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

Second US aircraft carrier is being sent to the Middle East, AP source says, as Iran tensions high

Published

on

Second US aircraft carrier is being sent to the Middle East, AP source says, as Iran tensions high

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will send the world’s largest aircraft carrier to the Middle East to back up another already there, a person familiar with the plans said Friday, putting more American firepower behind President Donald Trump’s efforts to coerce Iran into a deal over its nuclear program.

The USS Gerald R. Ford’s planned deployment to the Mideast comes after Trump only days earlier suggested another round of talks with the Iranians was at hand. Those negotiations didn’t materialize as one of Tehran’s top security officials visited Oman and Qatar this week and exchanged messages with the U.S. intermediaries.

Already, Gulf Arab nations have warned any attack could spiral into another regional conflict in a Mideast still reeling from the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Iranians are beginning to hold 40-day mourning ceremonies for the thousands killed in Tehran’s bloody crackdown on nationwide protests last month, adding to the internal pressure faced by the sanctions-battered Islamic Republic.

The Ford’s deployment, first reported by The New York Times, will put two carriers and their accompanying warships in the region. Already, the USS Abraham Lincoln and its accompanying guided-missile destroyers are in the Arabian Sea.

The person who spoke to The Associated Press on the deployment did so on condition of anonymity to discuss military movements.

Advertisement

Ford had been part of Venezuela strike force

It marks a quick turnaround for the Ford, which Trump sent from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caribbean last October as the administration build up a huge military presence in the lead-up to the surprise raid last month that captured then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

It also appears to be at odds with Trump’s national security strategy, which put an emphasis on the Western Hemisphere over other parts of the world.

Trump on Thursday warned Iran that failure to reach a deal with his administration would be “very traumatic.” Iran and the United States held indirect talks in Oman last week.

“I guess over the next month, something like that,” Trump said in response to a question about his timeline for striking a deal with Iran on its nuclear program. “It should happen quickly. They should agree very quickly.”

Trump told Axios earlier this week that he was considering sending a second carrier strike group to the Middle East.

Advertisement

Trump held lengthy talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday and said he insisted to Israel’s leader that negotiations with Iran needed to continue. Netanyahu is urging the administration to press Tehran to scale back its ballistic missile program and end its support for militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as part of any deal.

The USS Ford set out on deployment in late June 2025, which means the crew will have been deployed for eight months in two weeks time. While it is unclear how long the ship will remain in the Middle East, the move sets the crew up for an usually long deployment.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ford’s deployment comes as Iran mourns

Iran at home faces still-simmering anger over its wide-ranging suppression of all dissent in the Islamic Republic. That rage may intensify in the coming days as families of the dead begin marking the traditional 40-day mourning for the loved ones. Already, online videos have shown mourners gathering in different parts of the country, holding portraits of their dead.

One video purported to show mourners at a graveyard in Iran’s Razavi Khorasan province, home to Mashhad, on Thursday. There, with a large portable speaker, people sang the patriotic song “Ey Iran,” which dates to 1940s Iran under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While initially banned after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s theocratic government has played it to drum up support.

Advertisement

“Oh Iran, a land of full of jewels, your soil is full of art,” they sang. “May evil wishes be far from you. May you live eternal. Oh enemy, if you are a piece of granite, I am iron.”

___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

What the data tells us about kidnapped people — and how Nancy Guthrie is an outlier

Published

on

What the data tells us about kidnapped people — and how Nancy Guthrie is an outlier

Nancy Guthrie’s case has drawn wide attention, in part because of the unique circumstances of her disappearance. She’s seen here alongside other people who are listed on the FBI’s Kidnappings and Missing Persons page as of Thursday morning./FBI/ Screenshot by NPR

The abduction of Nancy Guthrie is putting a spotlight on the excruciating uncertainty endured by thousands of families whose loved ones go missing each year. Experts see parallels with those cases, even as many details in Guthrie’s case are unique, from the victim’s age to her celebrity daughter, Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie.

The circumstances of Guthrie’s disappearance are “quite shocking,” says Jesse Goliath, a forensic anthropologist at Mississippi State University.

Advertisement

“Usually you hear about smaller children, juveniles that go missing” and attracting national press, Goliath says. “But having an older woman who’s gone missing and having [a daughter] that you’ve seen on TV every day” is extraordinary, he adds.

More than 500,000 people were reported missing in the U.S. last year, according to the Justice Department. But Tara Kennedy, media representative for the Doe Network, a volunteer group working to identify missing and unidentified persons, says high-profile kidnappings are rare.

“I can’t remember the last time I heard about a ransom case besides Guthrie,” says Kennedy, who has worked with the Doe Network since 2014. “I always associate them with different periods in American history, like the Lindbergh kidnapping, not someone’s mother from the Today show.”

Both Kennedy and Goliath describe the Guthrie case as “strange.” Here’s a rundown of things it has in common with other missing-persons cases, and why it’s unusual:

Key details that are “unheard of”

From June 2020 to June 2025, women comprised more than 75% of the victims in the some 240,000 cases of kidnappings or abductions that were reported in the U.S., according to FBI crime data. But of those, only 646 women were in their 80s like Nancy Guthrie, who is 84, or less than .2% of all victims. Compare that to the age group that accounted for the largest number of victims that year: people 20-29, who made up just shy of 30% of victims.

Advertisement

Other highly unusual revelations have emerged as her disappearance has persisted: from purported ransom notes sent to media outlets demanding millions of dollars to unsettling images of a masked gunman approaching Guthrie’s front door on the night she disappeared.

Taken together, it’s like something out of a true crime novel, Goliath says: “That’s something unheard of.”

In missing-person cases, a quick response is crucial

TV shows have helped perpetuate a myth that families have to wait 24 hours before reporting a loved one as missing. But some shows and movies do get one thing right: The first 24 to 48 hours are critical to locating someone who has disappeared.

“Usually a lot of them are going to be [found] within 24 hours, especially the juvenile and young adult cases,” Goliath says.

Advertisement

In that early timeframe, eyewitness reports might be more useful; sniffer dogs will have a fresher scent to follow; and surveillance video and other electronic data is more likely to be intact and helpful.

“The longer the person is missing, the more difficult it becomes” to find them, Kennedy says, citing decades-old unresolved cases.

Then there’s the victim’s health. Whether the subject of a search operation wandered off and got lost, or was abducted or trafficked, Goliath notes that after 48 hours, their well-being could be compromised — by the elements, or by health issues such as Nancy Guthrie’s pacemaker and her need for daily medication.

Sadly, if that person is not found within that first two days, their chances of survival drop exponentially,” Goliath says.

Who are the people who go missing in the U.S.?

At any given moment, about 100,000 people are considered missing in the U.S., according to Goliath and Kennedy. At the end of 2024, for instance, the National Crime Information Center — listed more than 93,000 active missing-persons cases in the U.S., while a total of 533,936 cases were entered into the federal tracking system that year.

Advertisement

Of those cases, more than 60% — or roughly 330,000 — involved juveniles, according to the NCIC database, which law enforcement agencies use to share criminal warrants, missing-person alerts, and other records.

Among people who are reported missing, Goliath says there is an “overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous populations who go missing, especially females, across the United States.”

In Mississippi, he adds, “Our highest demographic of missing [persons] is young Black females.”

Black Americans are also overrepresented in abductions. While members of the group make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 25% of the victims in reported abductions or kidnappings, according to the FBI’s data.

Advertisement

But a large number of missing-persons cases also go unreported, because some communities, such as people of color or those who don’t have documented status in the U.S., are less likely to engage with authorities. And Goliath notes that Indigenous people living on reservations might have limited access to law enforcement.

Another dynamic that skews public perception, Kennedy says, is “missing white woman syndrome,” when national media become fixated on a white woman who has disappeared.

“As someone who researches cold cases in terms of looking for information, the disparity of information out there, of cases for people of color is ridiculous,” she says.

Calling for action, easier ways to share data

Goliath says every missing-person case, not just Guthrie’s, needs to be widely broadcast and shared, to increase the chance of bringing someone home.

“We call this a silent crisis,” he says, “that there are people missing in the United States, throughout the country that really don’t have that same social media representation or a nationwide media representation for their cases.”

Advertisement

It’s also difficult to find standardized data for missing persons, due to a patchwork of rules and resources. It’s only mandatory for law enforcement agencies across the country to report missing persons cases to the federal government if they involve minors, for instance.

In addition to NCIC, missing persons data is collected by NamUs (the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System), which offers public access. But as of now, only 16 states require mandatory reporting to the NamUs clearinghouse for missing persons cases.

Goliath says he’d like to see a nationwide push for more states to adopt NamUs requirements. As NPR reported last year, a large portion of U.S. police agencies weren’t listed in the system.

“That’d be a help, because it’s already a system that exists,” Goliath says. “Law enforcement already is doing it. So, let’s just have all the states be able to use NamUs.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US Colleges received more than $5 billion in foreign gifts, contracts in 2025

Published

on

US Colleges received more than  billion in foreign gifts, contracts in 2025

The top 10 countries that gave contracts and gifts to U.S. colleges and universities as of December 16, 2025.

Screenshot by NPR/The U.S. Department of Education


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Screenshot by NPR/The U.S. Department of Education

U.S. colleges received more than 5 billion dollars in reportable foreign gifts and contracts in 2025, according to a new website from the U.S. Education Department. The release is part of a push by the Trump administration to make foreign influence in colleges and universities more transparent.

Among the biggest recipients, the data show, are Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.

Qatar was the largest foreign source of funds to schools, making up more than 20% — or about 1.1 billion. Other sources include the United Kingdom, China, Switzerland and Japan.

Advertisement

In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the data provide “unprecedented visibility into funding” from countries that threaten “America’s national security.”

Under existing federal law, institutions are required to report gifts or contracts from foreign entities above $250,000. But Republicans have long raised underreporting as an issue of national security — pushing for more reporting and more transparency.

Since the start of President Trump’s second term, the administration has investigated Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, for allegedly underreporting their foreign gifts.

Ian Oxnevad, a senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy organization, called the release of the new information a “step in the right direction.”

He said the data brings welcome transparency to the sometimes murky world of foreign gifts to U.S. colleges. This data sheds light on “specific countries, what universities they donate to, and the amounts.

Advertisement

Among the significant revelations, he noted, are that “Qatar and China are among the top countries that donate to our universities, and not our allies or neighbors.”

The new website includes data on what McMahon called “countries of concern,” including China, Russia and Iran. Harvard, New York University and MIT top the list of schools getting money from those countries.

It’s important, Oxnevad said, given the role that universities such as Harvard and other Ivy League schools play in shaping public policy, to be aware that they’re “getting such heavy foreign funds.”

Universities have said they are in compliance with the law.

“MIT research on campus, regardless of funding source, is open and publishable,” the university said in a statement. “We follow all federal laws in accepting and reporting any such gifts or contracts.”

Advertisement

The American Council on Education, a member organization that represents and advocates for colleges and universities, echoed that sentiment.

“This demonstrates that our institutions are doing a good job reporting this information,” says Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff at ACE.

Both Spreitzer and Oxnevad pointed out limitations in the data on the website, including a lack of details or an ability to compare years and see trends over time. Both were critical of the government’s tracking and reporting of this information under past administrations.

But Spreitzer added that some of the information, without more context or detail, is misleading, or at best dated.

“I worry that [the administration] is trying to send a message to taxpayers that our institutions are taking a lot of money from foreign donors,” says Spreitzer. “We are all for more transparency.”

Advertisement

Her concern though, she said, is how the Trump administration will use this data in its continuing attacks on higher education.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending