused such disbursements by $177 billion. Last week, the FEMA administrator indicated that going forward, states should expect to shoulder more of their own disaster aid.

But this goes much further, with the president explicitly conditioning aid on whether or not the state's voters have displeased him.

Perhaps, as in North Carolina, Trump was simply joking; the White House did not respond to Reason's request for clarification.

But there's certainly precedent to suggest he was serious.

"Last September, the Department of Energy (DOE) recommended cancellation of 624 grants for clean energy projects that had been approved by the Biden administration," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote in July. The government then "winnowed it down to 284 grants, all but one of which had been awarded to projects in states that were represented by Democrats in the U.S. Senate and had voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election."

In March, Politico reported that Trump had approved 89 percent of disaster aid requests from states with a Republican governor and two Republican senators but only 23 percent of requests from states with Democrats in those offices.

According to the Idle Rambling Substack, the trend continues: Trump has rejected nearly half of aid requests from Democrat-led states in this term while only rejecting 18 percent from Republican-led states.

But perhaps worst of all, he threatened not to pay out damages to people who suffered harm.

Between 1953 and 1987, the water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina was contaminated by leaks of fuel and dry cleaning chemicals. The government estimates that as many as 1 million people, both service members and their families, were exposed to toxic chemicals. The Department of Veterans Affairs officially recognizes eight diseases stemming from exposure, including multiple cancers and Parkinson's disease.

In 2022, Congress passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which waived any federal government claims of immunity and allowed veterans to sue over exposure to tainted water. As of September 2026, the Department of Justice says it has paid out more than $879 million, out of more than $1.1 billion in settlement offers.

"We're also fighting for our great veterans, and taking care of those veterans who brought claims related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune," Trump told North Carolina rallygoers last week. "And if we win the House and the Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible." But "if we don't win, there's no money. If we do win, you're getting it."

It should be clear by now that Trump values personal loyalty over all else. To that end, there is nothing he finds more disreputable than failing to do what he says.

In the closing days of this campaign season, he is making that more explicit than ever, tying his party's success in a state to whether the state is entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Trump was right that presidents have "a lot of power." He's also a living example of why they shouldn't.

The post Trump's Latest Attempt To Salvage the Midterms: Bribe and Extort the Voters appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state. Weber was skeptical—for good reason, it turned out. Three months later, the Trump administration reduced that estimate by nearly 90 percent, saying about 20,000 "likely noncitizens" had received California vote-by-mail ballots.

The Justice Department gave Weber and Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's top election official, 48 hours to determine whether any of the people on the government's list were in fact citizens. Otherwise, it said, Weber and Logan should segregate those ballots and refrain from processing them until citizenship could be verified. After Weber and Logan declined to comply with the Justice Department's demands, it asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring them to do so—a request that he rejected in a scathing opinion on Wednesday.

"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," writes U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve."

The Justice Department delivered its list of "likely noncitizens" to Logan three weeks before Election Day. At that point, Los Angeles County already had sent ballots to 5.9 million voters and processed 331,000 of them. Logan said he was "legally prohibited" from doing what the Justice Department wanted because it had failed to explain the methodology used to compile the list, raising the possibility that citizens would be denied their voting rights.

There was ample reason for that concern. On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin averred that "as many as" 15,903 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada. The following month, when the DHS submitted a list of allegedly illegal voters to Nevada election officials, the number had fallen to 185—99 percent lower than Mullin's original figure. It turned out that every one of those 185 voters was a U.S. citizen.

"DHS has identified over 250,000 potential non-citizens illegally registered to vote" in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Mullin said in July. He was echoing President Donald Trump, who for years has grossly exaggerated the extent of illegal voting by noncitizens, often in service of his own vanity.

Trump has repeatedly claimed, for example, that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for "the millions of people who voted illegally," and in January 2024 he warned that noncitizen voters "could very well affect the next election." In a speech the night before Mullin's announcement, Trump asserted that the DHS had "identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections."

Judging from Nevada's experience, the actual number may be closer to zero. It is hard to say, because the methods used by the DHS remain hazy.

In the California case, Carter says, the DHS "purchased a voter file that appeared to reflect 'the actual voter rolls in California, that as of August 2025, may be used for the 2026 federal election.'" It "then 'enhance[d]' the voter data through a 'reliable third-party data analytics'" and used records maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find "an internal USCIS immigration number" that "may" correspond to each registered voter. "The matches are scored," Carter notes, "because 'the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched.'"

The DHS "then compared the potential identity matches to Department of State and Social Security Administration data to screen out U.S. citizens," Carter adds. "In the next step, a confidence level was assigned (where a high score supported a 'strong identity link') and a manual review was conducted for each match to 'determine which registered voters'" were "likely to be aliens." Then came "a 'quality review' to identify issues such as 'duplicate entries' and 'incomplete records,'" followed by "an 'enrichment process' that utilized 'additional unique identifiers' to 'improv[e]' the matching process."

The government did not initially specify the source of the "reliable third-party data analytics." But it later revealed that "the third-party platform it relied on was
Lexis Nexis," Carter notes. "It remains unknown how Lexis Nexis performed its analysis, such as how it 'linked names to Social Security numbers not available on the California public voter file.' Plaintiff likewise did not explain what its 'enrichment process' entailed or how it occurred. Plaintiff also provided 'no error rates' or 'validation against a reliable benchmark' that would enable a determination of the accuracy of its findings. Omissions of this critical information prevent an evaluation of Plaintiff's procedure, including how Plaintiff reduced its initial claim of nearly 200,000 alleged noncitizens to 20,000 individuals."

Potential sources of error include conflating people with similar or identical names and outdated records that do not reflect recent naturalization. Because it is unclear how the DHS tried to address such problems, it is not surprising that Weber and Logan did not want to rely on the Trump administration's list, especially given its pattern of dramatically reducing the putative number of illegally registered voters.

"It is well-documented that matching voter registration records with data from other
administrative databases 'presents numerous challenges,'" Carter writes. And given the potential for error, he says, "Plaintiff's allegations are not credible." He adds that the TRO sought by the Justice Department "would likely lead to voter disenfranchisement" and "would create a significant administrative burden for Defendants, leading to chaos and upending the election."

In any event, Carter says, the Trump administration does not have legal standing to seek such an order. The government's main argument was that California officials, by refusing to segregate ballots from people on its list, were interfering with its enforcement of 18 USC 611, which makes it a misdemeanor for "any alien to vote" in a federal election.

"Defendants do not 'interfere' with the United States' ability to enforce Section 611 by
administering an ongoing election in accordance with established State and Federal law, rather than assuming new obligations pursuant to a federal criminal law they are not responsible for enforcing," Carter writes. It is well established that state officials have no obligation to enforce federal law, he notes, and that they cannot be "commandeered" to do so.

Nor does the federal government need such assistance to enforce Section 611. "The very same day the United States filed its TRO [application] in this Court, the Department of Justice brought charges against 28 individuals" in California under that law, Carter notes. It is not clear how many of those defendants, who represent 0.0001 percent of California's 23 million registered voters, actually cast ballots. But "if fraudulent voting occurs," Carter says, "the United States should uphold the law and bring additional Section 611 indictments against those non-citizens it believes actually voted illegally in the current—or a prior—election."

The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for conducting elections, subject to explicit limits imposed by Congress. But the Justice Department's actions in this case "are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials," Carter writes. The department "has filed at least thirty-one lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking complete voter rolls from the States. Out of the twenty-six decided cases, the DOJ has prevailed in precisely zero."

In addition to "its failed attempt to seek State voter rolls," Carter notes, "the United States has also requested that States act based on the Executive's own lists." But "sister district courts across the country have cast doubt" on the reliability of those lists for the same reasons that Carter cites in this case.

On October 23, the Justice Department "sent letters to every county in California requiring them to set aside the votes of alleged non-citizens," Carter notes. "The letters stated that election officials 'risk significant federal scrutiny' if they failed to comply with the Government's demands. The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which criminalizes aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense. The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop."

The post Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are 'Not Credible,' a Federal Judge Says in a Scathing Decision appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) utilizou um jato particular que foi providenciado por Jason Miller, um funcionário da área de comunicação da Casa Branca, na fuga para os Estados Unidos, segundo reportagem do NYT (The New York Times).

O senador viajou na noite de terça-feira (27) com essa aeronave da Argentina para o Equador, onde foi feito o reabastecimento, e, então, para Miami, de acordo com uma fonte “a par da logística” dessa viagem ouvida pelo jornal americano.

Eduardo Bolsonaro manteve contato com o assessor de Donald Trump, ainda de acordo com o NYT. “O plano foi colocado em prática na segunda-feira, depois que o Sr. [Flávio] Bolsonaro foi orientado a entregar seus passaportes, informou a fonte”, pontua a reportagem.

A CNN Brasil entrou em contato com o Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos, com a Casa Branca e com Jason Miller e aguarda retorno.

Governo Trump deve acelerar processo de green card de Flávio

Flávio Bolsonaro e sua família receberam do governo de Trump uma autorização condicional para permanecer nos Estados Unidos por até um ano. Assim, poderão ficar no país até outubro de 2027, pelo menos.

Essa permissão é concedida em casos específicos, incluindo casos de urgência humanitária.

Ainda de acordo com o NYT, Flávio Bolsonaro deve solicitar um green card “em algum momento”. O documento permite que estrangeiros residam e trabalhem legalmente nos EUA por tempo indeterminado, desde que cumpram as regras da legislação migratória norte-americana.

Esse pedido seria processado rapidamente pelo governo Trump, assim como ocorreu com Eduardo Bolsonaro, segundo a fonte ouvida pelo jornal.

Eduardo conseguiu o green card em julho deste ano, após mais de um ano esperando pelo atendimento da solicitação à administração federal.

Trump diz que não vai se envolver

Na quarta-feira (28), Donald Trump confirmou que os Estados Unidos concederam a permissão para que Flávio entrasse no país.

Entretanto, quando foi perguntado por repórteres sobre a carta com teor golpista em que Flávio se autodeclarou “presidente eleito” do Brasil, o líder dos EUA afirmou que não comentaria o caso.

“Não vou me envolver. Foi uma eleição muito estranha, isso é certo”, acrescentou em outro momento.

Trump tem feito acusações, sem mostrar provas, de que a eleição brasileira pode ter sido fraudada. Autoridades do Brasil e de outros países, além de especialistas de órgãos independentes, atestaram a lisura da votação.

O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) foi reeleito no domingo (25) com vantagem de cerca de 4,4 milhões de votos sobre Flávio Bolsonaro. O petista recebeu 64,2 milhões de votos, contra 59,8 milhões do adversário.

Tourist board responds with toilet humour after US president’s ‘shithouse country’ jibe over failure to win Nobel peace prize

Some might find it decidedly incommodious to be dumped on by Donald Trump as a “shithouse country”. Not the Norwegian tourist board, which chose instead to lift the lid on some of the nation’s loveliest lavatories.

“Are these the world’s best shit houses?” asked Visit Norway on its website, days after the US president vented his fury once more over failing to win the Nobel peace prize by describing Norway as a “shithouse country” at a rally on Sunday.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Visit Norway

© Photograph: Visit Norway

© Photograph: Visit Norway