Connect with us

AMERICA

Debates over a civil war in America: ‘The Disunited States of America’

Published

on

A fear of an internal conflict is rising in the United States, where almost 2 years are left until the next presidential elections. The divide between the Republicans and the Democrats in the country is moving towards a point of no return, both and among government institutions and among the people themselves. The Economist journal, which carried the issue over the cover of the week’s issue, took its place with the headline “The Disunited States of America”.

The ‘lurking danger of a civil war’ is widely spoken in the US, where the resonations of the bloody raid of Congress building, after the November 2020 presidential elections, are still heard. And the number of Americans who believe the country is facing the threat of a civil war and a nationwide disaccord, is growing by each day. According to poll results published by YouGov and The Economist, two out of every five American citizens think that a civil war is very likely over the next decade, while three out of every five American citizens expect an increase in political distress within the next few years. Also two thirds (66%) of the American population, believe that the political divisions in this country have gotten much worse since the beginning of 2021.

According to the Newsweek report, another poll by Quinnipiac University, the results of which were released last Wednesday, 67 percent of Americans believe that their democracy is in danger of collapsing. There is a 9 percent increase in this when compared to a similar poll also conducted by Quinnipiac University in January.

After the FBI raid on the residence of the former US President Donald Trump in Florida, the FBI and the US Department of Homeland Security issued a joint statement warning of internal threats that are named, such as a bomb attack on the FBI headquarters, or other internal threats such as a “civil war” or an “armed revolution”.

An expert on civil conflicts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Rachel Kleinfeld, told the Guardian: “Countries with democracies and governments as strong as America’s do not fall into civil war. But if our institutions weaken, the story could be different”.

A professor of political sciences at the University of California in San Diego Barbara F. Walter, who is also an expert in political violence, warned that the United States was heading towards a major uprising that could be a form of a civil war, saying all possible symptoms of a civil war are showing up in the country.

A loss of hope, trust and the sense of belonging within the general public

The Washington Post also took the matter of a ‘civil war’ possibility, by publishing an article with the headline “Is the United States headed for civil war?”. Stating that there are very different opinions on this issue, the article also explained that “the pervasive loss of trust, hope and sense of belonging in a severely damaged society”, is more dangerous than the sporadic bursts of violence. And it was emphasized that both sides in the civil war debate, agree on this social crisis.

This stressful atmosphere in the country was also felt in the speech broadcasted on live television, by the US President Joe Biden, who addressed his citizens behind a bulletproof glass protection in Pennsylvania. Blaming the Republicans for the growing political violence and divisions in the country, Biden said that his Republican rivals led by Trump, “pose a threat to this country’s democracy.”

Former President Trump on the other hand, described Joe Biden as an “enemy of the state” in his campaign speech also in Pennsylvania one day earlier. Trump, who accused Biden of using the FBI as a tool against him, called this investigation a “witch hunt” against himself and all Republicans.

‘Two different states of mind’

In the aforementioned article of The Economist magazine, which put the picture shown above on its cover, and is titled ‘The Disunited States Of America’, it is told that there is ” two very different states of mind” in the country, and examples from both Republican and Democrat extremes are given; “On August 25th California banned the sale of petrol-powered cars from 2035, a move that will reshape the car industry, reduce carbon emissions and strain the state’s electricity grid. On the same day in Texas a “trigger” law banned abortion from the moment of conception, without exceptions for rape or incest”.

The Article states that the struggles between the red (Republicans) or blue (Democrats) states are divisive, while these battles “all entrench the notion that red and blue America cannot rub along despite their differences”.

‘The political violence will only get worse’

The Economist article states that the biggest worry is that “partisanship could undermine American democracy itself”. It is also commented that there could be more debates and disagreements over the prosecution of the votes from some states to be overridden in November’s midterm elections, just as it did in 2020, and that the current political violence could be proliferated.

Call for more centralization

Asserting that this dysfunction of America also poses a risk to ‘the world order that depends on it’, the article defends the idea that the US federal government should stop neglecting its responsibilities and be more effective and take important decisions on a national level, rather than local. At the end of the article, voters are urged to “act responsibly” and choose what is already available, on the grounds that “alternative is ever greater disunion, and that does not lead anywhere good”.

Experts share the view that the two-party system in the US, has now become dysfunctional and has caused a tension in both the institutions and the general public, rather creating a competitiveness. And with the socio-economic problems in the country are surfacing, the political divide is increasing more than ever. While the urbanized coastlines are represented by the Democrats, the traditional countryside is represented by the Republicans. Political hostilities are rising towards each other, both on a state level and among the general public.

Polarization, extremism and radicalization…

The Washington-based think tank named Brookings Institution, which is another American institution that has raised the issue, has warned that the political violence issue must be taken seriously.

While the article states that America faces a dangerous polarization, extremism and radicalization today, the people see their political opponent as enemies, and many do not even trust the motives or actions of their opponent political leaders.

Stressing that the political violence has increased significantly, the article calls on the Department of Homeland Security to combat ‘domestic terrorism’, the FBI to ‘increase its enforcement actions’, the intelligence agencies to ‘be alert regarding possible foreign support of extremist groups’ and the social media companies to take their censorship further.

AMERICA

Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Signal chats about Yemen operation

Published

on

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to preserve chats conducted by senior officials via the Signal messaging app, including messages mistakenly shared with a reporter earlier this month concerning an imminent military operation in Yemen.

US District Judge James Boasberg issued the ruling on Thursday at the request of a transparency group that sued, alleging the app’s auto-delete function risked destroying the messages in violation of the Federal Records Act.

During a brief afternoon hearing, Justice Department lawyer Amber Richer told Boasberg such an order was unnecessary because the relevant agencies were already taking steps to preserve the records. However, she did not object to the judge reinforcing this with a court order.

“We are still in the process of working with the agencies to determine what records they have, but we are also working with the agencies to preserve the records they do possess,” Richer said.

However, the government lawyer appeared to acknowledge a court filing made earlier in the day by a Treasury Department official, which suggested that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent currently possesses only a portion of the message chain related to the Yemen strike.

The journalist added to the message chain, The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, reported that the chat began on March 11. Yet, Bessent only has messages starting from the afternoon of March 15. It remains unclear why Bessent failed to preserve the earlier messages or whether other senior officials in the chat retained them.

Richer stated to Boasberg, “I want to note that we are still determining what records the agencies possess.”

The Atlantic published parts of the messages earlier this week and the remainder on Wednesday after the White House stated it did not consider the exchanges classified, even though they described the scope and timeline of a military operation that had not yet occurred.

According to The Atlantic‘s report, national security adviser Mike Waltz, who initiated the exchange, had initially set the messages to auto-delete after one week but later changed the duration to four weeks.

Speaking from the bench, Boasberg ordered the defendants in the case—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—”to preserve all Signal communications between March 11 and March 15.”

This directive appears broader than just the messages shared with Goldberg; it could encompass other Signal messages sent or received by the officials during that period.

A Pentagon lawyer also submitted a written declaration stating the Defense Department was attempting to preserve these records as well but did not claim any records had been recovered. The administration suggested that The Atlantic‘s publication of the entire exchange, except for the redaction of a CIA officer’s name, ensured the messages’ preservation.

At the start of the hearing, Boasberg also responded to a social media post by President Donald Trump suggesting the judge had improperly gained control of the politically sensitive case.

Trump had called it “shameful” that the judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was handling multiple legal cases involving the White House in recent weeks. In addition to the Signal case, Boasberg is presiding over a case involving Trump’s efforts to rapidly deport people using the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg addressed the matter, stating he “understood some questions had been raised” about how the court assigns cases. He explained that for the 15 active judges serving on the court, cases are randomly assigned across various categories in nearly all instances “to ensure a more even distribution of cases.”

Clerks use an electronic deck of cards within each category to determine which judge receives a newly filed case.

“That is how it works, and that is how all cases continue to be assigned in this court,” said Boasberg, who has served as the court’s chief judge since 2023.

Continue Reading

AMERICA

US revokes visa of Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk

Published

on

Turkish student Rumeysa Ozturk, pursuing a doctorate at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, US, was detained on March 25.

Speaking about the incident, which gained attention in the US, Senator Marco Rubio confirmed that Ozturk’s visa had been canceled.

Rubio stated, “We gave you a visa to get an education; not to be a social activist who destroys our campuses. If you use your visa to do that, we will take your visa back. I encourage every country to do the same.”

The US Senator continued, “If you lie to get a visa, and then engage in this type of behavior after arriving here, we will cancel your visa. And when your visa is canceled, you are no longer legally in the US. Like any country, we have the right to deport you. It’s that simple.”

The Senator also announced that the visas of approximately 300 students had been similarly canceled.

Rubio asked, “It would be madness, even stupidity, for a country to let in people who say, ‘I’m going to go to your universities and start riots, occupy libraries, harass people.’ I don’t care what movement you are part of. Why should we accept that?”

Rubio said that individuals could carry out such actions “in their own countries, but not in the US.”

Last year, mass student protests occurred at many universities across the US to protest the administration’s support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

It is alleged that Ozturk, whose student visa was canceled, participated in “pro-Hamas” movements.

Rumeysa Ozturk’s lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, noted in a written statement to BBC Turkce that she was first able to speak with the young woman on the evening of March 27.

Referring to the moments of her client’s detention, the lawyer stated, “Nothing in this video indicates they were law enforcement officers or which agency they were from. This situation should deeply concern everyone.”

Khanbabai emphasized that Ozturk is a successful doctoral student at Tufts University on a Fulbright scholarship and stressed that the allegations of her being a Hamas supporter were “baseless.”

Video footage of Ozturk’s detention showed the doctoral student being surrounded by plainclothes officials on the street while heading to iftar.

The officials subsequently handcuffed Ozturk behind her back and led her to a vehicle.

In a written statement shared with BBC Turkce, Tufts University said, “We are in contact with the authorities. We hope Rumeysa will be given the opportunity to clear her name using her legal rights.”

Minister of Justice Yilmaz Tunc declared in his statement that he strongly condemned the detention, arguing the incident was “proof that there is no freedom of thought in so-called democratic countries and that human rights are not respected.”

CHP leader Ozgur Ozel also condemned the detention, stating in his post that “hundreds of students in Turkey arrested groundlessly and unscrupulously are experiencing the same victimization.”

Continue Reading

AMERICA

Trump announces 25% tariff on imported cars and parts

Published

on

US President Donald Trump announced that a 25% customs tariff will be applied to cars imported into the US.

Effective from April 2, the taxes also include car parts not produced in the US.

The President stated that the tariffs will be “permanent,” adding that there is nothing that would necessitate the removal of the import taxes.

Trump told reporters, “We will apply a 25% customs duty, but if you produce your car in the US, there is no customs duty. This means that many foreign car companies will be in a very good position because they have already established their facilities in the US.”

In a fact sheet released after Trump’s remarks in the Oval Office, the White House stated that car parts compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement would remain exempt from customs duties “until Customs and Border Protection establishes a process to apply customs duties to their content outside the US.”

The US International Trade Commission examined in early 2024 the potential consequences if the government implemented comprehensive automotive tariffs. According to the report, a 25% customs duty applied to all US car imports would reduce imports by approximately 74% and increase average car prices by 5%.

Although President Trump’s increase in customs duties on imported vehicles will primarily affect foreign automakers, domestic automakers General Motors and Ford will also face a significant impact.

According to research by Wards Automotive and Barclays, Volvo (13%), Mazda (19%), and Volkswagen (21%) produce the lowest share of their vehicles sold in the US within the country.

Hyundai-Kia (33%), Mercedes (43%), BMW (48%), and Toyota (48%) also produce less than half of the vehicles they sell in the US domestically.

According to the Department of Transportation, examples of significant 2025 models imported into the US include the Ford Maverick pickup, Chevrolet Blazer crossover, Hyundai Venue crossover, Nissan Sentra compact car, Porsche 911 sports car, and Toyota Prius hybrid.

Approximately 45% of vehicles sold in the US are imported, with the largest share originating from Mexico and Canada.

According to data from the American Automobile Labeling Act, every 2025 model year vehicle sources at least 20% of its content from countries outside the US and Canada.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey