Author

admin

Browsing

For decades, life choices were bleak for many in El Salvador: Leave or die. Dubbed the “murder capital of the world,” there was an average of a homicide an hour in early 2016, in this country of just 6 million people — two million fewer than call New York City home. Gang warfare drove an exodus of Salvadorans, mostly north to the US. But now, the security situation is so different that people are returning, even after building good new lives over decades in the US.

Deported, and now grateful

When Victor Bolaños and his wife, Blanca, lost their asylum case in a US immigration court, their ‘American dream’ came crashing down. When they agreed to accept a voluntary departure order, the couple knew they had to leave behind the life they had been building for over 15 years in Denver and return to their native El Salvador and the conditions that had made them flee.

“We came back 6 years ago, and everything was unsafe,” Victor recalls, seated in the modest home the couple now shares in the capital, San Salvador. At 65, his voice carries the weight of what they faced upon their return in 2018. “When we came back the situation seemed difficult because of the insecurity, lots of robberies, lots of gangs.”

But a couple of years after their return, something unexpected happened. The relentless daily violence eased, and streets began to calm. The suffocating fear that had defined daily life started to fade.

El Salvador, once synonymous with violence and waves of emigration, saw a dramatic drop in crime. For many citizens, this shift offered more than just safety — it offered much needed hope. The world, too, took notice. Suddenly, the small Central American nation seemed to be reinventing itself under Bukele, who was elected President in 2019 at the age of 37. When his New Ideas party later took control of Congress, it was easier for rules to be bent or broken. Bukele won re-election, even though the country’s constitution had barred anyone standing for a second term. A “temporary” state of emergency granting authoritarian powers of detention is now more than two years old. Human Rights Watch says that even children are being caught up in “severe human rights violations.”

Yet in San Salvador, Blanca sits in her living room, carefully crafting handmade jewelry. “Now, one feels safe, freedom is felt in our country,” she says.

She and her husband, Victor, say the improved security has allowed them to start a small jewelry business from their home, something that once seemed impossible. “Now you can have a business, if you look, there are entrepreneurs everywhere in the country,” Blanca says, reflecting on how, not long ago, gang extortion would have crippled any such venture.

For decades, people from Central America, particularly from the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, have fled violence and insecurity, seeking protection and opportunity in the US. But new data from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals a surprising trend — fewer Salvadorans are now heading north.

In 2022, CBP recorded more than 97,000 encounters with Salvadoran citizens at the Southern Border. By 2023, that number fell to just over 61,000, and 2024 is on track for an additional decline compared to 2023.

While these numbers may appear promising, the root causes of migration remain complex.  Many Salvadorans still leave their country due to economic hardship and lack of opportunity. Although El Salvador’s economy has shown slow, steady growth since Bukele took office, according to the World Bank, the nation still struggles to provide sufficient opportunities for its citizens.

Leaving Houston to build a beach resort

For the past 27 years, Diego Morales has built a life far from home. The 48-year-old real estate investor, husband, and father of three left El Salvador in 1997, chasing the safety, stability, and opportunity that the US had to offer. The idea of returning had never crossed his mind — until the grim stories of violence that had haunted his homeland for so many years were replaced by tales of newfound safety.

Diego’s childhood was marred by a constant sense of danger.  “I’d wake up, go to school and find dead people on the street,” he recalls, his voice bearing the burden of the painful memories as he sits inside his well-kept, suburban Houston home.

But today, El Salvador is no longer the country he fled. “Now it’s safe and many people are going back,” Diego says, his words a reflection of the optimism spreading among Salvadorans and others abroad.

The country’s reputation has dramatically shifted. Once known for violence, El Salvador is now attracting waves of investors. “Many people, even Americans … we have friends from Florida, from Austin, from Hawaii, looking to buy (property),” he says, a sign of just how far the nation has come.

Diego himself is preparing for a return to the land he once left behind. He has already invested in Tamanique, his hometown about an hour’s drive from the capital, where he built a beach resort that he now runs remotely.

Along the Salvadoran coastline, you can find beach towns like El Tunco, El Zonte, and La Libertad buzzing with new construction, capturing the attention of tourists and real estate developers eager to capitalize on the country’s rebirth. Cliffs that were once gang lookouts are now being considered scenic locations for hotels.

“As soon as President Bukele brought security to this country, everything went up (in value),” Diego says, adding that land that cost around $100,000 five years ago is now going for ten times that price.

And the Salvadoran dream is not just his — his 23-year-old son, Jairo, a natural-born US citizen also plans to follow in his father’s footsteps. “We’ve had conversations… it’s already starting,” Jairo says, his eyes lit with the promise of returning to his roots.

El Salvador’s government is courting those who left with a program of tax exemptions on belongings and vehicles for citizens who return home. Since 2022, nearly 19,000 Salvadorans have moved back under this initiative, according to government figures.

‘No mercy’ for gang members

A decade or so ago gangs like MS-13 and Barrio 18 terrorized communities, extorting businesses and waging brutal turf wars over control of neighborhoods, and El Salvador was the most violent nation in the Western Hemisphere, according to InSight Crime.

But something extraordinary has happened since then. By 2022, the number of murders began to drop dramatically, and the next year there were 154 homicides — a staggering 97.7% decrease compared to 2015, according to government figures. Bukele even tweeted that his country’s homicide rate was the lowest in all the Americas.

The sharp decline followed Bukele bringing in emergency measures giving police the power to detain suspects without charges for up to 15 days and deploying the military across the nation. The new rules, which are still in effect, allowed an unprecedented crackdown on gang activity, with more than 80,000 people detained since the state of emergency began in March 2022.

Central to this effort is the newly constructed “Terrorist Confinement Center,” or Cecot, a massive prison complex with the capacity to hold up to 40,000 inmates. The maximum-security prison currently holds 14,000 gang members — all accused of having murdered at least one person. Images from Cecot show tattooed men with their heads shaved in a warehouse-sized concrete room filled with metal bunks, or sitting in tight rows on the ground, wearing nothing but white shorts, their heads bowed and hands behind their backs. And, according to Salvadoran authorities, those sent to Cecot will never be released.

Villatoro’s words echo the brutal reality El Salvador has faced for years. He claims that gang members were required to kill at least one person as part of their initiation into groups like MS-13 or Barrio 18.

“Imagine a serial killer in your state, in your community, being released by a judge, how would you feel as a citizen?” he asks. “We don’t have facts that someone can change the mind of a serial killer, and we have more than 40,000 in El Salvador.”

The government’s hardline approach was not spontaneous; it was meticulously planned. Villatoro and members of Bukele’s cabinet had begun studying the gangs as early as 2017.

“Before you start a war, you have to know your enemy,” he explained.

While the government’s relentless campaign has been praised by many for restoring peace, it has also attracted significant criticism. Human rights groups have accused the Bukele administration of widespread abuses in its battle against the gangs. Villatoro, however, dismisses these claims, asserting that the focus should be on the victims, not the criminals.

“What about the society, the good citizens that you have in the country … Where were (these human rights groups) when we lost 30 Salvadorans in our country a day?” he asks pointedly.

Bukele himself has been unflinching in his rhetoric. In 2022, he famously challenged human rights advocates, telling them to “take” the gang members if they cared so much. “Come pick them up — we’ll give them to you, two for the price of one,” he declared.

The president’s iron-fist approach to security has earned him praise from some US conservatives, who have openly applauded Bukele’s tactics. However, at this year’s Republican National Convention, former US President Donald Trump took an unexpected swipe at Bukele when addressing the country’s newfound safety.

“In El Salvador, murders are down 70 percent. Why are they down? They’re down because they’re sending their murderers to the United States of America,” Trump claimed, offering no evidence to support his statement.

“No,” Villatoro replied. “The problem with that, you (Trump) don’t have facts, you don’t have evidence, but instead, we have evidence of where we put our terrorists,” the minister said, referring to Cecot, the massive prison where thousands of gang members are held

In other detention centers, lower-ranking gang members and other criminals are tasked with fixing what the gangs broke and erasing their presence. Some inmates are sent to rebuild homes while others smash tombstones commemorating underworld leaders.

Jailed ‘for having long hair and tattoos’

In early 2024, Juan Carlos Cornejo found himself swept up in Bukele’s mass arrests after an anonymous call to the police accused him of “illicit association.” Hours later, he was in jail, confused and terrified.

Juan Carlos believes he was targeted simply because of how he looked.

“I was accused of illicit association, but I have nothing to do with that. I like music, rock, so my appearance was different. I had long hair,” he said from his dimly lit, mosquito-ridden home in Santa Ana, a city about 35 miles from the capital. “I have tattoos, but these are artistic expressions,” he said, his frustration palpable.

“There was no investigation, nothing,” he claims.

Juan Carlos was in prison for five long months. Before his detention, he had been working as a veterinary assistant, treating sick or injured pets, and he insists he had never been arrested before.

His release came only after Socorro Jurídico Humanitario (SJH), a group dedicated to providing legal counsel in cases of human rights violations, successfully filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. But Juan Carlos’ story is far from unique. According to SJH, between 33,000 and 35,000 people have been “detained in an arbitrary manner without any justification” since the state of emergency began.

Despite widespread criticism of these tactics, the Bukele government stands firm. Officials argue that these measures — though harsh — are done lawfully and are necessary to secure the country’s future. And they highlight efforts to rehabilitate tens of thousands of inmates convicted of lesser crimes.

Armed soldiers on the streets — and thanked

Critics argue that Salvadorans have traded freedom for security, but the people we met say they have never felt so free. There’s the mother laughing as she takes her skipping toddler to the park, not afraid of getting caught in a gun battle or stumbling over a corpse or having to pay the gang extortion “rent” to simply enter her own neighborhood. There’s the father, no longer worried his son will be recruited by gangs. Unlike in places like Cuba or China, where residents can seem nervous to criticize repressive regimes, in El Salvador the optimism appears real.

Teresa Lilian Gutierrez is caught in the middle, and her experience shows the many complexities of life in El Salvador today.

“Now it’s safe, it’s calm,” she told us on a street in La Campanera, once among the most dangerous neighborhoods in San Salvador. “Before no one would visit, not even family.”

But her son who helped her financially is not able to visit, she said.

“He’s been detained for two years in Mariona (prison). He is not a gang member, he was taken in the state of emergency,” she said, showing pictures of her son working as a cashier in a restaurant.

“I ask the government to get him out, please … I spoke to the lawyer last year because they were going to release him, but she said no, they’re not going to give him to me,” she said.

President Bukele enjoys one of the highest approval ratings in Latin America, a sentiment echoed by the people we meet while with the Salvadoran army touring a once gang-infested area outside San Salvador.

Armored cars and uniformed soldiers are no longer terrifying reasons to run but chances for curious children to ask questions or for supporters to grab a selfie.

“It was so bad before, you couldn’t go anywhere,” one woman says, beaming as she snaps a picture with Defense Minister René Merino, who has become a symbol of the government’s hardline security strategy. A few years ago, no one in this area would have looked members of the police or army in the eye, Merino said, but now it’s all changed. Moments later, another resident steps forward, and thanks the minister and poses for a photo, apologizing for interrupting our interview.  In what feels more like a victory parade  than a law enforcement patrol, we stop dozens of times over the course of a couple hours as residents excitedly relay their gratitude.

But the looming question is: what happens after 2029, when Bukele’s term comes to an end? In a recent interview, the president declared he would not seek a third term, leaving many to wonder about the future.

For some, like Blanca Bolaños, the answer is already clear. “I voted for Nayib this time, and the last, and if he runs again, I will vote for him,” she says with unwavering conviction.

As the country grapples with its transformation, Bukele’s legacy and controversial tactics will be tested. Whether El Salvador’s newfound stability endures or falters, only time will tell. But for now, among those who say their lives have been changed, there is little doubt: they believe in Bukele, and they would follow him again.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

A focus group reacting live to the presidential debate appeared to have strong opinions about the controversial conservative plan, Project 2025.

Project 2025 was launched by the Heritage Foundation as part of their Presidential Transition Project for the 2024 cycle. The project has become a talking point for Democrats, who have attempted to smear it as radical and tie it to former President Donald Trump.

During the presidential debate on Tuesday, Democrats and independent support for Vice President Kamala Harris shot up as she railed against Project 2025. 

‘On this debate tonight, you’re gonna hear from the same old tied playbook. A bunch of lies, grievances, and name-calling. What you’re gonna hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again,’ Harris said. ‘I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together.’

Trump, however, denied any involvement with the group.

‘As you know, and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it,’ Trump said during Tuesday’s debate. 

As he spoke about the controversial group, he gained support among Republicans but saw a dramatic shift downward from both independents and Democrats. 

‘This was a group of people that got together. They came up with some ideas, I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference,’ he added. ‘Everybody knows I’m an open book. Everybody knows what I’m going to do.’

All three voting blocs, however, shot up in support for Trump when he said he was going to ‘cut taxes very substantially and create a great economy like I did before.’

Independents showed dissatisfaction with Trump while he talked about the coronavirus pandemic, but both Democrats and Republicans were consistently more supportive of the former president as he discussed the pandemic and the economy.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Three years since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and 23 years since the 9/11 terror attacks that led to the U.S. invasion, Afghanistan finds itself in a worse position now than it was on that fateful day.

‘This country has become once again a safe haven for terrorism. It will become a battlefield once again,’ Afghan National Resistance Front (NRF) leader Ahmad Massoud told Fox News Digital in a rare interview.

According to Massoud, the threat emanating from Afghanistan is much greater today than it was on 9/11, and the U.S. failed to achieve its number one objective of rooting out terrorists when it hastily pulled out of Afghanistan in August 2021.

The threat of terrorism from Afghanistan has spread from the U.S. to Europe and recently to Russia. It is just a matter of time, Massoud fears, for it to reach America’s shores again.

‘I know for a fact the time will come,’ Massoud said.

Massoud is not giving up on his vision of a free and democratic Afghanistan despite the odds, and he believes that Americans and Afghans hold intimate bonds over shared values of fighting for freedom against terrorists.

‘I feel very much the same feeling with all those victims of 9/11 and the people of the United States and Afghanistan are very much connected to each other because those attacks were carried out by the same team, those who attacked Americans on 9/11 killed my father,’ Massoud said.

Twenty-three years later and four U.S. presidential administrations since, Afghans live under the same threat of Islamic extremism and with the same pain and oppression as they did on 9/11.

Almost immediately after the Taliban regained power, anti-Taliban forces quickly fled to Afghanistan’s northern Panjshir Valley and announced their opposition to the new regime. 

Massoud, the leader of the NRF, vowed to continue the fight against the Taliban.

‘I didn’t want to leave my people alone in the hands of evil,’ Massoud told Fox News Digital.

Massoud is the son of Afghan resistance hero Ahmad Shah Massoud. The younger Massoud was only 12 years old when his father was assassinated by al Qaeda two days before the 9/11 terror attacks. Shah Massoud was integral to the rebels who fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s and became a leading figure in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance that resisted the Taliban’s reign from 1996 to 2001.

As a young boy growing up in war-ravaged Afghanistan, it was not clear at the time that he would follow in the same footsteps as his legendary rebel father.

‘My father never wanted me to walk in the same path,’ Massoud recounted.

His father did not want him becoming a rebel leader because of the pain that it causes, Massoud remembered, and the enormous pressure and the high expectations it has is unbearable.

Massoud is not doing this for his late father or because he is his son.

‘I’m just doing it because I’m madly in love with my people, and I cannot see them in this situation.’

As the years and memories of that sunny, cloudless and traumatic Tuesday morning in September fade away, Massoud is trying to remind America and the world not to forget about the threat from terrorism in Afghanistan.

‘Today, al Qaeda is much stronger and entrenched in Afghanistan than it has ever been,’ the resistance leader said.

The 2020 Doha Agreement negotiated under former President Donald Trump laid the groundwork for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in exchange for a pledge from the Taliban to prevent any terrorist organization from using Afghan soil to threaten or attack the United States or its allies.

Taliban spokespersons made assurances that they would not allow any terror group to plan an attack from Afghan territory. Although it is true that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have yet to stage any attacks on the U.S. or its allies, groups like al Qaeda still operate within Afghanistan and have deeply rooted ties with the Taliban.

Numerous United Nations reports note that since their return to power, relations with al Qaeda remain close, and the group that carried out the 9/11 terror attacks is ‘strategically patient, cooperating with other terrorist groups in Afghanistan and prioritizing its ongoing relationship with the Taliban.’

Al Qaeda operates at least eight training camps across Afghanistan but does so covertly in order to create the image that the Taliban is adhering to the Doha Agreement, according to U.N. monitoring.

While the U.S. was negotiating with the Taliban, Massoud knew all along they were not negotiating in good faith.

‘It is going to fail, and it will also show the world the true face of the Taliban,’ Massoud said.

The leader of the NRF said the international community believed the lies of the Taliban that they had fundamentally changed from the group that previously ruled Afghanistan prior to 9/11. 

‘Women have been degraded to nothing but property of men and education has been completely destroyed by the Taliban,’ Massoud said angrily. 

The elder Massoud, according to his son, warned against an international presence in Afghanistan, saying that the U.S. came to him and proposed operating military bases in the country and to help jointly fight against terrorism.

Shah Massoud was very clear in his vision.

‘My father said boots on the ground in Afghanistan will never work,’ Massoud recounts his father saying. ‘We fought against the invasion of the Russians. And really, he did not want the presence of another foreign force in Afghanistan,’ he added.

The U.S. did not heed these warnings when they went into Afghanistan.

Massoud wants to continue his father’s policy of no foreign troops on Afghan soil and wants to fight terrorism with his own forces based in the country. What he is looking for is the logistical and financial support to carry on the fight.

‘We indeed need help and support from the world,’ Massoud said, but he also understands the frustration in the United States over ‘forever wars’ and respects U.S. policy opposing further wars. The U.S.-Afghan relationship should continue its efforts to fight terrorism, Massoud believes, and that Afghans should not feel betrayed while the same group that killed Americans and Afghans is in power.

Three years later, and with the Taliban cementing their power, the U.S.-Afghan partnership that emerged after 9/11 remains nonexistent.

‘We are on our own and there is no external support.’

Massoud believes if the U.S. and international community throw their support behind the NRF, it could make a huge difference.

‘Even the slightest of external support, you would see the liberation of a big chunk of Afghanistan. Because the people are very much against the Taliban, the slightest bit of hope and the slightest of opportunities for the people of Afghanistan, and we would see a crack in the armor of the Taliban,’ he explained.

Massoud did not mince words when talking about U.S. policy and was critical of the period immediately after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan when the War on Terror expanded to Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime.

‘The expansion of this war to Iraq completely diverted attention from Afghanistan and Afghanistan for a while [was] the second priority.’ Massoud argued that more attention was needed to help build Afghan institutions and make the new government more stable and therefore harder to overthrow.  

Massoud was also critical of early U.S. strategy, including the endeavor to create an Afghan army in the image of the U.S. armed forces.

‘We did not have American resources or American technology. It was a recipe for disaster.’

Massoud also said that the U.S.’ conflicting strategies of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency over the years failed to fully defeat the Taliban and create a stable Afghan government.

‘It means that, unfortunately, the Afghans could not make the Americans understand that these strategies don’t work in Afghanistan, and they failed to come up with a proper strategy.’

However critical Massoud is of American and international leadership and strategy in Afghanistan, he still placed 70% to 80% of the blame on the Afghan leadership and their flawed thinking that the U.S. and coalition partners would remain in Afghanistan forever like on the Korean Peninsula. The false sense of security did not allow Afghan leaders to focus on national trust, and corruption and criminality ran rampant.

‘Unfortunately, the inside political game and personal agendas and not having the capability to see that this situation could never last very long, or that it was not a forever perk,’ hurt Afghanistan’s ability to fight terrorism threats it faced or build a stable democracy.

‘They missed all of those opportunities,’ Massoud said.

The resistance leader is not unaware of the complicated nature of international politics and realizes that many conflicts are currently raging on, which require U.S. attention and resources.

‘There’s a fatigue in the U.S. and the West, and they have been stretched from Ukraine to Taiwan to Gaza. So that stress is also another factor for them not to actually pay attention to Afghanistan,’ Massoud lamented. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

It was not only Americans tuning into the U.S. presidential debate Tuesday night as former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris faced off for the first time.

The results of the November election are expected to have resounding consequences for U.S. policy abroad, and the international community has been paying close attention following President Biden’s drop from the race this July.

The reactions by the international press to the Tuesday night debate drew stark comparisons from Trump’s first debate, which largely focused on heightened concerns surrounding Biden’s cognitive abilities.

This time, though, Trump’s performance was in their crosshairs. 

United Kingdom

The U.K. press, notoriously divided along party lines, reflected critical evaluations of how Trump performed under pressure from former prosecutor Harris, who was determined to have successfully achieved what so many of Trump’s opponents have been unable to – she flustered him.

Three of the right-leaning Telegraph’s leading stories on the debate suggested Harris came out on top, with one headline reading ‘Harris puts Trump on defensive in fiery showdown,’ while another report described Trump’s performance as ‘furious’ and ‘rambled.’

In analyzing the champion of the debate, the report concluded that Harris ‘made [Trump] look ridiculous.’

‘It is difficult to crown Harris the victor of a political debate in which she said so little about her own platform. But her attack strategy won her the night. Trump fell for it: hook line and sinker,’ the report added. 

The Times of London, generally considered a conservative-leaning newspaper, reported that Trump ‘struggled’ through the debate, while another report criticized that he ‘leaned’ into his base rather than going after moderate voters after they claimed he brought up a debunked claim that migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were ‘eating the pets’ of residents.

A third report on the Times’ homepage read, ‘Strong night for Harris gets better with Taylor Swift endorsement.’

The Sun had more divided takeaways of the night with one report claiming Trump ‘ripped into Harris’ while another highlighted a politics expert who called Trump’s debate talking points ‘Nonsense’ and also highlighted his ‘meltdown over ‘migrants eating pets’.’

France

The French press gave the win to Harris, with Le Monde, the nation’s top publication, leading with a headline that read ‘Harris, on offense, wins debate against Trump.’

L’Express, a Paris-based magazine described as center-right, also argued Trump was on the defensive Tuesday night in its report titled, ‘‘Kamala Harris has started to bang on Trump’ – the debate seen by the foreign press.’

Germany

The leading story on the publicly funded news outlet Deutsche Welle was headed by, ‘Harris puts Trump on defensive in fiery debate’ and claimed pollsters showed Harris ‘narrowly won’ over Trump. 

Though the report also noted the debate is unlikely to have an impact on U.S. voters – a sentiment broadly expressed in reporting across the U.S. as well.

Russia

Russian state-owned media TASS did not have any mention of the U.S. debate on its homepage.

While state-run news agency RIA Novosti lightly covered the debate, with one report headlined ‘Trump is doomed.’

A second report pointed to a response issued by the German Foreign Office following comments made by Trump during his closing remarks that criticized Berlin’s push toward clean energy.

The report included a response by the ministry posted to X, which said, ‘Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables. And we are shutting down – not building – coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. 

‘PS: We also don’t eat cats and dogs,’ the ministry added in an apparent jab at Trump’s previous debate comments. 

Ukraine

In Ukraine – where the results of the 2024 election are expected to have a significant impact given Trump’s previous comments suggesting he will not continue to militarily support Kyiv – reports focused on the combative exchange between Trump and Harris. 

The Kyiv Independent honed in on Trump’s claims that he will have the war ‘settled’ before even taking up the top job if elected this November – though he has refused to detail how he will accomplish this. 

The report did not name a winner or a loser, though it pointed out the two engaged in a bitter clash over the issue of Russia’s invasion and highlighted Trump’s refusal to say whether he wants Ukraine to come out on top.

Israel 

Israeli publications appeared to have more heavily covered the debate, though both candidates spent little time discussing the war between Israel and Hamas, and Harris was largely deemed the frontrunner.

One report by Israel Hayom, a right-leaning outlet, said Harris was ‘exuding confidence and control’ and accused Trump of appearing ‘self-absorbed rather than voter-focused.’

The report said there was no clear ‘knockout’ winner, but added the debate ‘was a genuine rhetorical slugfest in which Harris successfully exploited Trump’s weak spots and knocked him off balance.’

The Jerusalem Post, also deemed to have conservative tendencies in its reporting, described the debate as ‘predictable’ but noted Trump’s ‘apocalyptic prediction’ that Israel would cease to exist under a Harris presidency was a ‘reach’ and ‘oddly depriv[ed] the Jewish state of any agency or capacity to survive.’

Mexico

Mexico-based news outlet El Universal did not pronounce a clear winner as it did with the previous presidential debate when it named Trump debate champion over Biden.  

Though in a report detailing opinions by the publication’s top political commentators, Harris appeared to come out on top, with one opinion writer noting ‘Kamala Harris came well prepared and demolished former President Donald Trump for 90 minutes.’

Another argued the debate was the ultimate test for Harris following Biden’s ‘terrible’ debate performance in July.

‘Will it be enough to consolidate [her] lead in key states? We have to wait, but this debate was essential,’ Andrew Seele told the publication. Harris passed the test, and with flying colors.’

China

Chinese state-run media reported very little on the debate despite Trump-era tariffs being a top isused discussed during the night’s event. 

When Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning waspressed by media outlets during the morning briefing Wednesday, she said she had ‘no comment.’

Though she did add that Beijing is ‘opposed to making China an issue in U.S. elections.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The presidential debate on Tuesday between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump saw a number of testy moments between the two candidates.

The debate, which was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the first and possibly only debate between Harris and Trump. The Harris campaign quickly said ‘Harris is ready for a second debate,’ but Trump said on Wednesday morning during a ‘Fox and Friends’ interview that he ‘won the debate’ and is ‘less inclined to’ do another debate with Harris.

Here are some of the top clashes of the night:

Abortion fight

One of the early clashes between the two was over abortion. Harris accused Trump of opening the door to ‘Trump abortion bans’ due to his nomination of justices who eventually overturned Roe v Wade.

‘If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban,’ she said.

Trump responded by calling that a ‘lie.’ The two would eventually challenge each other on the topic, with Trump asking if Harris would support late-term abortions, and Harris challenging Trump to say if he would veto a federal abortion ban.

‘Will she allow abortion in the eighth month? Ninth month? Seventh month?’ Trump asked.

‘Come on,’ Harris said.

‘OK, would you do that?’ he responded.

‘Why don’t you ask her that question?’ Trump appealed to the moderators.

‘Why don’t you answer the question, would you veto?’ Harris asked Trump.

Are Trump’s rallies boring?

Harris upset former Trump when she accused him of holding boring rallies and accused him of talking about ‘windmills causing cancer.’

‘What you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you, the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you.’

Trump soon shot back: ‘People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So she can’t talk about that. People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.’

‘I’m talking now’

Trump used a quip on Tuesday evening similar to one made famous in 2020 by Harris during the vice presidential debate, in which she repeatedly told then-Vice President Mike Pence, ‘I’m speaking.’

‘Wait a minute, I’m talking now if you don’t mind. Please,’ Trump said. ‘Does that sound familiar?’

Harris smiled as she clearly got the reference. 

‘I am not Joe Biden’

‘Remember this, she is Biden. You know, she’s trying to get away from Biden. ‘I don’t know the gentleman,’ she says. She is Biden. The worst inflation we’ve ever had. A horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad and she can’t get away with it,’ he said.

Harris shot back: ‘Clearly, I am not Joe Biden and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country.’

Spar over Russia

Harris and Trump attacked one another over Russian President Vladimir Putin.

‘It is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one, according to himself. It is well known that he said of Putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine. It is well known that he said when Russia went into the Ukraine, it was brilliant,’ she said.

Trump pushed back, accusing Harris of being ‘weak on national security’ and said she had the endorsement of Putin.

‘Putin endorsed her last week, said, ‘I hope she wins,’ and I think he meant it because what he’s gotten away with is absolutely incredible. It wouldn’t have happened with me,’ he said.

Fox News’ Matteo Cina contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Democrats believe Taylor Swift’s recent endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris could encourage more young voters to turn out in November, but recent polling indicates the pop star’s support might not greatly affect voter decisions at the ballot box.

Swift, an outspoken critic of former President Trump, endorsed Harris after the presidential debate Tuesday. In an Instagram post that she signed ‘childless cat lady,’ the pop icon said Harris ‘fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.’ 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom told Fox News Digital from the debate spin room the endorsement ‘matters.’

‘Some advice to Donald Trump. Don’t disparage that endorsement at your own peril,’ he said. ‘She is a cultural icon. Something big has happened in the world in terms of the energy, environment she’s associated with. The optimism she’s associated with. That was a big deal.’

One Democratic strategist told Fox News Digital that Swift’s support could encourage more voters to turn out at the polls.

‘It absolutely will impact young voter turnout. And Trump knows it,’ said Jessica Tarlov, a Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor. ‘What’s important about how she did it is that she explained her thinking and how past experience — the AI-generated images of her — have impacted her personally and her decision.

‘This isn’t the Taylor Swift of 2018, wondering whether she should wade into politics. This is 2024 Taylor Swift, who knows who she is and isn’t afraid of backlash for saying what she believes.’

A Suffolk University/USA Today poll from May reported that about 83% of respondents say that a Swift endorsement would ‘not at all’ influence their decision on who to vote for in November. 

Recent polls suggest Harris leads Trump among young voters, traditionally Swift’s main support base.

According to a recent New York Times/Siena survey, Harris leads Trump by 10 percentage points among voters aged 18-29.

‘As a first-time voter this November, my peers and I will not be voting for Kamala Harris because Taylor Swift and her cats told us to do so,’ Brilyn Hollyhand, RNC Youth Advisory Council Chairman and a Generation Z voter, told Fox about the endorsement.

‘I think when you look at it, it’s not actually making any difference. This is all vibes and no policy,’ he said. ‘I think no amount of pop stars or viral memes that she’s trying to do are going to make Gen Z vote for her when she has no plans to fix the nation she’s broken.’

Trump told ‘Fox & Friends’ on Wednesday he wasn’t surprised by the endorsement and is ‘not a Taylor Swift fan.’

‘It was just a question of time. She couldn’t […] possibly endorse Biden. You look at Biden, you couldn’t possibly endorse him,’ Trump said.

‘But she’s a very liberal person. She seems to always endorse a Democrat. And she’ll probably pay a price for it […] in the marketplace.’

While an endorsement might not make or break a decision, a Monmouth University poll released in February found that 68% of respondents are OK with Swift encouraging her fans to vote this cycle.

Following the endorsement, the Harris-Walz campaign released friendship bracelets for purchase on its website that appear similar to those worn by fans during Swift’s ‘Eras’ tour.

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Former President Trump touted his foreign policy credentials during Tuesday night’s presidential debate, name-checking the strong relationships he built with leaders of rival nations and allies alike during his term, most notably Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the ‘strongman’ of Europe.

‘He’s a tough person, smart prime minister of Hungary,’ Trump said, adding that Orban insisted ‘you need Trump back as president’ because ‘they were afraid of him.’ 

‘China was afraid, and I don’t like to use the word afraid, but I’m just quoting him,’ Trump said. ‘China was afraid of him. He said Russia was afraid of him.’

‘Look, Viktor Orban said it: He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president,’ Trump added.

Trump also responded to Vice President Harris’ claim that he ‘admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one’ and he ‘exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un’ by noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin had endorsed her last week and said he hoped she wins ‘because what he’s gotten away with is absolutely incredible.’

Trump said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would never have happened during his time in office, noting that he knew Putin ‘very well.’

Trump then blasted Biden for how he hurt the XL pipeline and handed Russia a win with ‘the biggest pipeline in the world’ running into Germany and Europe as a whole.

Trump has repeatedly compared his foreign policy record to that of the Biden administration, roping in Harris as part of that policy, and noted the more interventionist approach he took, using force as deterrence against Iran and meeting with Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to ensure stability in regions faced with uncertainty.

Trump and Orban enjoyed a rosy relationship during the Trump administration, often pictured together smiling and shaking hands in sharp contrast to the more demure meetings between Orban and Biden.

Orban made headlines over the summer when he prematurely ditched a high-level NATO summit in Washington, D.C., to meet with Trump in Florida at a time when Biden faced questions about his fitness for office and in seeking a second term. Orban was seeking a cease-fire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, having met separately with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

‘We continued the peace mission in Mar-a-Lago,’ Orban wrote on his official social media account on X after the meeting. ‘President @realDonaldTrump has proved during his presidency that he is a man of peace. He will do it again!’

‘It was an honour to visit President @realDonaldTrump at Mar-a-Lago today,’ he wrote in a separate post that labeled the visit ‘Peace mission 5.0.’ ‘We discussed ways to make peace. The good news of the day: he’s going to solve it!’

Orban, who assumed the role of president of the European Union as part of a six-month rotational leadership scheme, joked at the time that Hungary would ‘make Europe great again’ and warned that ‘the next American president will not be the same president who is today.’

He told other leaders at the formal NATO dinner that allies who still thought Biden could win the upcoming presidential election ‘were like people on the Titanic playing violins as the ship went down,’ the Financial Times reported.

During a visit to the U.S. in March, Orban visited with Trump, not Biden, when trying to court potential foreign policy in the U.S. He also spoke at a panel with the leader of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

House Republicans are privately expressing frustration about former President Trump’s performance in his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday.

Several House GOP lawmakers granted anonymity to speak freely acknowledged Trump ‘missed’ opportunities to effectively attack Harris and tout his own record. A few said it was the prevailing sentiment within the House Republican Conference that Harris successfully baited him on multiple occasions — though most argued it would ultimately have little impact on Election Day.

‘It was terrible. I think you’re seeing that comment from everybody,’ one senior House Republican told Fox News Digital.

‘The thing that’s terrible is, he had so many opportunities to come after her and he didn’t. He got bogged down on the hook she was dragging through the water.’

Another House GOP lawmaker went even further, calling the debate a ‘dumpster fire’ for the former president.

‘It was one of the worst bloodlettings I’ve ever seen,’ the lawmaker said. ‘But the thing is, too, the optics itself — Trump standing next to Kamala Harris, he looks old. He didn’t look old against Biden…and that, you can’t fix.’

While most Republicans shrugged off the debate’s ultimate effect on the election, that lawmaker worried, ‘I think it’s gonna sway the people in the middle, who matter.’

A third Republican said Harris ‘certainly got under [Trump’s] skin’ and their fellow conference members agreed ‘she did well.’

GOP lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital argued Trump’s policies and record are far stronger than Harris’ and were dismayed that they weren’t a larger part of his performance.

‘While he made many [good] points, she was able to slide out of every one of those arguments,’ the third Republican said. ‘We need to stop treating her like she’s Joe Biden, someone who can’t get her thoughts out, and treat her more like Hillary Clinton.’

A fourth GOP lawmaker simply said when asked for their reaction to the debate, ‘I prefer not to answer questions about cats and dogs and immigrants.’

That person added as well, however, that Harris ‘had to present herself as a person with credibility and a policy agenda, she didn’t do that.’

They said it was Trump’s own ‘fault’ when asked if Harris successfully baited him, however.

Another Republican said they had not discussed the debate with GOP colleagues, explaining, ‘I think everybody’s just kind of bummed out.’

‘They set a trap, and he walked into it. He wasn’t helped, but there were so many easy things he could’ve said,’ the fifth lawmaker said. ‘You wanna talk about the border, the world on fire, inflation — that’s all he had to do. Instead, she poked and prodded until she got a reaction.’

A sixth GOP lawmaker simply smiled sheepishly, ‘I do think he missed some opportunities to highlight her record. And I’ll leave it at that.’

A seventh Republican who spoke with Fox News Digital at the end of the debate on Tuesday night said Harris was ‘doing a good job provoking [Trump].’

‘He’s right on policy but can’t keep a message,’ they complained.

The majority of House Republicans who spoke publicly praised Trump, though, with the top GOP leaders all declaring victory for the ex-president minutes after the debate.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement Tuesday night, ‘Tonight, President Donald Trump exposed Vice President Kamala Harris for the dangerous radical she has always been.’

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who helped Trump prepare for the debate, told reporters on Wednesday that the ex-president ‘did a great job.’

‘Look, the debate was about immigration and the economy. Those are the issues where President Trump dominates with voters,’ he said.

Trump himself posted on his Truth Social app just after the debate, ‘People are saying BIG WIN tonight!’

When reached for comment on this story, the Trump campaign pointed Fox News Digital to its statement on the debate from Tuesday night, which said in part, ‘President Trump delivered a masterful debate performance tonight, prosecuting Kamala Harris’ abysmal record of failure that has hurt Americans for the last 4 years.’

‘We saw President Trump lay out his bold vision of America and how he would continue to build upon the successes of his first term by supercharging the economy, securing the border, and stopping crime from ravaging communities across the country,’ the statement said.

‘Conversely, Kamala’s vision of America was a dark reminder of the oppressive, big government policies of Joe Biden that she wants to continue.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

JERUSALEM — Vice President Harris’ endorsement of a Palestinian state during and prior to her debate with former President Trump would further destabilize the Middle East and bring about additional terrorism, according to Israeli and American experts.

During Tuesday’s presidential debate on ABC, the Democrat presidential candidate reiterated her support for a two-state solution: ‘I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates … to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.’

The two-state solution means an independent Palestinian state on Israel’s borders that encompasses the West Bank territory (known in Israel by its biblical name of Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza Strip. Biden faced intense criticism in February for ignoring the outbreak of Palestinian terrorism in Judea and Samaria while singling out Israeli residents of the region for sanctions.

Trump’s former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, told Fox News Digital, ‘After Oct. 7th, the two-state became a dead letter. A Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan will destabilize both countries and bring only additional terror and misery.’

Friedman, who authored the new book, ‘One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,’ added, ‘Vice President Harris should stop parroting failed theories and trying to force a square peg into a round hole. She should empower Israel to reach a just and workable solution on its own and not interfere in matters where she is neither competent nor well-informed.’

In early September, Friedman blasted Biden on Fox News’ ‘Your World’ for creating rifts within Israeli society.

Jonathan Conricus, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for 24 years as a combat commander and spokesperson, told Fox News Digital, ‘The so-called two-state solution may have been possible to implement 31 years ago, but four straight Palestinian rejections of Israeli peace offers have made it clear that the current Palestinian leadership does not aspire to end the conflict and achieve peace. Palestinian rejectionism has also eroded the political support for the peace process in Israel, since it has become abundantly clear that the Palestinian leadership does not seek peace.’

According to Conricus, ‘Polling of the Palestinian population in Gaza and Palestinian Authority-controlled areas shows clear popular Palestinian support for Hamas, signaling that the Palestinian population supports the genocidal vision of annihilating Israel through jihad, as demonstrated by Hamas on Oct. 7. Global leaders would do well to listen to the two parties to the conflict to understand how the situation has changed and adapt diplomatic solutions to current possibilities. And whatever the outcome of the Oct. 7 war that Hamas waged against Israel, giving Hamas the ultimate prize of statehood would be devastating for regional stability and peace and for American global standing. Terror must not be awarded with statehood.’

Joel Rubin, former deputy assistant secretary of state and Democrat strategist, told Fox News Digital, ‘The two-state solution is on life support right now, but just because this is a difficult moment to envision a peaceful endgame between Israel and the Palestinians that’s rooted in diplomatic compromise, that does not mean it should not be the goal. After all, Israel fought multiple existential wars with Egypt and then, only years after the Yom Kippur War, concluded a peace deal that has held and provided Israel with deep security along its southern border for more than four decades. That is what a two-state solution is all about: Ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in a manner that provides stability and security for the long haul.’

Rubin, who is a longtime Jewish community activist, added, ‘We have seen it achieved with Arab states. There is no reason that it can’t be done with the Palestinians as long as the political will is there, extremism is rooted out and security arrangements are solid. So, for Vice President Harris to make this a priority is an inherently pro-Israel position, one that seeks to provide Israel with the long-term security and stability that it still clearly does not have.’

In late August, Harris noted her endorsement of a Palestinian state in an interview with CNN. She said, ‘I remain committed since I’ve been on Oct. 8 to what we must do to work toward a two-state solution where Israel is secure and in equal measure the Palestinians have security and self-determination and dignity.’

The Harris campaign did not respond to multiple Fox News Digital press queries.

Harris and Biden have provided significant funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is led by Mahmoud Abbas. The PA president is considered by some to be a moderate when compared to the Iranian regime-backed Hamas leadership. Abbas, however, supports stipends for convicted Palestinian terrorists and their families regarding the infamous ‘pay for slay’ system that might mean the PA compensates Hamas terrorists.

Fox News Digital reported in November that many of the newly released convicted Palestinian terrorists who were part of a swap that secured the freedom of some Israeli and foreign hostages held by the terrorist movement Hamas could receive U.S. funds via the PA.

Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli-based organization researching Palestinian society, told Fox News Digital at the time, ‘The American and European funding boosts the Palestinian Authority budget by $600 million. The Palestinian Authority pays the salaries of imprisoned terrorists and the family members of the martyrs, and the amount comes to $300 million a year.’

Last month, Abbas, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, told the Turkish Parliament that ‘America is the plague, and the plague is America’ and ‘We implement Shari’a law: victory or martyrdom.’

The 88-year-old Abbas, who has clung to power since he took over the presidency of the PA in 2008, has been embroiled in antisemitism and Holocaust-distortion scandals over the years.

In 2022, Fox News Digital reported that Abbas delivered a tirade against Israel in Berlin, where the Holocaust – the mass extermination of European Jewry – was organized, claiming the Jewish state carried out ’50 holocausts.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Parents may want to avoid talking about politics with their kids (and each other!). But in an election year, that’s easier said than done. Social media bursts the information bubble that once protected children and debates over curricula and reading lists put politics front and center in the classroom, leading parents to ask what their children are learning in school. These days, children at ever-younger ages are joining political conversations, and many are wondering, and worrying, about where the country is heading.

Parents can try to avoid talking about politics through November 5, or they can use the election to bring up more engaged, thoughtful citizens. And if the current discourse on social media and TV leaves something to be desired, it may be time to look to the past. 

What does it mean to be an American? Thomas Jefferson called the Declaration of Independence an ‘expression of the American mind,’ but in 1776, there was little consensus. Around one-fifth of Americans were Loyalists, and many left for Canada. Many were skeptical of ‘unalienable rights.’ They asked where do rights come from? What does it mean to believe that all human beings are created equal? Today, debates continue about America as an idea and as a nation, and about what the Founding meant.

How do we achieve equality? Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in 1863, acknowledging that slavery contradicted our Founding ideals. Lincoln argued that the Civil War was a test of whether ‘any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.’ While the outcome of the Civil War was uncertain, millions of Americans—Black and White—risked their lives to ensure that those ideals would survive in the United States. Lincoln’s 272 words at Gettysburg offer a lens through which to debate the meaning of equality today and the tests we still face.

Tomorrow night, perhaps, it’s time to return to history. Talk with your children about what it means to be an American. 

Lesser-known presidents also shaped America’s great debates. James Garfield, mortally wounded just four months into his presidency, recognized the significance of the Reconstruction Amendments. He said that the elevation of Black Americans ‘from slavery to the full rights of citizenship’ was the most important political change since the Constitution’s adoption. Grover Cleveland, who rose to the presidency in just three years, captured the importance of principle over politics when he asked, ‘What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?’

What’s the purpose of American foreign policy? That question looms large, as the post-Cold War order faces assaults in Ukraine and the Middle East, and as tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific. In his Farewell Address, George Washington counseled us to, ‘Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all,’ at a time when the United States was not yet the world’s leading power. Woodrow Wilson, nearly 150 years later, declared that America’s role then was to make the world ‘safe for democracy.’ The Truman Doctrine laid the foundation for U.S. policy throughout the Cold War. After 9/11, George W. Bush channeled the Jacksonian school of thought when he pledged at Ground Zero that ‘the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon.’ America’s role in the world has been shaped by historical context and tradition – and the presidents have debated it all.

A key question about the future is the possibility of scientific progress and the role of government in innovation. John F. Kennedy faced doubts that American technological leadership was still possible after Sputnik during the space race. But in 1962, he declared that America would go to the moon, not because it was easy, but ‘because it is hard.’ Seven years later, that vision was realized. Today, with astounding innovations like artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, we may be on the edge of another age of invention, and as in the Cold War, we face a great-power technology competitor, but this time in China.

Divisive or uninspiring political rhetoric is nothing new. But leaders’ words matter. Parents often tell their children to ‘use their words’ to get their point across, and though they may rightly want to shield their children from toxic discourse, especially as children grow up, they’ll learn about our politics. That’s part of being a citizen. And during the heated debates about the Constitution, John Adams wrote, ‘Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.’ 

Ignoring that task or ceding the education of the next generation to the internet or bad actors isn’t how a self-governing republic sustains itself. So where to start? 

In his farewell address, President Ronald Reagan reminded us, ‘All great change in America begins at the dinner table.’ 

Tomorrow night, perhaps, it’s time to return to history. Talk about what it means to be an American. After all, Reagan concluded, ‘That would be a very American thing to do.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS