Connect with us

America

Balances in 2024 and projections to 2025 for Latin America and the Caribbean

Avatar photo

Published

on

Analysing the most important issues that occurred in a region over an entire year, just like making a weather forecast for a trip that has not yet begun or is just beginning, is not only a challenge, it is a risk. We then assume this risky task with the certainty that many important things will be left out of this review. We also warn about the feasibility of the scenarios that may – or may not – materialize during 2025. Our intention is only to offer an approximation to some of the most notable events in the Political, Economic, Social and Security and Defense spheres in a rich and complex region: Latin America.

Political issues

2024 was the year in which the largest number of voters went to the polls in the world, and, indeed, the political agenda of 2024 in Latin America and the Caribbean, in general, and in Venezuela in particular, was marked by the presidential election. In addition to Venezuela (July 28), El Salvador (February 4), Paraná (May 5), Dominican Republic (May 19), Mexico (June 2), Uruguay (October 27 and November 24) celebrated general elections. In October, Brazil and Chile held municipal and regional elections.

Thus, at the end of 2024, the political map in South America has been made up of 6 of the 10 most important countries under the command of different “leftists”: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay and Venezuela. While the countries governed by the right and the extreme right are: Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru (the latter country began being left-wing, but, after the coup against Pedro Castillo, it turned to the right). It should be noted that we do not include in this list: Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, or French Guiana, countries and territories strongly subject to European neocolonialism and American imperialism, which is why their political influence is relative, in the region.

In the political sphere, without a doubt the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro is the greatest achievement for Venezuela, since – despite the constant attacks and coup attempts – the continuity of the political project begun at the end of the last century with the victory of President Hugo Chávez in December 1998, and the subsequent establishment of the Bolivarian Revolution, has remained standing, facing threats and emerging politically victorious. Maduro’s leadership has been reaffirmed in the presidential elections of July 28. Chavismo also has a majority in the Legislative Branch.

In Brazil, Lula’s government has shown its fragility both internally, by losing massively in the municipal elections, where the right was left in control of 13 of the 15 most important cities in the country, and externally, by not participating in the meeting of the BRICS, in Kazan, Russia, due to health problems, but above all, by not supporting Venezuela’s entry into the multilateral bloc. With these and other political positions, Lula demonstrated that he is not in a position to be “the older brother” of Venezuela or any country in South America, which is mostly progressive or left-wing, and although they are not totally anti-capitalist, they are anti-imperialist.

On the other hand, in Mexico, the MORENA Party made history again by electing a woman as president for the first time. In the June 2024 elections, Claudia Sheinbaum won with the largest number of votes in the country ‘s democratic history. In these elections, new representatives were also elected to integrate the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies and other federal and local authorities.  MORENA, together with allied parties, obtained the majority of positions and seats.

It is worth noting that Mexico plays a very important role in regional politics, given its influence on Central America, where the greatest political tensions occur in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. Furthermore, Mexico is now a political counterweight to the interests of the United States in South America, as well.

Argentina has played an opposite role for the region in 2024, since the arrival of Javier Milei has provided spaces and air for imperialist pretensions and for the resurgence of fascist, neo-fascist, even Naziist movements in the region, which come to support the idea of ​​white supremacy and Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), which Milei transformed into “Make Argentina Great Again.” Domestically, Milei has demonstrated his own political strength and has maintained with positive image and popular support. Proof of this is that, even without a parliamentary majority, the Argentine Congress approved laws and legislative powers, with which Milei has managed to apply his ultra-liberal government program delivered to the superpowers and their allies. The current Argentine president has strengthened, like no other government before, his alliance with the United States and Israel.

Another issue that has divided and challenged, in 2024, the Latin American left is the confrontation between Evo Morales and the current president of Bolivia, Luis Arce. At the end of October, the former president, coca grower leader and until then presidential candidate was attacked by Bolivian police and military, who made an attempt on his life. The Bolivian Justice has disqualified Morales from participating in the presidential elections of August-October 2025. With Evo out of the presidential race and Arce without popular support, the return of the right in Bolivia seems inevitable.

Economic matters

According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL), the economies of our region, during 2024, continue to be trapped in a trap from which they cannot escape: low capacity for growth. Latin America’s GDP growth this year was 2.2%, and 1% when the 2015-2024 decade is considered. This indicates a stagnation of GDP per capita, in some cases as a result of economic recession. Several of the strongest countries have faced different macroeconomic, fiscal and monetary challenges.

Brazil: In 2024 the South American giant suffered one of the largest devaluations of a monetary cone in the world. The Real, the Brazilian currency, lost between 25-30% of its value against the dollar. The trigger was the presentation and distrust of the fiscal adjustment proposed by the Lula administration. Despite Lulista’s economic policy called “National Consumerism” by its detractors, Brazil has one of the highest tax burdens in the world. In addition, the Brazilian government has not significantly increased the minimum wage, which will begin in 2025 at $250. According to several economic analysts, the real enemy of the Brazilian government is “the Brazilian government”, since what continues to rise is the operating expenses of the gigantic Brazilian public apparatus.

Mexico: The second largest economy in Latin America had a 3% devaluation of its currency in 2024, after learning of the victory of Donald Trump in the United States, who will formally assume the White House on January 20, 2025. The Mexican currency went from 16 to 20 pesos per dollar in one year. However, in just a few weeks, the Mexican peso has managed to stabilize. Meaning that, despite this slight devaluation, the Mexican currency remains strong against the dollar compared to other countries in the region. Mexico enjoys one of the lowest inflation rates in Latin America (5%) and one of the highest basic salaries (approximately $450).

Argentina: The first year of Javier Milei’s government has been a truly shock therapy for the Argentine economy. The ultra-liberal (anarcho-capitalist) left all prices of all goods and services to the discretion of the market, causing an increase in poverty levels, which exceeded 50% of the population, during the first half of 2024. The fall in the inflationary indices were mainly due to lower demand, that is, lower consumption capacity. Milei also eliminated protection barriers in favor of the international speculative market and began a process of privatization of state companies favoring international capital, which generated “trust” in the market in its management, and a reduction in the exchange gap between the dollar and the Argentine peso. The peso became “stronger” and Argentina more expensive. Finally, salary wages did not increase at the same rate. In November, an Argentine family needed an income of $1,000 to not be considered poor. The current minimum wage is $280, one of the lowest basic salaries in the region.

Venezuela: The country closes a positive year in economic matters, thanks to the increase in its oil production, which in several months of 2024 exceeded one million barrels per day (BPD). The Venezuelan government also managed to control inflation and sustainably maintain the reactivation of its economic apparatus. The salary issue continues to be a pending issue to be solved, since the announcement made on the 1st. May, (Workers’ Day in Venezuela and other countries in Latin America and the world), did not satisfy the working class that faces a dollarized economy daily. It is worth noting the economic line that Venezuela follows, with the holding in Caracas of the XXV World Forum on Special Economic Zones and the Transition to New Economic Models. This forum is a space specially designed to explore economic and financial investments with China.

At the multilateral level, this year saw the completion of the MERCOSUR-European Union Agreement. On December 6, in Montevideo, Uruguay, and after 25 years of negotiations, the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the European Union (EU) signed a Letter of Intent to reach a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a requirement prior to the Treaty, through which each Member State will establish which products will have their tariffs affected and which will not.

Social issues

Cyclical advances and setbacks have allowed inequality to continue to be a persistent problem in the region. The gap between rich and poor has widened, generating social and political tensions. Extreme poverty had increased with the pandemic to 13% and decreased to 10% in 2023, but is still above 8.5% in 2024. One in three households in the lowest income quintile lacks access to social protection, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL).

172 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean do not have sufficient income to cover their essential needs and, among them, 66 million cannot purchase a basic food basket, indicates the Social Panorama Report of Latin America and the Caribbean 2024.

In several Latin American countries, political instability is a recurring phenomenon. Internal conflicts, institutional crises and corruption are realities that have affected governability and democratic stability in the region. This phenomenon is increased by the conditions of economic slowdown in the region.

Latin America continues to be a region of origin, transit and destination of migrants and refugees. The economic, political and social crises, as well as economic conditions in countries such as Venezuela, Colombia, Nicaragua and Haiti, Costa Rica, Honduras and El Salvador, have caused a considerable migratory flow, generating tensions and challenges in terms of social inclusion and human rights. .

The increase in intraregional migration is largely driven by Venezuelan emigration. It is estimated that in June 2023 there were more than 6 million Venezuelan migrants and refugees in the region, living mainly in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile and Brazil. The improvement in Venezuela’s economy has led to a return of Venezuelan immigrants to the country. The Venezuelan government also has strengthened the program “Vuelta a la Patria” (Return to the Homeland) and the care of Venezuelan immigrants abroad. The Bolivarian government also created the Vice Ministry of Comprehensive Care for Migration, which depends on the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, and reinvigorated the Great Mission Return to the Homeland.

The effects of climate change are having a significant impact in Latin America, exacerbating the vulnerability of populations already affected by poverty and social exclusion. Droughts, floods and extreme weather events are affecting the food security, health and well-being of entire communities in the region.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic still persist, which has had a devastating impact on Latin America, both in terms of public health and the economy and social well-being. The health crisis has revealed the deficiencies of public health systems, the fragility of social protection networks and the vulnerability of the most disadvantaged sectors of the population.

National Security and Defense Issues

In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean did not see open conventional war conflicts. However, certain issues were present on the regional agenda that could have escalated into a war and threatened the security of the region:

Border tensions: Territorial disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica in the San Juan River region; the controversy over the delimitation of the maritime border between Chile and Peru; the tensions between Guatemala and Belize due to the territorial dispute over the territory of Belize; tensions between Argentina and Chile regarding the demarcation of the border in the Patagonia region; and the border dispute over the Essequibo between Venezuela and Guyana. They are all part of imperial interests for control of the natural resources of our region.

Internal conflicts: In Colombia, despite the peace processes signed with the FARC and the ELN, armed groups and tensions continue to exist in several Colombian regions; Political tensions in Venezuela have been a focus of conflict in recent years, after the application of unilateral coercive measures imposed by the US and European countries. This year Maduro suffered an attempted coup d’état, following the election results of July 28; the crisis in Haiti that has generated political and social instability, as well as a wave of violence in the country; and the attempted coup d’état in Bolivia, denounced by President Luis Arce.

Imperialist pretensions. Trump has expressed his interest in militarily invading Mexico and Panama. Fact that allows us to appreciate the interest of American dominance towards the region. In addition, he has promised to undertake stabilization actions against the economies of the countries Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela through unilateral coercive measures, the so-called “sanctions.” We remember that, respecting the principle of free sovereignty of States, in Public International Law no State is able to sanction another.

The Aragua Train (El Tren de Aragua). This transnational criminal organization has been the subject of regional security concerns, especially in the United States. Although it was created in Venezuela, in the state of Aragua, from which it takes its name, currently its area of ​​criminal activity occurs outside of Venezuela. Trump has blamed the “Aragua Train” for practically all crime in the United States. This has been difficult to prove and even to believe, but it can be presumed that it will be part of the Trump Administration’s Domestic Security Agenda.

Arms race. In 2024, the military policy of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean, in order to strengthen their National Defense policies, was oriented mainly towards the maritime and air areas. They strengthened their maritime military power, countries such as Chile, Mexico and Nicaragua worked on remodeling their naval fleet, while Guyana received an ocean patrol vessel from England. For their part, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay strengthened their air power with the purchase of CAZA brand aircraft; Honduras with the purchase of 6 Airbus H145 helicopters; and Costa Rica with the acquisition of two drones granted by the US. However, according to Statistica, the statistics portal for macro data from Spain, the countries that generate the greatest military spending in Latin America and the Caribbean are Brazil, Mexico, Colombia , Chile and Argentina.

Likewise, the political relations of the countries in the region in military matters during 2024 reflected agreements on Security and Defense between countries such as Mexico-Brazil, Argentina-El Salvador, Colombia-The United Nations Organization (UN). However, there was also the presence of relations with international actors outside the region with agreements between Trinidad and Tobago-United States, the talks for the Colombia-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreement and Argentina’s interest in joining NATO.

It is striking how there have been negotiations and military operations in countries that share a border with Venezuela, which receive or negotiate with external actors in the region that could encourage an invasion. Colombia negotiates its entry into NATO, which is a threat to the Security of Venezuela; Trinidad and Tobago signed a Security Agreement with the United States; and Guyana received a patrol vessel from England.

In the face of growing competition between the United States, Russia and China, Latin America and the Caribbean has once again become a strategic priority, as can be seen from recent documents from the current US administration, and from Trump’s own public pronouncements.

The greatest foreign military influence in the region is the United States, through its military bases, Joint Operations and the Southern Command. Then, there is Russia, which has supplied weapons and military equipment, as well as technical assistance for the maintenance and modernization of its defense systems to Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Argentina, among other countries. In third place is China, because its relations with the countries in the region are mainly economic.

In 2024, Latin America experienced a boom in the purchase of weapons. The new arms race, as part of the military industry, drives other competitions, for example, the space race and nuclear development. Regarding this last issue, President Milei announced that Argentina will build its IV Nuclear Power Plant, and that his country wishes to become a regional and world power in the development of nuclear energy.

To close the arms issue, we must keep in mind that the countries of the region sold sovereignty and bought military-technological dependence, by acquiring weapons and military equipment from the United States and Europe; since they have not bought the best and the most modern, but rather planes and weapons that are “left over” or are no longer used by the superpowers. It is also worth remembering that, since World War II, the Americans and Europeans have been historical allies, for Which in the event of any war would have no qualms about acting against Latin America and cutting off vital supplies, spare parts, equipment, etc.

Projections: What’s coming for 2025

In 2025, even with the arrival of reinforcements (Mexico and Uruguay), most left or center-left governments will face the challenge of strengthening themselves internally and externally to face the arrival of Donald Trump to the White House, on January 20.

It is likely that many of Trump’s threats will remain in the discursive or rhetorical order, however, the future is uncertain and the Republican may cause some surprises or scares, both in Latin America and in other regions. For now, the great beneficiary of Trump’s return is clearly Milei, or it should be, since the Argentine president has shown himself, from minute 1, determined to obey and flatter Trump, in alarming and outrageous measures. Let us remember that, while several Latin American leaders and presidents, including Lula, Petro, Boric and Cristina Fernández, expressed their support for the Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris; Milei, in the United States, openly supported Trump. This is something that the Republican leader will not easily forget.

In that sense, 2025 will find Latin America waiting for threats from Donald Trump, who has stated that he wants to invade Mexico, with the excuse of fighting drug trafficking, and Panama, to control the strategic canal.

In economic matters, CEPAL projects that in 2025, the region will not be able to escape the trap of low economic growth either. However, the region’s weakness is not only caused by an unfavorable economic context, but also by the persistence of a growing rejection of political parties and the traditional way of doing politics.

Latin American economies depend largely on the stability of their commercial exchange. In that sense, 2025 regional economies will depend on the health of the economy of their main trading partners: China and the United States mainly. China’s Ministry of Commerce, for example, has just launched an investigation into imported beef, especially from Brazil (40%) and Argentina (15%). Any trade measure by China will impact these latin american economies.

MERCOSUR-European Union Agreement. It is still early to know where this bicontinental agreement will lead. It should be considered that, as we previously mentioned, Latin America has been experiencing a process of economic slowdown; many of its countries already have fiscal policies of market opening to encourage foreign investment, but nothing of that has helped. Thus, it seems that the low economic capacity for European investment in MERCOSUR does not ensure the economic growth of the active member countries of the South American bloc.

In short, 2025 is projected as a year in which the correlation of forces in Latin America and the Caribbean will continue to be favorable to the right and the extreme right.

Latin American integration will continue to be an issue to work on, given that the political scenario will be under the strong influence of the United States government. Countries in the region will experience pressure from foreign powers due to the current international dynamics, where there are two power blocs: China, Russia and allies, on the one hand, and the United States, the European Union and allies, on the other.

The open wounds between Venezuela, Brazil and Colombia can begin to heal, if the United States pressures these three countries at the same time. However, the positions of Brazil and Colombia with respect to the United States do not seem to want to confront the North American country.

The developing regional conflicts, for example the Bolivian case, do not seem to be decreasing in intensity. In any case, we must be alert to the continuous imperialist attacks against Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Trump has already threatened to stop buying Venezuelan oil and to increase unilateral coercive measures.

It is even likely that the North American president, Donal Trump, will serve as a platform to validate a parallel government by recognizing Edmundo González Urrutia as president of Venezuela.

Conclusions

Any analysis of our region must be done with the understanding that, like other regions of the world, Latin America is in the middle or crossed by the fight for global hegemony between the United States and China. The growing presence of the Asian giant in the most precious area of ​​influence for the United States, wrongly called by Americans “backyard,” is undoubtedly an element that adds greater political tension to the region.

At the political level, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela continue to set anti-imperialist guidelines and, for this reason, are the main focus of attacks by the United States and its allies. Specially Venezuela, which as soon as Maduro was re-elected, had to face a coup d’état and questions about the electoral process of Latin American leaders and countries that were supposed to be allies and that when there were doubts about the electoral processes in their countries, they received recognition of Venezuela, immediately and without giving rise to destabilizing attempts.

We can particularly mention the painful role (painful for the left) played by Lula in Brazil; Cristina Fernandez in Argentina; Gustavo Petro in Colombia; Gabriel Boric in Chile; all supposedly consider themselves leftist. It seems that they, and other “left” leaders, have not become aware that only the unity of the people and governments in the face of imperialism will make us strong as a region and as States.

And that joining media trends, or even Fake-News, only makes themselves and their progressive or “left-wing” proposals weaker. Once again we mention Lula as an example of this, since his refusal to approve Venezuela’s entry into the BRICS caused him to be rejected by the majority of the progressive and left-wing sectors of Brazilian society, as well as the largest social movement in Brazil and Latin America: the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST).

In another order, although there are political and economic tensions that have represented dangers to the Security and Defense of the region, for example, due to the increase in irregular migration, crime and regional arms race; Without a doubt, the role of the Argentine president, Javier Milei, in opening the doors of the United States, the United Kingdom and even the NATO, represents an unprecedented threat to Latin America.

Finally, the influence and interference that the Trump Administration may cause in and against Latin America is indeed a great uncertainty. In part it will depend on how other world conflicts develop and the role that the United States, China, Russia, Turkey, Israel, and others, want and can play in them. For all this, in the face of the global disorder that prevails in the world today, Venezuela will always call for the solidarity of the people and will insist on Latin American and Caribbean unity.

America

The system that needed Lindsey Graham

Published

on

Thomas Karat, behavior analyst

The senator died Saturday night of an aortic dissection, at seventy-one, in the middle of a campaign for a fifth term. His communications director cited the medical examiner’s preliminary finding: a rupture in the body’s largest artery, the consequence of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The tributes arrived within hours. Trump called him a true American patriot. Volodymyr Zelensky, who had met him twice in the preceding week, called him a friend who was there when it was needed most. Mark Rutte and Benjamin Netanyahu sent their own. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said there were no words to describe Graham’s impact on the foreign and domestic policy of the United States.

There are words. The obituaries have chosen the wrong ones, and in doing so they have skipped the only question worth asking about a man like this. Not whether he was sincere in his convictions — he was, exhaustingly so — but how a senator whose reflexive answer to every foreign crisis was force spent twenty-three years being handed the committee seats, the airtime, and the ear of four presidents that let him act on it. Graham was not an aberration the system tolerated. He was a product the system manufactured, promoted, and kept in stock because he was useful.

Consider the shape of the career. In March 2003, as the bombs fell on Baghdad, Graham told the country that past disagreements should give way to a shared commitment to see the effort through. The war he blessed that day killed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians by the most conservative direct-death counts, birthed the insurgency that became ISIS, and left the country a wreck. He drew no lesson from it. When Libya was broken open in 2011 and left to its warlords, he had backed the intervention. When Syria was pulled apart, he had wanted deeper involvement. Across two decades, the country would be devastated, and Graham’s response to each devastation was to locate the next one.

By February of this year the next one was Iran. On the twenty-sixth, under his own Senate letterhead, Graham published an essay that reads now like a confession left in plain sight. Iran, he wrote, was facing a Berlin Wall moment. The regime was at its weakest point since 1979, and his ultimate hope was that regime change would be achieved. He described the October 7 attacks, in his own phrasing — as a silver lining, because the Israeli campaign that followed had degraded Iran’s military. He praised Trump for pursuing, in his words, peace, not war, in the same paragraphs that celebrated a bombing campaign already under way. The strikes had a name: Operation Midnight Hammer. Graham called it the largest opportunity for peace and prosperity in the Middle East in over a thousand years.

He said the quiet part in Tel Aviv, to reporters, on February 16, less than two weeks before the strikes began. The United States was on the verge of eliminating the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the region. On Fox News, days into the war, he offered the ledger in its rawest form: when the regime goes down, he said, there would be a new Middle East, and the United States would make a tremendous amount of money. Venezuela and Iran held nearly a third of the world’s known oil reserves, he noted, and the point of the exercise was a partnership with those reserves. Regime change as a real-estate transaction. He had made the trip to Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia the week before to reaffirm, he wrote, that all of it was attainable and would be extremely beneficial to the United States. Weeks earlier he had met with Mossad, telling reporters they would tell him things his own government would not.

None of this cost him anything. That is the part the eulogies cannot hold in view, because to hold it in view is to indict the institutions doing the eulogizing. A senator who spent a career being wrong about the consequences of American force — wrong about Iraq, wrong about Libya, wrong about what would follow the fall of every regime he wanted to fall — was never demoted for it. He was promoted. The record of his committee assignments tells the story in the driest possible language. For years he sat on the Armed Services Committee, from which he lectured the Senate that its love for the troops bought nothing, that only appropriations did, that a colleague worried about the budget was out of touch with the world. By the time of his death he chaired the Budget Committee and sat on Appropriations — the panels that write the numbers and bless the spending. The man who wanted every war was placed, again and again, on the committees that pay for them.

Follow the money and the shape sharpens further. Graham’s donors, across a career documented in Federal Election Commission filings, clustered where his positions pointed. The defense contractors — the makers of the aircraft, the missiles, the systems — routed money to his committees and his leadership PACs. The specific career totals sit behind a paywall that blocks automated verification, and so no single figure belongs in this account. But the pattern needs no exact number to be legible. A senator who votes for every weapons system, who calls insufficient defense spending an emergency, who treats the reduction of the military budget as a moral failure, is a senator worth funding for the people who build the weapons. The contributions were not a bribe. They did not need to be. They were an investment in a man who already believed, and who sat where belief could be converted into contracts.

The media completed the machine. Graham was a fixture of the Sunday shows and the cable green rooms for a reason that had nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with format. He was quotable, available, and reliably hawkish, which made him the perfect guest for programs that reward certainty over accuracy and confrontation over reflection. The pipeline ran in both directions. The airtime made him a national figure, and being a national figure got him more airtime, and the whole apparatus rewarded the escalation it claimed only to be covering. When he called for bombing Iran regardless of Iran’s involvement in a given attack, and told Israel to finish the job, the remarks drew condemnation abroad and bookings at home. The market for a war hawk was deep, and he supplied it.

What made Graham durable was that his convictions never had to survive an election of ideas, only the tolerance of the institutions that housed them. He denounced Trump in 2015 as a race-baiting xenophobic bigot and a jackass, and by his second term was among the president’s most consistent defenders, having discovered that proximity to power mattered more than the content of the man wielding it. The pitch that helped start this year’s war was delivered, according to reporting on the strikes, over rounds of golf. Iran was a spoiler for everything Trump wanted, Graham told him; collapse the regime and it would be Berlin Wall stuff. The president was persuaded. The bombs fell. And when a reporter asked Graham what the plan was for the day after — the question that Iraq should have burned into every hawk in Washington — he answered that it was not his job to know. The future of Iran, he said, was for the Iranian people to determine. He had wanted the war. The consequences belonged to someone else.

That was always the arrangement. The wars were his to advocate and never his to own. He would appear on the morning shows to demand them, sit on the committees to fund them, take the money from the firms that profited from them, and when they curdled into the next disaster he would be on television again, demanding the next one, his authority somehow enhanced rather than diminished by the wreckage behind him. This is not the biography of an outlier. It is the biography of an incentive structure, wearing a man’s face.

He died with the seat already in motion. Within hours, before any burial, the reporting had turned to the scramble to replace him, to the governor who will name a temporary successor, to what his absence means for a Republican majority counting every vote. Trump told NBC he already had someone in mind. The machine that made Lindsey Graham did not pause to mourn him. It began, immediately, to fill the vacancy — because the position he occupied was never really about the man. It was about keeping the seat filled by someone who would say what he said. There is no shortage of applicants. That is the dread the eulogies are built to keep you from feeling. He is gone, and nothing that produced him has changed.

***

Thomas Karat has spent a career in multinational technology corporations and is a behavior analyst holding a Master’s in Science and Communication from Manchester Metropolitan University. His work focuses on the psychology of language in power dynamics, and his graduate thesis examined linguistic deception markers in high-stakes business negotiations. He hosts a YT podcast, SaltCubeAnalytics, and publishes at karat.substack.com

Continue Reading

America

Trump financial disclosures show millions invested in major defense contractors, analysis reveals

Published

on

US President Donald Trump’s financial disclosures released last week reveal that he has invested millions of dollars in approximately a dozen companies, including weapons manufacturers and defense contractors, according to a news analysis by Responsible Statecraft. The analysis shows that Trump, through investment firms representing him, acquired shares in defense sector companies valued at a total of between $9.7 million and $24.3 million.

The companies receiving investment included Palantir, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics.

According to the financial disclosures, the investment firms managing Trump’s assets invested between $1.6 million and $3.9 million in the data analytics and artificial intelligence company Palantir.

The analysis noted that Palantir developed the AI-powered Maven Smart System, which is utilized in US military operations in the war with Iran. The same analysis also claimed that the company contributed to the development of software named “Big Daddy,” which is used in Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Trump’s portfolio also includes shares in Boeing. The analysis stated that Boeing sold F-15 fighter jets valued at $8.6 billion to Israel less than three months before Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initiated their joint war against Iran.

According to the financial disclosures, Trump also invested in GE Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and RTX, the manufacturer of Tomahawk missiles.

The analysis wrote that weapons produced by these companies were heavily used in the war with Iran, including Tomahawk missiles used in a US Air Force strike on a primary school in the Iranian city of Minab. The report stated that at least 168 children lost their lives in this attack.

According to Responsible Statecraft, the majority of these companies received new contracts from the Pentagon aimed at replenishing US missile stockpiles depleted during the war with Iran.

RTX signed a $373 million contract for 23 Standard Missile-3 IB interceptor missiles, while Lockheed Martin was reported to have secured a $35 billion contract intended to quadruple its production of the THAAD missile defense system.

The financial disclosures showed that Trump’s investment firms also invested in shares of Kratos Defense, Honeywell, Howmet Aerospace, L3Harris, and TransDigm.

Responsible Statecraft noted that the shares of these companies gained significant value within a year of Trump returning to office. According to the analysis, in 2025, Palantir shares rose by 135%, Kratos shares by 188%, GE Aerospace shares by 84%, and RTX shares by 61%.

In April, Trump posted on Truth Social, stating: “Palantir Technologies has proven to have very powerful capabilities and equipment on the battlefield. Ask our enemies!” Following the post, the company’s shares reportedly rose by approximately 3% within a few minutes.

Financial records showed that Trump generated more than $2 billion in income in 2025. Responsible Statecraft wrote that this amount is “unprecedented” for a sitting US president.

According to the report, the majority of this income was derived from investments linked to cryptocurrency companies such as World Liberty Financial and Binance. Trump reportedly earned hundreds of millions of dollars from “memecoins” launched through these companies, though these crypto assets later suffered sharp declines in value, resulting in losses for numerous investors.

The analysis stated that Tahnoun bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the UAE National Security Advisor and brother of the UAE President and Foreign Minister, invested $500 million in World Liberty Financial and $2 billion in Binance. Trump subsequently approved the export of advanced AI chips to the UAE, a decision that the analysis indicated created the impression of being linked to the crypto investments.

According to the analysis, Donald Trump Jr. is also connected to companies operating in the unmanned aerial vehicle and defense technology sectors. Trump Jr. is a major shareholder and advisory board member at Unusual Machines, which manufactures drone components, while his investment firm also holds stakes in Powerus and Vulcan Elements, both of which hold Pentagon contracts.

Trump Jr. serves on the board of Powerus, which markets drone systems used to intercept Iranian missiles to Gulf countries, and Eric Trump is reported to hold a financial interest in the same company.

Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, evaluated the situation, saying: “These countries are under great pressure to buy from the president’s sons. In this way, the president will do what they want.”

When asked last year about potential conflicts of interest arising from Trump’s business activities, White House Spokesperson Anna Kelly responded: “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump also acknowledged the existence of conflicts of interest in an interview with the New York Times earlier this year, but argued they were not important, saying: “I realized that nobody cares.”

Continue Reading

America

US Democrats split over proposed data center moratoriums amid rising energy and climate concerns

Published

on

Democrats in the United States increasingly view the rapid expansion of data centers as a critical challenge, yet the party remains deeply divided over how to address the issue.

For many Democrats, the immense energy consumption of these facilities—which drives up household electricity bills and exacerbates climate change—makes some form of restriction an inevitable policy option. The growing public unpopularity of these centers raises the political stakes for Democrats, who are seeking solutions to protect their prospects in this year’s midterm elections on promises of lowering the cost of living.

Last month, Representative Frank Pallone Jr., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called for a moratorium on data center construction. However, senior party leadership has shown little enthusiasm for the proposal.

These internal divisions are also playing out at the state level, where at least two Democratic-controlled legislatures have passed data center moratoriums. One of those measures was vetoed, while the other is currently awaiting the governor’s signature.

Support for restricting data centers does not align strictly along traditional ideological lines. A faction of anti-establishment Republicans has backed such efforts, while other members of the Republican Party continue to debate how, or even if, to regulate the massive server farms powering the artificial intelligence boom.

In Congress, Democratic leaders have repeatedly argued that data centers must pay their fair share of rising energy costs.

Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that Democrats would push for “strong, enforceable consumer protections.”

Similarly, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed support for technological innovation while emphasizing, “We must ensure we are protecting the American consumer.”

However, neither leader has endorsed a specific legislative proposal to achieve these objectives. Requests for comment sent to the offices of Schumer and Jeffries went unanswered.

Jeffries also told Politico that halting data center development is “certainly not a position I am articulating at this time.”

In contrast, influential progressive figures, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, argue that a total moratorium on data center construction is necessary.

In March, these lawmakers introduced legislation that would ban the construction of new data centers until Congress enacts a suite of AI safety measures, ranging from government audits of AI models to protections against mass layoffs.

Pallone voiced strong support for the concept last month during a subcommittee hearing on a separate data center bill, stating he favored “a national AI data center moratorium until we can figure out a way that this is not going to harm our nation’s air, water, and utility bills.”

Following his remarks, Pallone added: “The reality is that everything with these data centers is moving so quickly, and I am concerned about the impact on electricity consumers and the environment.”

The Data Center Coalition, an industry group backed by several major technology companies, argued that a national moratorium would deter investment in the US, damage the economy, and “send the wrong message to other industries.”

“A federal mandate to halt data center construction risks restricting access to cloud and digital services, undermines our global competitiveness, and would have significant consequences for Americans’ daily lives,” the group said in a statement in late June.

Maxwell Shulman, a policy research analyst at Beacon Policy Advisors, suggested that the primary force driving the recent push for moratoriums is a “general hostility toward AI and Big Tech.”

“People see many of these changes. They are worried about AI. They are worried about the economy and their jobs, and they feel there is very little they can do about it,” Shulman said. “They view data centers not only as the physical embodiment of AI, but also as one of the rare areas where they can actually have a say or fight back.”

Shulman added: “I think moratoriums are a blunt but effective tool to demonstrate this opposition or concern toward AI in general, not just data centers.”

Meanwhile, a narrower, bipartisan bill has been gaining momentum in Congress.

The Electricity Consumers Protection Act, led by Representative Kathy Castor, a Democrat, and Representative Gabe Evans, a Republican, would require state utility regulators to establish rules ensuring that ordinary Americans do not foot the bill for new power generation and transmission lines built to support high-load consumers like data centers.

The bill passed the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in late June and is scheduled for consideration by the full committee.

Castor said Congress should begin by establishing regulatory safeguards, though she did not rule out supporting a construction halt in the future.

“People want guardrails. They do not want their electricity bills to go up, and they are worried about water,” Castor said last month.

When asked about her stance on a moratorium, Castor added: “If we reach a point where these guardrails are not put in place and companies simply ignore them, we will have to move to that stage.”

At the state level, Democratic governors have blocked or slowed legislative efforts to limit data center expansion. In Maine, the legislature passed a bill to ban new data center construction for 18 months, but Governor Janet Mills vetoed the measure because it did not exempt an ongoing $550 million project.

New York lawmakers passed a one-year data center moratorium in June, which is currently awaiting action from Governor Kathy Hochul. According to a report by Politico, Hochul is instead considering an executive order for a shorter, six-month halt.

Other Democratic governors have actively opposed data center moratoriums.

“Walking away from a technology that will continue to propagate is leaving the table,” Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat from Virginia, told Politico this week.

In California, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required planned data centers to estimate their water usage.

As broad moratoriums encounter resistance, state-level Democratic leaders are turning to more targeted solutions, such as reassessing data center tax credits. In Illinois, Democratic Governor JB Pritzker announced in June that the state would suspend its tax incentives for data centers due to energy and water concerns.

Some Republicans have adopted a similar approach. In May, Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine instructed state officials to temporarily halt the evaluation of new tax exemption requests while lawmakers review data center growth in the state.

In Virginia, lawmakers kept data center tax incentives intact after prolonged budget debates that forced a special legislative session. Spanberger instead supported the introduction of a new tax on electricity consumption.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed legislation this week that places data centers into a separate category of electricity consumers. The governor’s office stated that the measure will ensure data centers pay for their own energy use and the associated infrastructure.

Commenting on the dynamics facing state leaders, Shulman said: “There is a massive amount of investment potential and a lot of potential jobs at stake. And I really think these Democratic governors do not want to shoot their own states in the foot in the race to capture these jobs.”

Shulman added: “The goal for a Democratic governor is to send a policy signal strong enough to make voters feel they are taking a tough stance on AI, or addressing its potential negative consequences, while still trying to attract as much investment and as many jobs as possible.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey