Connect with us

World

US election: Why is Kamala Harris losing Indian American voters?

Published

on

US election: Why is Kamala Harris losing Indian American voters?

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is projected to lose a segment of her party’s traditional share of Indian American voters – who have historically sided with the Democrats – in the 2024 United States election, a new survey of the community’s political attitudes has found.

Even though Harris could become the first ever Indian American president of the US, a survey by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has found that she is likely to secure fewer votes from the community than incumbent President Joe Biden did in 2020.

An estimated 61 percent of respondents from the community will vote for Harris, the survey found, down by nearly 4 percent as compared to the last presidential election in 2020.

The 5.2 million-strong Indian American community is the second-largest immigrant bloc in the US after Mexican Americans, with an estimated 2.6 million voters eligible for casting a ballot for the November 5 election.

There has been a decline in the community’s attachment to Harris’s party as well, with 47 percent of respondents identifying as Democrats, down from 56 percent in 2020. Meanwhile, the researchers noted “a modest shift in the community’s preferences”, with a slight uptick in willingness to vote for the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

Advertisement

Small but influential

Both parties have ramped up their outreach to the immigrant group in the last few years as the community continues to grow its political clout and influence. While Harris is today the face of the party, several Indian Americans have gained prominence on the Republican side too – from former presidential contender and ex-ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley to entrepreneur-turned-Trump surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy, and vice-presidential nominee JD Vance’s wife, Usha Vance.

Four days before November 5, pollsters say the election is too close to call, with Harris’s national edge over Trump shrinking, according to FiveThirtyEight’s poll tracker. And in all seven battleground states – Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada – the two candidates are separated by less than 2 percentage points, within the margin of error for polls.

The result of the presidential race may come down to a few thousand votes in these crucial swing states, where smaller communities – like Indian Americans – could play a pivotal role, political analysts and observers told Al Jazeera.

“Even though the Indian American community is not very big in absolute numbers, they can help swing the decision in one direction or another,” said Milan Vaishnav, the director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and co-author of the paper. “There are many states where the community’s population is larger than the margin of victory in the 2020 presidential election.”

Indian Americans are the largest Asian American community in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan. There are more than 150,000 Indian Americans in both Pennsylvania and Georgia – a number much higher than the margin by which Biden won these two states, with 35 Electoral College votes between them – in 2020.

Advertisement

But why is the community’s vote drifting away from Democrats?

Deepening gender divisions

For Aishwarya Sethi, a 39-year-old Indian American voter based in California, Harris’s pitch to reclaim abortion rights in the country strikes a chord, she told Al Jazeera. But her husband, who works at a tech company in the state, she said, is increasingly tilting towards the Republican base. “I cannot understand why his politics is shifting but it is happening gradually,” she said. “I’ll still try to convince him to vote for greater sexual autonomy.”

This gender-based partisan divide is reflected in several research papers and leading exit polls across the US. Within the Indian American community, as per the latest survey, 67 percent of women intend to vote for Harris while 53 percent of men, a smaller share, plan to vote for the vice president.

“Reproductive freedom is a paramount concern for women across America, including South Asian women and the [female] support for Harris is not surprising given her position on abortion rights,” said Arjun Sethi, an Indian American lawyer based in Washington, DC.

“Whereas a growing number of South Asian men favour strong border policies and a more friendly taxation regime, [therefore] aligning with Trump.”

Advertisement

A closer look at the data reveals that the gender gap is starkest with younger voters.

A majority of men and women above the age of 40 say they plan to pick Harris. Among voters below the age of 40, however, the male vote is split almost equally between Harris and Trump, while women overwhelmingly support Harris.

“There is also a growing scepticism among some Indian American men voting for a female president,” added Vaishnav, co-author of the paper. The deepening gender gap in voting preference among the immigrant community is “a new cleavage that didn’t exist before, however, [it] is in line with the larger national trend in the US”.

Trump’s tougher stance on “illegal and undocumented immigration and a very aggressive populist, nationalist politics” may find resonance among a segment of Indian American voters, said Sangay Mishra, an associate professor of international relations, with a specialisation in immigrants’ political incorporation, at Drew University.

“This pitch is primarily aimed at white voters but also trickles down to minorities, especially among men.”

Advertisement

However, at the same time, Mishra warns against reading too much into the reported shift in the survey. “This paper captures the dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party but it does not necessarily mean greater identification with the Republican Party,” he said, “because within the Indian American community, the Republicans are still associated with the Christian, or white, nationalist position”.

No takers for Indian heritage?

Harris’s mother was born in India and migrated to the US in 1958 for graduate studies at the University of California Berkeley, while her father is Black with Jamaican roots. The Democratic candidate has also identified herself as a Black woman in multiple instances.

That identification with African American roots, rather than more openly embracing her Indian background, has also pushed away a few voters in the South Asian community, said Rohit Chopra, a scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University. “There is actually more enthusiasm for someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Usha Vance, than for Kamala Harris [in the Indian American community],” he said. “In the American mainstream, Harris is perceived as African American.”

This “strategic decision” by her campaign is also driven by numbers, Chopra added. “The ‘Indianness’ does not have the same trade-off value [like Black voters], it’s strategically not worth it for them.”

As per the new survey, Indian Americans (61 percent) are less inclined to vote for Harris than Black voters (77 percent), and marginally more so than Hispanic Americans (58 percent). However, Harris’s support is down among Black and Latino voters too, compared to the norm for the Democratic Party.

Advertisement

Within the Indian American community, Harris’s position as a more liberal leader appeals to 26 percent of voters as compared to 7 percent who say they are enthusiastic about her Indian heritage. Meanwhile, 12 percent of the respondents in the survey said that they are less enthusiastic about the Democratic ticket because “Harris identifies more with her Black roots”.

The Gaza heat

There are other worrying signs for Democrats too: The number of Indian Americans who identify themselves as Democrats has dropped to 47 percent in 2024, down by nine points from 56 percent in 2020.

Meanwhile, 21 percent identify themselves as Republicans – the same as in 2020 – while the percentage of Indian Americans who identify as independents has grown, up to 26 percent from 15 percent.

One reason for this shift, say experts, is Israel’s war on Gaza, in which more than 43,000 people have been killed, and President Joe Biden’s administration’s steadfast support for Israel.

Earlier in the year, more than 700,000 Americans voted “uncommitted” in state primaries as a message to Biden, the then-Democrat nominee, that he would lose significant support on the November 5 election day. As per recent polls, Trump is narrowly leading Harris among Arab Americans with a lead of 45 percent to 43 percent among the key demographic.

Advertisement

“A large number of young people, particularly young Indian Americans, are disillusioned with the stance that the Democrats have taken on Gaza,” said Mishra of Drew University. “There is a lot of conversation about uncommitted voters, or giving a protest vote, to show that people are unhappy with what’s happening in Gaza – and that is influencing at least a section of Indian Americans.”

Sethi, the Indian American lawyer based in DC, added that he is confident that “a growing number of younger South Asians are voting for a third-party candidate because they are deeply committed to ending the genocide in Gaza, and therefore refuse to vote for either Trump or Harris”.

‘Domestic issues over foreign policy’

Multiple immigration experts and political analysts have said that a slight shift among the Indian American community towards Trump is also driven by his apparent friendship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist leader.

In a message on Diwali, the Indian festival of light on Thursday, Trump tried to woo the Hindu American vote.

“I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh, which remains in a total state of chaos,” he said on X. “It would have never happened on my watch. Kamala and Joe have ignored Hindus across the world and in America.”

Advertisement

“We will also protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left. We will fight for your freedom. Under my administration, we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi.”

However, Vaishnav, the co-author of the paper, claimed that it is a rather “common misperception that Indian Americans tend to vote in the presidential elections based on their assessment of US-India ties”.

Vaishnav added that the last two surveys, in 2020 and 2024, on the political attitude of the community reveal that “foreign policy may be important to Indian Americans, but it is not a defining election issue” because of a bipartisan consensus that the US and India should grow together.

Instead, the voters are more motivated by daily concerns like prices, jobs, healthcare, climate change and reproductive rights, Vaishnav said.

Advertisement

World

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

Published

on

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said. 

The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments “has not been ‌accurate in all its aspects” and his speech “was ⁠prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” according to Reuters.

The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.

“As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in ​my interest at all,” the pope reportedly said.

Advertisement

’60 MINUTES’ ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN

Pope Leo XIV answers journalists’ questions during his flight from Yaoundé, Cameroon, to Luanda, Angola, Saturday, April 18, 2026. (Luca Zennaro/Pool Photo via AP)

Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.

“While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated,” Vance wrote. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.

“The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world,” he continued. “He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”

Advertisement

The vice president’s comments came days after he told Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report” that it would be best for the Vatican to “stick to matters of morality.”

“Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” Vance said Tuesday.

Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being “terrible” on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

“He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”

Advertisement

POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO ‘MANIPULATE RELIGION’ FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS

Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump (Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, “We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.

Pope Leo XIV speaks as he meets with the community of Bamenda at Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Bamenda on the fourth day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa April 16, 2026. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Published

on

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.

Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.

Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.

Advertisement

He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.

The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.

“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.

Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.

Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.

Advertisement

‘Preserve what we have’

Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.

“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.

Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.

He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.

Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.

Advertisement

The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.

Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.

At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.

‘No one to vote for’

Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.

Advertisement

A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.

But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.

Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.

“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.

Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.

Advertisement

In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.

They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.

Continue Reading

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending