After all, less than a week before the American elections, the efforts of the Democratic and Republican campaigns have been more focused on the key states or the main battlegrounds.  American strategists believe that the competition in the 2024 elections will be historic and very tight. In the highly competitive atmosphere of the US elections, the issue of the Muslim vote in the United States has become important and its influence on the fate of the outcome of this process has become unprecedentedly more prominent for both candidates.

According to the latest US census that was conducted in 2018, the American Muslim population is reported to be more than four million and 953 thousand people.

This population is mostly settled in the states of the east and west coasts of America. California, New York, Virginia, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, Georgia and Pennsylvania are among the states that have the largest Muslim population.

Although Muslims make up only about one percent of the US population, they are an important voting block due to their concentration in key states such as Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, where they often win elections by narrow margins.

Muslim support was crucial to Biden’s victory in 2020

And in the 2020 election, Biden was able to win the election from Trump by getting 65pc of the Muslim votes in these states. Muslim support was crucial to Biden’s victory, as he won key states by narrow margins.

In the previous election, Joe Biden was able to win the state of Georgia by only 12,000 votes, a state where more than 61,000 Muslim voters live. Biden also won the 2020 Pennsylvania election with a difference of 81 thousand votes. The number of Muslim voters in this state reaches 125 thousand people.

On the other hand, according to the findings of the Pew Research Center, 62pc of the Muslim population has a traditional party preference for the Democrats, 17pc have a party affiliation with the Republicans, and the rest 21pc are independent. But apparently in this period the equations have changed and the figures have been messed up.

Why has Muslim support for Democrats diminished?

The Institute for the Study of Social Policy and Convergence, which is located in the state of Michigan, in its latest report stated that in this election, the Muslim community seems more united than ever on a political issue; And that is the US government’s stance on the Gaza war.

According to this institute, any candidate who hopes to win the support of large sections of Muslim voters must respond to the demands of Muslim voters to end the war in Gaza.

The broad political and military support of the Biden administration to Israel in the Gaza war has caused some Muslim communities to distance themselves from the Democrats.

But the war in Gaza is not the only issue for Muslim voters, the fight against Islamophobia, the policy of supporting traditional families and health insurance programs are among the things that Muslim Americans will consider in their choice.

Who is leading in the polls among Muslim voters?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a survey of 40,000 Muslim voters in six key states found that despite the dissatisfaction of the American Muslim community with the Democrats, among its voters, Harris leads Trump with 29.4 percent of votes while Trump stands on 11.2 percent.

What is important in this survey is the amount of Muslim support for Jill Stein, the candidate of the Green Party, at 29.1 percent. Most Muslim voters have called this support a form of protest against the Democrats’ policy towards the Gaza war.

Arab-American showed support to Trump

Amir Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, who is from Yemen, supported Donald Trump as the first Arab American and the first Muslim to manage the city, describing him as a “man of peace”.

This big turn in the position of Muslims and Trump shows significant changes. By getting the support of Amir Ghalib, Trump is trying to connect with the Muslim and Arab American community in this state and it seems that he intends to attract a significant number of Muslim voters in other states with this support.

Trump’s presence with a number of Muslim leaders in the state of Michigan was an unusual scene and indicates a change in his policies and the views of Muslims in this year’s presidential election compared to the previous one.

Anti-Muslim immigration law still on the table

One of the most important concerns among American Muslims is that with Trump’s victory, the “law prohibiting Muslim immigration” may be reinstated.

This is the reason Kamala Harris seeks to turn Muslims away from Trump. Former US President Barack Obama asked Muslims not to vote for Trump during Harris’ campaign in Pennsylvania.

During the campaign, Obama reminded Muslims that Trump had strict policies against them in the past and said “If you are an American Muslim and you are upset about what is happening in the Middle East, why would you vote for someone who approved the Muslim ban. Does it mean that you are not part of our American society?”.

The result of the US presidential election is not yet clear, but one thing is clear: The role of Muslims in this election can be decisive.

For years, Muslims in America have focused on improving and building institutional capacity to change the way Muslims engage in politics. It seems that significant progress has been made in this direction and the Muslim community is gradually trying to have more influence in the political arena.

Following Brazil’s veto of Venezuela’s accession to BRICS, Caracas has recalled its ambassador to Brasília, stating that Celso Amorim, the Brazilian president’s special adviser, “behaved more like an emissary of U.S. imperialism.”

In a statement on Wednesday, the Venezuelan foreign ministry criticized Brazilian authorities for “obstructing” BRICS membership and making “intrusive, rude statements.”

“The Venezuelan people are outraged and ashamed by this inexplicable and immoral aggression,” the ministry said, following the BRICS summit.

In its latest statement, the ministry specifically targeted Brazil’s top foreign policy adviser, Celso Amorim, who stated that Brazil had vetoed Venezuela’s BRICS bid because Caracas had “violated the trust” of its partners.

The Venezuelan foreign ministry said Amorim was “behaving more like an ambassador of North American imperialism” and was “dedicated to making arrogant value judgments about processes that only concern Venezuelans and their democratic institutions.”

The ministry also summoned Brazil’s economic envoy to the talks, Reuters reported.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, speaking two days earlier, referred to his country’s rejection at the BRICS summit, claiming Brazil’s open veto contradicted personal assurances from the Brazilian foreign minister that Venezuela would not be blocked from joining the bloc.

“They said it once, twice, three, four times, many times. Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira told me to my face that Brazil would not veto Venezuela. There were meetings with the Brazilian foreign minister, the Russian foreign minister, our foreign minister, and our vice-president, and Brazil was the only country in the region to state clearly and directly that it would not veto Venezuela,” he said.

“But when the time came to announce new BRICS members, Brazilian diplomat Eduardo Paes Saboia reportedly vetoed Venezuela’s entry,” Maduro said.

“This happened at the last minute, almost at the end of the summit,” the president remarked.

Maduro called the veto a “stab in the back” and accused Paes, whom he described as a “fascist” and a supporter of Brazil’s former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, of orchestrating the move.

Maduro also criticized Brazil’s foreign ministry, popularly known as Itamaraty, after the building that houses it.

“When I say that Itamaraty is a power within a power in Brazil, this is not news to anyone,” Maduro said, adding that the Brazilian Foreign Ministry has “historically” maintained close ties to the U.S. State Department.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, along with Colombian President Gustavo Petro, has been attempting to mediate in Venezuela’s post-election dispute, which the Venezuelan opposition claims was rigged.

Lula has pushed for the publication of detailed election results, which were not released. While he has stopped short of refusing a deal with the Venezuelan government, he has repeatedly warned of consequences for bilateral relations between the two countries.

On Monday, Maduro said he would give Lula time to respond. The Brazilian president, who is not attending the BRICS summit, has not yet commented on the reported veto.

With just over a week remaining before the U.S. presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump visited Blue Origin, the aerospace company owned by Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s wealthiest individuals.

According to the Associated Press (AP), Trump had a brief meeting with Blue Origin’s CEO David Limp and Vice President of Government Relations Megan Mitchell. CNN also reported that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently reached out to the former president for a phone call.

Bezos, the founder of Amazon and known supporter of Democratic politics, reportedly intervened to prevent The Washington Post’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris shortly before Trump’s visit. This decision led to a backlash, with thousands, including author Stephen King, announcing they were canceling their Washington Post subscriptions. Additionally, eighteen Washington Post columnists published an op-ed criticizing the move as a “terrible mistake.”

According to a Daily Beast report, Trump waited to confirm that Bezos had taken the promised action before meeting with Blue Origin employees. Robert Kagan, a former Washington Post editor who resigned on Friday, stated, “This tells us that a real deal is being made.”

“We recognize that this may be seen as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, a condemnation of another, or an abdication of responsibility,” Washington Post editor Will Lewis wrote in a note to readers, drawing criticism from some staff members. “We don’t see it that way. We believe it is consistent with the values The Post has always stood for,” he argued.

The Post’s editorial board endorsed Trump’s rivals in 2016 and 2020 and has a long-standing tradition of supporting presidential candidates for the past 30 years. However, this time, the paper refrained from endorsing Harris.

Interestingly, despite the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, led by Chair Lina Khan, many in the Biden-Harris administration reportedly still view Amazon favorably. The Biden Small Business Administration directs jobs to Amazon, the NSA has awarded billions in contracts to Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo advocates for Amazon’s interests in Europe. Additionally, one of the government’s AI security advisors is also affiliated with Amazon.

Amazon has deep connections within the Democratic Party. Senator Chuck Schumer’s daughter, Barack Obama’s former spokesperson Jay Carney, and Kamala Harris adviser Karen Dunn all work for Amazon. Bezos himself has donated $100 million to Democratic figures like Van Jones and chef José Andrés and contributed $100 million to Barack Obama’s presidential library. Prominent Democratic figures, including former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick, serve on Amazon’s board.

However, recent developments indicate a shift within the party. Lina Khan’s antitrust actions against Big Tech have reportedly unsettled these corporate alliances. The New York Times recently ran a piece titled “Lina Khan vs. Jeff Bezos,” highlighting Khan’s ambition to break up Amazon, following her recent actions against Google.

In 2016, The Washington Post endorsed Hillary Clinton, describing Trump as “bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vindictive, narrow-minded, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy, and in love with America’s enemies.” The Post warned that he would be a “grave danger to our nation and the world.” Following Trump’s victory, Bezos felt the consequences of this stance; the Trump administration awarded a $10 billion cloud computing contract to Microsoft instead of Amazon, a decision widely seen as politically motivated and later canceled by the Biden administration.

According to the Daily Beast, Bezos is keen to avoid a repeat of this situation.

The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse Harris coincides with a similar stance by Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times, who reportedly blocked his paper’s editorial board from endorsing Harris as well.