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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

3 days ago

on

10/09/2026

By

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

4 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

4 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey