Connect with us

News

Harris has to dazzle in the debate

Published

on

Harris has to dazzle in the debate

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

This should be easy. Confirmation that Kamala Harris is sane and sentient would — in an ideal world — be more than enough for her to beat Donald Trump in Tuesday night’s debate.

Trump’s flaws are too well known to need rehearsing. Even Dick Cheney — nobody’s idea of a liberal — has announced that he will be voting for Harris. The former Republican vice-president labelled Trump as the greatest threat to the American republic in its 248-year history.

But the reality is that Harris needs to do much more than give an adequate performance. The last major poll taken before the debate suggested that Trump now has a one-point lead over Harris.

Advertisement

Of course, the New York Times/Siena poll is just one of many. Other polls in recent weeks have tended to suggest that Harris has a slim advantage in the popular vote — with the crucial swing states mainly too close to call. But given the bias against the Democrats in the electoral college system, Harris needs to be several points ahead in the popular vote to be sure of winning. And no polls suggest that she has yet established that kind of lead.

So the Harris camp has reason to be worried. The surge in excitement and support that she generated after replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket in July is dissipating.

The hopes that Harris would get a real bounce in the polls after the Democratic convention — and open up a substantial lead over Trump — were not met. Reports of disarray in the Trump camp have not translated into a weakening in support for the Republican.

Could it be that Harris’s campaign has not been the brilliantly executed triumph portrayed by some pundits? One obvious weakness is that Harris has been very reluctant to risk straying off script, by giving interviews to the media. The first television interview that she did was in the company of her running mate, Tim Walz — which suggested a lack of confidence, as if the would-be president needed a chaperone to get through some rather gentle questioning.

Perhaps as a result many voters still feel they don’t know enough about Harris to make a proper judgment. In the recent poll some 28 per cent say they need to learn more about her; compared to just 9 per cent who want to learn more about Trump.

Advertisement

But that information gap also presents Harris with an opportunity. The debate gives her a chance to define herself for the many voters who will be getting their first good look at the Democratic candidate. Harris really needs to seize that opportunity. This Tuesday’s face-off with Trump may be her last real chance to shift the momentum of the race — since no further debates are yet scheduled.

Trump and the Republicans are trying hard to define Harris as a San Francisco liberal and a “DEI” candidate — who has risen to the top because she is a Black woman, rather than on merit. Harris should take the opportunity to underline that she has lived a much less privileged life than Trump, who was born into money and privilege.

Some 61 per cent of the voters say that they want to see “major change” after the Biden presidency. Harris has somehow to convince voters that she can represent that change, despite being Biden’s vice-president. Her proposal for price controls on some goods — while panned by many economists — may be the kind of eye-catching suggestion that actually resonates with Americans who are struggling with inflation.

Yet the history of presidential election debates also suggests that they often turn on a single one-line zinger. Ronald Reagan’s genial riposte to Jimmy Carter — “There you go again” — was retrospectively deemed to be a disarming masterstroke. In the 1988 vice-presidential debate, Lloyd Bentsen memorably squelched Dan Quayle, who had unwisely compared himself to John F Kennedy, by telling him — “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” (Michael Dukakis and Bentsen still lost the election to George HW Bush and Quayle.)

In June’s debate, Trump delivered the killer line that summed up Biden’s shocking deterioration — “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either.”

Advertisement

Who will win the 2024 presidential election? Join Gideon Rachman and colleagues for a subscriber webinar on September 12 to assess the candidates’ chances after their first debate. Register for your subscriber pass now at ft.com/uswebinar

That moment should serve as a reminder not to underestimate Trump’s abilities as a debater or a television performer. Biden’s debate performance was unexpectedly awful; but Trump also did unexpectedly well. While he delivered the usual stream of lies and non-sequiturs, he also came across as more disciplined and quicker on his feet than in some previous debates.

In keeping with her campaign’s strategy to define Trump as weird — and to come across as joyful, rather than angry — Harris may look for an opportunity to laugh at Trump, rather than to denounce him.

Hoping that Trump will self-sabotage with some horrible outburst — or for the opportunity to deliver a quick put-down — the Harris campaign argued for both candidates’ microphones to remain open throughout the debate. It lost that skirmish. So Harris will have to find another way to win the battle.

The uncomfortable truth is that if the polls do not shift sharply after Tuesday’s debate, Harris is probably heading for defeat and the US is heading for a second Trump presidency.

Advertisement

gideon.rachman@ft.com

News

World reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers

Published

on

World reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers

President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10 percent worldwide tariff after the United States Supreme Court struck down his previous trade measures, triggering immediate concern and responses from governments and markets.

On Friday, Trump announced the decision on his social media platform, Truth Social, saying he has signed an executive order to impose the global tariff, which will take effect “almost immediately”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The US top court’s ruling and Trump’s new tariffs have left countries grappling with the legal and economic fallout, raising questions about ongoing agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of past duties.

Governments are now evaluating how the new levy will affect key industries, investment plans, and trade negotiations, while analysts warn that uncertainty could persist until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.

South Korea

In South Korea, one of the US’s closest allies, the presidential office, Blue House, has released a statement, saying the government will review the trade deal and make decisions in the national interest, casting a question mark over the agreement signed in November last year, which lowered tariffs from 25 to 15 percent in exchange for $350bn in cash and investments from South Korea in the US.

Advertisement

“For major South Korean companies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, the Supreme Court ruling has been positive: Even if Trump introduces the new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122, they would still pay a lower rate,” said Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul.

“However, exporters of automobiles, more than half of which go to the US, remain subject to the 25 percent tariff, and steel exports are still hit with 50 percent duties under Section 232, which was not affected by the ruling.”

The South Korean government is expected to move cautiously. Exports account for 85 percent of South Korea’s gross domestic product, with the US as the second-largest market.

“Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardise major agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the US and other investments,” said Barton.

“While no definitive policy statement has been made yet, the Blue House has said that the trade deal will be under careful review and changes are likely.”

Advertisement

India

India has faced some of the highest US tariffs under Trump’s previous use of emergency trade powers. The president first imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and later added another 25 percent on the country’s purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total to 50 percent.

Earlier this month, the US and India reached a framework trade deal. Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and that US tariffs would be lowered to 18 percent for India’s top exports to the US, including clothing, pharmaceuticals, precious stones, and textiles. Meanwhile, India said it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of agricultural products.

According to political economist MK Venu, founding editor of Indian publication, The Wire, “Critics have argued New Delhi should have waited for the US Supreme Court decision before finalising the interim trade deal and even trade analysts previously connected with the government have maintained it would have been wiser to wait for the court verdict.”

Venu added that Trump was eager to finalise the trade deal, which includes a commitment to buy $500bn worth of new imports in defence, energy, and artificial intelligence (AI) from the US over the next five years.

While India, he said, welcomed the reduction of tariffs to 18 percent and the removal of penal duties on Russian imports, uncertainty remains over negotiations, as the Supreme Court ruling affects the legal basis of past tariffs.

Advertisement

“The Indian trade delegation is likely to wait for the final outcome of the Supreme Court verdict before proceeding with further negotiations, and countries around the world are expected to follow the court’s ruling rather than rush into trade agreements under legislation deemed unconstitutional,” he said.

China

China has reacted in a muted way to the Supreme Court ruling, with much of the country still on the Lunar New Year break.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Beijing, said, “The Chinese embassy in Washington has issued a blanket statement, noting that trade wars benefit nobody, and that the decision is likely to be broadly welcomed in China, which has long been a primary target of Trump’s tariff policies.”

Since last April, he said, China has faced multiple layers of tariffs, including 10 percent on chemicals used in fentanyl production exported to the US and 100 percent on electric vehicles.

Analysts have estimated that the overall tariff level, about 36 percent, could now fall to about 21 percent, providing some relief to an economy already under strain from the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged property market crisis, and declining exports.

Advertisement

Shipments from China to the US have reportedly fallen by roughly a fifth over the past year.

“Beijing has sought to offset losses in the US market by strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations and pursuing agreements with the European Union,” McBride said.

“The Supreme Court ruling may also create a more favourable atmosphere ahead of a planned state visit by Trump in early April, when he is expected to meet President Xi Jinping, potentially opening space for a reset in relations between the world’s two largest economies.”

Canada

Canada has welcomed the US Supreme Court’s decision but has pointed out that there are still some challenges ahead.

Regional leaders across the country, including those of British Columbia and Ontario, have signalled that the ruling is a positive step, according to Al Jazeera’s Ian Wood, reporting from Toronto.

Advertisement

However, Minister for Canada-US trade Dominic LeBlanc has said that significant work remains, as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, softwood lumber, and automobiles have remained in place.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has added that while optimism has grown, tension has persisted over what Donald Trump will do next, Wood said.

Mexico

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said her government would be carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision to assess its scope and the extent to which Mexico might be affected.

“The reality is that despite all we’ve heard over the last year about tariffs or the threat of tariffs, Mexico has actually ended up in quite a privileged, even competitive position, especially when compared to other countries,” said Al Jazeera’s Julia Gliano, reporting from Mexico City.

“We have to remember Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, and the two countries, along with Canada, share a vast trading agreement that shields most products from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced.

Advertisement

“There were also punitive tariffs related to fentanyl and illegal immigration along the US border, which Mexico had managed to suspend while negotiations continued on those matters. Now the tariffs that Mexico has been subjected to on steel, aluminium, and car parts are not affected by today’s decision.”

So, the government here in Mexico, she said, is now standing by to see what the Trump administration comes up with next as it reels from today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

Limits of Trump’s tariff powers

A senior legal scholar told Al Jazeera that the US Supreme Court ruling marks a key moment in the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs, focusing on constitutional limits rather than economics.

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law, told Al Jazeera that the court has for the first time confronted what he called Trump’s broader challenge to the rule of law.

“This is a ruling that is important in several respects. The first, more broadly, is that this is the first time in the last year that the Supreme Court has stepped in and attempted to do something about Donald Trump’s generalised attack on the rule of law in the United States.

Advertisement

“And make no mistake, although tariffs certainly are about economics, what Trump has done over the last year is essentially to defy the law. And the Supreme Court happily decided that they had had enough and that they would say no. So, they’re not ruling on economic policy. They made a decision that the president simply exceeded his constitutional authority.”

Continue Reading

News

NASA eyes March 6 to launch 4 astronauts to the moon on Artemis II mission

Published

on

NASA eyes March 6 to launch 4 astronauts to the moon on Artemis II mission

NASA says it’s planning a March 6 launch date to send four astronauts on a trip around the moon on the Artemis II mission.

Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo/AFP via Getty Images

NASA could launch four astronauts on a mission to fly around the moon as soon as March 6th.

That’s the launch date that the space agency is now working towards following a successful test fueling of its big, 322-foot-tall moon rocket, which is standing on a launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

“This is really getting real,” says Lori Glaze, acting associate administrator of NASA’s exploration systems development mission directorate. “It’s time to get serious and start getting excited.”

Advertisement

But she cautioned that there’s still some pending work that remains to be done out at the launch pad, and officials will have to conduct a multi-day flight readiness review late next week to make sure that every aspect of the mission is truly ready to go.

“We need to successfully navigate all of those, but assuming that happens, it puts us in a very good position to target March 6th,” she says, noting that the flight readiness review will be “extensive and detailed.”

The Artemis II test flight will send four astronauts on an approximately 600,000-mile trip around the moon and back. It will mark the first time that people have ventured to the moon since the final Apollo lunar mission in 1972.

When NASA workers first tested out fueling the rocket earlier this month, they encountered problems like a liquid hydrogen leak. Swapping out some seals and other work seems to have fixed these issues, according to officials who say that the latest countdown dress rehearsal went smoothly, despite glitches such as a loss of ground communications in the Launch Control Center that forced workers to temporarily use backups.

Members of the Artemis II crew — NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen — are starting their roughly two-week quarantine to limit their exposure to illnesses before their flight.

Advertisement

Glaze says she spoke to several of the astronauts during the recent test fueling, as they were in Florida to observe the preparations. “They’re all very, very excited,” she says. “They are really getting a lot of anticipation for a potential launch in March.”

Continue Reading

News

Video: Trump Says He’ll Release Alien and U.F.O. Files

Published

on

Video: Trump Says He’ll Release Alien and U.F.O. Files

new video loaded: Trump Says He’ll Release Alien and U.F.O. Files

transcript

transcript

Trump Says He’ll Release Alien and U.F.O. Files

After former President Obama made viral comments about aliens, President Trump said his administration would begin to release government files related to aliens and extraterrestrial life.

“Are aliens real?” “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them. And, they’re not being kept in, what is it?” “Area 51.” “Area 51. There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy, and they they hid it from the president of the United States.” “Well, I don’t know if they’re real or not. I can tell you, he gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that. He made a, he made a big mistake.” “Well, if the president can declassify anything that he wants to, so ——” “Well, maybe I’ll get him out of trouble. I may get him out of trouble by declassifying.”

Advertisement
After former President Obama made viral comments about aliens, President Trump said his administration would begin to release government files related to aliens and extraterrestrial life.

By Shawn Paik

February 19, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending