10/04 – National News Story & Update

U.S. dock workers and port operators have reached a tentative agreement, bringing an immediate end to a three-day strike that had paralyzed shipping along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast, both sides announced on Thursday October 3.

The proposed deal includes a wage increase of about 62% over six years, according to sources familiar with the negotiations, including a picketing worker who heard the announcement. This would boost average wages from $39 an hour to around $63 an hour over the course of the contract. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) initially sought a 77% raise, while the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) had previously offered a nearly 50% increase. [Reuters] 

This agreement concludes the largest work stoppage of its kind in nearly 50 years, which had halted the unloading of container ships from Maine to Texas, creating supply shortages for goods ranging from bananas to auto parts and causing a backlog of anchored ships at major ports. Both the union and the port operators confirmed in a joint statement that the master contract will be extended until January 15, 2025, allowing time to negotiate any remaining issues.

One unresolved issue remains the automation of ports, which workers fear will result in job losses. Union leader Harold Daggett has previously expressed concern that companies like container ship operator Maersk and its APM Terminals North America have not committed to halting automation projects that could threaten jobs.

President Joe Biden’s administration has supported the union, urging port employers to raise their wage offer, citing the significant profits made by the shipping industry since the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the tentative agreement, Biden stated that the deal “represents critical progress toward a strong contract” and added, “Collective bargaining works.”

The Biden administration had resisted pressure from business groups and Republican lawmakers to use federal authority to intervene and stop the strike, a move that would risk alienating union support ahead of the upcoming November presidential election. 

The White House was heavily involved in negotiations, with Chief of Staff Jeff Zients leading a virtual meeting early Thursday morning with ocean carrier CEOs, urging them to reopen the ports to expedite recovery efforts following a recent hurricane in the southeastern U.S.

The ILA’s strike, which involved 45,000 port workers and was the first major work stoppage since 1977, started after negotiations for a new six-year contract fell apart. By Wednesday, 45 container vessels were anchored outside affected ports, up from just three before the strike began on Sunday, according to Everstream Analytics.

Economists from JP Morgan estimated the strike was costing the U.S. economy around $5 billion a day. The disruption impacted 36 ports, including major hubs such as New York, Baltimore, and Houston, which handle a variety of containerized goods. [Reuters] 

The decision to end the strike has been welcomed by industry leaders. The National Retail Federation said reopening the ports is “good news for the nation’s economy,” while National Association of Manufacturers CEO Jay Timmons called it “a victory for all parties involved,” as it helps safeguard jobs, protect supply chains, and prevent further economic disruptions.

While economists indicated that the strike would not have immediately affected consumer prices due to stockpiled goods, a prolonged stoppage could have driven up prices, with food costs likely being impacted first. 

9/30 – International Economics Story

In trying and failing to fix China’s economic crisis, Xi Jinping himself has long resisted advice from the IMF and others to rebalance the economy towards consumption instead doubling down on high levels of investment and China’s geopolitically controversial export like growth model. Last week we got the biggest indicator that the CCP was taking weak consumption seriously when China’s central bank announced a slew of stimulus measures designed to bolster flag in consumer confidence. 

On September 24th, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) responded by cutting interest rates, lowering reserve requirements for banks, and taking measures to reduce the cost of existing mortgages, benefiting 50 million households by around 150 billion yuan ($21 billion) annually. Pan Gongsheng, the central bank’s governor, hinted that further reserve requirement reductions might follow later this year.

The central bank will assist companies in repurchasing their own shares by refinancing the bank loans used for that purpose. Additionally, it will support securities firms, insurers, and other institutional investors in raising capital by strengthening their balance sheets. These institutions will be able to borrow safe, liquid assets like government bonds from the PBoC, using their riskier, less liquid assets, such as stocks, as collateral. The total size of these measures amounts to 800 billion yuan.

According to Reuters, the Chinese government plans to issue an additional 2 trillion yuan in bonds, equivalent to roughly 1.5% of the country’s GDP. Just as significant as the amount raised is how the funds will be used. Half of the money will be allocated to mitigating the risk of local governments defaulting, while the other half will be aimed at boosting spending by households and businesses.

A portion of the second trillion will be invested in the government’s “cash for clunkers” program, which incentivizes businesses and households to replace outdated equipment, vehicles, and appliances with newer, greener alternatives, ranging from electric cars to smart home devices like “smart toilets.” The remaining funds will go toward financing a monthly allowance for growing families—around 800 yuan per child, excluding the first. According to the 2020 census, 114 million children could benefit. Although China’s government has historically resisted handouts due to concerns about promoting laziness, this time it hopes the financial support will encourage people to have more children.

The question now is if these new plans and stimulus packages as part of Xi’s plan will be enough to fix Chinese economic woes. 

Many equity investors have already made their move, with China’s stock market surging by more than 15% last week. [The Economist] 

Chinese stocks surged to their largest single-day gains in 16 years on Monday September 30, with domestic A-shares reaching a record-high turnover as investors rushed to capitalize on a sharp rally triggered by Beijing’s latest stimulus measures. 

The CSI300 blue-chip index has now climbed nearly 30% from its February low, which, by some market standards, signals a bull market. However, most of these gains have occurred rapidly, over just a few trading sessions since last week.

Many traders, anxious about missing out on the rally ahead of a week-long holiday beginning on Tuesday, contributed to boosting the CSI300 index, which surged 8.5% by the close, bringing its five-day gain to over 25%—the strongest increase on record. [Reuters] 

But will this kind of responsive growth last for long? 

The root cause of China’s economic crisis is the fact that consumption accounts for a disproportionately small share of its overall GDP. GDP is often defined as the sum of four things: government spending, business investment, household consumption and the difference between exports and imports. 

Household consumption makes up a disproportionately small fraction of Chinese GDP, somewhere around 40%.  This means that your average Chinese person doesn’t really buy or consume that much stuff, and the Chinese economy is instead mostly driven by exports to foreign consumers.  

This is understood through a variety of mechanisms, including an undervalued currency and the fact that China essentially underpays its workers keeping them poor and to keep Chinese exports competitive. All the main elements of China’s wider economic crisis interact with this reality. Their deflationary crisis for example is in part because Chinese families just do not have enough disposable income.

They don’t have enough money, so many have to take out large and unsustainable mortgages. Also, local governments have accrued large fiscal debts because they invest in big infrastructure projects such as high speed rail or massive bridges. 

Chinese consumers just aren’t economically active enough to actually make productive use of these Investments which means they don’t produce. 

China’s export crisis is heightened due to the fact that Chinese manufacturers can’t sell in high volume to their own domestic market, because again, Chinese consumers don’t have enough money. Similarly, Chinese youth unemployment rate is partly due to educational inflation but it’s also because as exports decline, China’s domestic economy doesn’t have the strength to create enough jobs.

Opinion: 

China could have taken two broad approaches to tackling its economic despairs. It could revert to the old playbook of doubling down on investment and exports by subsidizing Chinese industry. Or, it could increase consumer demand through stimulus packages for households or improving their social safety nets. If households don’t have to save up in the case of unemployment or future hard times, then they would be able to spend more. This would also reduce their trade surplus. 

It seemed for a while that Beijing had committed to doubling down, as Xi Jinping refused to bail out the local government or the housing sector, and instead were looking to new productive forces and doubling down on their industry by boosting high tech sectors like AI, EVs, and semiconductors. 

The CCP recently acknowledged it was aware of the problem of weak domestic demand but prioritized modernization and investing in their technological development and staying internationally competitive. 

Many economists questioned how a focus on technological innovation and doubling down on industry investment and manufacturing could solve a domestic housing crisis. There seems to be a noticeable concrete difference in the economic philosophy between a national government like China versus the United States. The CCP and its leaders seem to be advocating for the approach that technological innovation is what will lead to growth and a strong economy. The United States and many Western countries hold the belief that a healthy and well-balanced economy is the prerequisite condition and catalyst for innovation in the private sector. 

Two key instincts have shaped Xi Jinping’s approach to China’s macroeconomic policies since he took power in 2012. He has been reluctant to offer consumer handouts, believing they encourage complacency, and has avoided aggressive economic stimulus, unlike the significant fiscal and monetary measures deployed by his predecessors in November 2008 during the global financial crisis. However, China’s economic struggles over the past year have tested Xi’s convictions. This week, just before the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, Xi appears to have softened his stance, allowing for the most substantial stimulus package since 2008. Chinese stocks had their best week in 16 years, while Hong Kong’s markets saw a surge not experienced since 1998. Some analysts have even started using the term “bazooka.”

The Chinese have been going full force on expanding their electric vehicle industry as of late, with a notable breakthrough in affordability that rivals global competition and threatens markets like the EU. However, these developments have virtually ignored the economic problems that exist on their domestic front, including consumer spending, a housing slowdown, and a consistent 15-month deflationary spiral. 

In a briefing earlier last week, China’s Central Bank announced a dramatic stimulus package for the Chinese package. This is one of the largest of its kind since at least the Covid pandemic. Most of this package was directed at the housing sector, with reduction in mortgage requirements for second homes and cut the reserved ratio for banks. This frees up cash for banks to lend to prospective home buyers. 

Some support for Chinese equities which gave a noticeable boost to all of China’s major stock indexes. The government also has plans to recapitalize the banking sector. 

Whether this emergent stimulus package will actually be sufficient in fixing China’s economic woes depends on a few factors. This will not be enough of its own and for right now is like throwing a cup of water on a house fire. Things will only turn around if this is the first of many packages and the first step in an overall shift in economic policy. This package on its own will not be nearly enough to fix the housing crisis and there will need to be more focus on poor households. 

It also depends on whether or not this is coming too little too late considering China’s deflationary track has been going for over a year now. This package might raise consumer stock prices for a little while but there are still many question marks regarding whether this will actually be enough to restore long term consumer confidence. Super loose stimulus is not always enough to restart an economy, especially if the trends have formed and consumer pessimism has set in. 

09/29 – International News Story

As Moldova prepares for its upcoming elections on October 20, the Kremlin is deploying disinformation and its financial influence, according to Chișinău’s national security chief. [Politico]

Moscow is reportedly channeling millions of euros and deploying a vast network of social media accounts to prevent Moldova’s potential EU membership, a top official warned.

Stanislav Secrieru, Moldova’s national security adviser, described Russia’s efforts as an “unprecedented wave” of hybrid tactics aimed at the country, as it nears a pivotal vote on joining the EU. 

“We are witnessing a chilling strategy centered on exploiting fear, particularly the fear of war,” Secrieru said. “For the first time, Russia’s disinformation campaign is dangerously linking Moldova’s pursuit of EU membership with the threat of war within our borders.” He emphasized that President Maia Sandu, who supports European integration, is the primary target of a “bold digital offensive” aimed at undermining the country’s Western ties. [Politico]

Secrieru revealed that law enforcement estimates suggest €50 million was funneled into the previous year’s elections to buy influence, from media propagandists to vulnerable voters. He expects that the upcoming presidential election and referendum will see an even greater influx of illicit funds, predicting Russia could spend around €100 million to interfere in Moldova’s democratic process.

He also noted that Russian intelligence is “flooding the political scene with fake parties and candidates, ranging from pro-Russian to fake pro-European.” On October 20, voters will decide whether to re-elect Sandu and vote on a referendum regarding EU accession. Moldova, which gained EU candidate status last year, began accession talks in December.

To counter Russia’s hybrid threats, Brussels has sent a civilian mission to Moldova. Last summer, Ukrainian intelligence revealed a plot funded by Moscow to violently overthrow Moldova’s government, allegedly involving pro-Russian politician Ilhan Shor, whose party has since been banned from participating in the elections.

Reports from the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies highlighted the use of social media platforms like TikTok and Telegram to target young people and called on Brussels to pressure tech companies into taking action.

This week, Moldova banned five Russian state media outlets, and Secrieru announced that the country is ramping up its defenses against cyberattacks.

09/27 – International News Update

The Israeli military reported that it hit Hezbollah’s central headquarters in Beirut. The Friday evening explosions marked the most intense strikes witnessed in the Lebanese capital over the past year.

According to Israeli army spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the strikes targeted Hezbollah’s main headquarters, which was located underneath residential buildings. Airstrikes on Hezbollah sites continued into early Saturday after the military had warned residents to evacuate from three targeted buildings.

Lebanon’s health ministry reports that over 720 people have been killed in the country this week. Israel has significantly intensified its strikes, stating that its focus is on Hezbollah’s military assets and high-ranking commanders. [AP News]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short his trip to the United States and decided to return to Israel ahead of the end of the Sabbath on Saturday evening, according to his office. Just hours earlier, Netanyahu had addressed the United Nations, promising that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah would persist, diminishing hopes for a cease-fire supported by the international community.

President Joe Biden expressed to confidantes and allies this week that he did not believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interested in ending the conflict with Hezbollah, voicing growing frustration as a proposed cease-fire plan unraveled, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. [Politico]

One individual who spoke with Biden mentioned that the president felt Netanyahu had embarrassed both Secretary Antony Blinken and himself with his indecisiveness regarding the cease-fire proposal with Hezbollah.

Netanyahu at first told U.S. officials he supported a pause in fighting with the Lebanon-based militant group, then roundly rejected the cease-fire proposal once it was made public.

The revelation comes amid intensifying Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, culminating Friday with a strike on the militant group’s headquarters in Beirut. The target of that attack was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, according to a U.S. official, two Israeli officials and two other people informed of the strike. [Politico]

It has just been confirmed that Nasrallah was killed in the attack — which came just after Netanyhu delivered a fiery address to the United Nations — dramatically escalates the conflict in Lebanon and could undermine the Biden administration’s effort to clinch a cease-fire and head-off a full-scale war.

Nasrallah’s death from Friday’s attack, represents one of the most consequential Israeli strikes against Hezbollah in decades. Nasrallah has led the Iran-backed militant organization since 1992, following Israel’s assassination of his predecessor.

According to two U.S. administration officials, this latest strike could further strain the relationship between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Biden administration has repeatedly been caught off guard by Israel’s bold actions during delicate cease-fire negotiations, including recent incidents where Israel detonated pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah, which reportedly led to civilian casualties.

Firas Maksad, a Lebanon expert at the Middle East Institute, remarked, “Whether or not Israel was successful in killing Nasrallah today, this will no doubt be a marked escalation in the conflict that will put us beyond the threshold of an all-out war.” He added that the situation is particularly concerning as Israeli ground troops seem to be gearing up for an invasion of southern Lebanon. [Politico]

Opinion:

Since Hezbollah began launching missiles at Israel on October 8th last year, the threat of escalation has loomed over Israelis, Lebanese, and the international community. That escalation now seems to be materializing. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is intensifying. Over 500 people died in a single day of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah leaders and its arsenal.

100,000 Lebanese civilians have been displaced, fleeing from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah retaliates. On September 25th, Israel intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at Tel Aviv—the first time Hezbollah targeted Israel’s commercial hub.

Despite how dire things seem, the situation could deteriorate even further. Israel has massed more troops in the north than at any time in the past nine months. Still, a full-scale ground invasion would require even more forces, stationed near the border. There is growing fear that both sides are heading towards a devastating escalation. Yet, both have reasons to pull back. An all-out war would only result in a high death toll and a return to the previous deadlock that existed before October 7th.

Israel claims to have wiped out up to 50% of Hezbollah’s arsenal, but the militia has over 120,000 rockets and missiles remaining, which could inflict significant damage. Even with Israel’s military strength, a clear victory is not guaranteed, as previous conflicts in Lebanon have demonstrated. A ground invasion would pit Israel’s fatigued troops, following months of operations in Gaza, against a well-armed, battle-hardened foe in familiar territory. Moreover, a second major conflict would seriously damage Israel’s economy, while Israeli strikes on Lebanon’s infrastructure would worsen an already catastrophic economic situation, with Lebanon’s GDP less than half of what it was in 2019 due to poor governance.

Iran, Hezbollah’s key backer, also seems cautious about a broader conflict. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, told the UN this week that Iran would not allow Israel to provoke a regional war. It’s possible that Iran prefers to keep Hezbollah’s resources intact as a deterrent against a direct Israeli attack on Iranian soil.

Israel has its own reasons for de-escalation. It cannot fully eliminate Hezbollah, only weaken it. After causing substantial damage to the militia since July, Israel may soon find itself running out of viable targets. Once it has exhausted Hezbollah’s stock of medium-range rockets and taken out key leaders, the risk of killing the group’s main political figures, like Hassan Nasrallah, could push Hezbollah—and by extension, Iran—into using its remaining arsenal. That’s a red line Israel would prefer not to cross.

The most promising exit from this conflict might lie to the south. Nasrallah had indicated he would cease fire on Israel if a truce were reached in Gaza.

Unfortunately, a truce in Gaza seems elusive, largely due to the stubbornness of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. A cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, as called for by the U.S., much of Europe, and several Arab nations, seems more attainable. With pressure from Iran, Hezbollah might be convinced to back down, and Israel might feel it has done enough, at least for now. Even an unofficial truce would bring some much-needed relief.

Such a pause would at least allow displaced Israelis in the north and Lebanese in the south to return to their homes. While Israel would still face the looming threat of a heavily armed adversary near its border, one truce is better than none at all. Though it wouldn’t guarantee lasting peace, a cease-fire would certainly buy some time before the next inevitable conflict arises.

9/25 – International News Update

On Monday, Israel’s military launched airstrikes against Hezbollah sites in Lebanon, with Lebanese officials reporting that 492 people had been killed, marking the deadliest day in the country in decades and forcing tens of thousands to flee. 

Following one of the heaviest cross-border firefights since the outbreak of hostilities in October, Israel issued a warning to the Lebanese population to leave areas where Hezbollah was allegedly storing weapons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a brief video to the Lebanese, stating: “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has used you as human shields for far too long.” [Reuters 1]  

Families in southern Lebanon packed their cars, vans, and trucks with belongings, with entire generations of families crammed into single vehicles. As airstrikes fell around them, children sat on their parents’ laps, and belongings were tied to car roofs. Highways heading north were severely congested. 

After nearly a year of conflict against Hamas in Gaza, Israel is now turning its attention to the northern front, where Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has been launching rockets into Israel in support of Hamas, also an Iranian ally. Israel’s military stated it hit Hezbollah targets in southern, eastern, and northern Lebanon, striking “launchers, command posts, and terrorist infrastructure,” totaling about 1,600 strikes in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

Lebanon’s health ministry reported that at least 492 people, including 35 children, had been killed and 1,645 wounded. According to one Lebanese official, this was the highest daily death toll since the 1975-1990 civil war.

On Tuesday, Israel and Hezbollah exchanged fire again, with Israel launching an airstrike on Beirut causing thousands of residents from southern Lebanon to flee as tensions between the two parties neared the verge of full-scale war. 

Lebanese authorities reported that 558 people were killed in airstrikes on Monday, including 50 children and 94 women. Additionally, 1,835 individuals were wounded, and tens of thousands have fled their homes seeking safety. [Reuters 2] 

Concerns are mounting that the U.S., a close ally of Israel, and Iran could be drawn into a larger regional conflict. Saudi Arabia expressed grave concern on Monday, urging restraint from all parties, as reported by the state news agency SPA.

A senior U.S. State Department official reiterated that Washington did not support a cross-border escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, and that discussions with allies and partners were underway to explore “concrete ideas” to prevent the conflict from expanding. Israeli officials have suggested that the increased airstrikes against Hezbollah are intended to pressure the group into accepting a diplomatic resolution

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking in New York, accused Israel of attempting to drag the Middle East into a larger war by provoking Iran to intervene in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. “It is Israel that seeks to create this all-out conflict,” Pezeshkian told reporters, warning of the irreversible consequences of such instability. [Reuters 1]  

According to an Israeli military spokesperson, Israeli jets targeted 1,300 Hezbollah sites on Monday, reportedly destroying a significant number of the group’s rockets. Lebanon’s Health Minister mentioned that some of the strikes affected hospitals, medical facilities, and ambulances. Israeli military spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stated that Israel will take “whatever is necessary” to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon’s border but did not specify a timeline. 

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared that Monday marked a “significant peak” in the conflict, which has now lasted nearly a year. “On this day, we have neutralized tens of thousands of rockets and precision weapons. What Hezbollah has built over 20 years since the second Lebanon War is now being destroyed by the IDF,” Gallant said in a statement. [Reuters 1] 

Displaced families found shelter in makeshift spaces set up in schools in both Beirut and Sidon. Meanwhile, heavy traffic clogged the border with Syria as many fled Lebanon for safety. The IDF’s chief of staff announced that the military is preparing for a potential ground offensive in Lebanon.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged both Israel and Hezbollah to step back from their escalating conflict, warning that an all-out war would be devastating for the region and its people.

In New York for the UN General Assembly, Blinken revealed on Wednesday that the U.S. is working on a plan to reduce tensions and enable the return of tens of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese who have been displaced from their homes near the border.

“The best way to achieve that is not through war or escalation,” Blinken said in an interview with CBS news. “It would be through a diplomatic agreement that has forces pulled back from the border, creates a secure environment, and allows people to return home.”

U.S. officials mentioned that they are exploring various ideas to ease the situation, but did not provide specific details.

Some of these ideas may be discussed during a special UN Security Council meeting on Lebanon that France requested for later Wednesday.

“We are focused on de-escalation right now, working with many partners here in New York at the UN General Assembly, the Arab world, Europeans, and others,” Blinken said. “A full-scale war, which we don’t currently have and are working to prevent, wouldn’t resolve the issue.”

While addressing troops on Israel’s northern border, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said: “You can hear the jets flying overhead; we’ve been striking all day. This is both to prepare the ground for your potential entry and to continue weakening Hezbollah.”

He continued: “Today, Hezbollah increased its range of fire, and they will receive a strong response later today. Be ready.”

Halevi further noted that in order to facilitate the return of displaced citizens in northern Israel to their homes, “we are preparing for the possibility of a maneuver.” 

Hezbollah fired dozens of missiles at an Israeli military base in northern Israel. Sirens warning of rocket fire sounded across northern Israel, including Haifa and parts of the northern occupied West Bank. 

Approximately 60,000 people have been evacuated from northern Israel as the cross-border clashes continue. Gallant stated that the military campaign would persist until residents could safely return to their homes, while Hezbollah vowed to fight until there was a ceasefire in Gaza.

An Israeli airstrike on Beirut on Tuesday resulted in the death of a senior Hezbollah commander, escalating concerns of an all-out war in the Middle East as cross-border rocket attacks intensified. According to Israel’s military, the strike targeted and killed Ibrahim Qubaisi, identified as the commander of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket forces. Two security sources in Lebanon confirmed that Qubaisi held a prominent role in the Iran-backed group’s rocket division. [Reuters 2] 

On Wednesday, Israel expanded its airstrikes across Lebanon and intercepted a missile that Hezbollah claimed to have fired at the Mossad intelligence agency near Tel Aviv, intensifying the conflict between the two adversaries. 

Lebanon’s Health Minister reported that at least 51 people were killed and 223 wounded in Israeli airstrikes on Wednesday at five different locations across the country. [Reuters 3] 

The Iran-backed Hezbollah stated that it launched a ballistic missile targeting Mossad headquarters—marking the first time in nearly a year of conflict that Tel Aviv, located in central Israel, faced such a direct threat. 

The Wednesday missile launch by Hezbollah was the first sighting of one of its missiles over Tel Aviv since the war began last October. Israeli authorities confirmed that the missile aimed at Tel Aviv was intercepted by a David’s Sling missile, a defense system designed to neutralize ballistic missiles at low altitude. [Reuters 3] 

White House national security spokesperson John Kirby expressed deep concern over the missile attack on Mossad, yet emphasized that the U.S. continues to believe a diplomatic resolution is possible to reduce the violence.

Lebanon has stated that only U.S. intervention could potentially halt the ongoing conflict. Health Minister Firass Abiad told the BBC that Israel’s actions have caused widespread “carnage,” severely impacting civilians, including women and children.

Hezbollah holds Mossad responsible for the assassinations of its leaders and has also accused the spy agency of an operation last week in which explosive-laden pagers and radios of Hezbollah members were detonated, killing 39 and injuring nearly 3,000. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in this incident.

Exploding Pagers Attack

The operation in reference was a Mossad-orchestrated attack which caused hundreds of pagers and walkie-talkie radio transmitters that Hezbollah used for communications, to all explode simultaneously. 

On Tuesday September 17, pagers carried by hundreds of Hezbollah members detonated almost simultaneously in various parts of Lebanon and Syria, killing at least 12 people, including two children, and injuring thousands. An anonymous U.S. official confirmed that Israel had briefed the U.S. on the operation, revealing that small amounts of explosives had been hidden in the pagers. While the Lebanese government and Hezbollah blamed Israel for the attack, the Israeli military, known for its sophisticated covert operations, declined to comment.

The following day, additional detonations occurred in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, including several explosions heard at a funeral for Hezbollah members killed in Tuesday’s attacks. According to the Health Ministry, at least 25 people were killed and more than 600 were wounded in this second wave of explosions.  [AP News]

After the coordinated attacks, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, did not address the device explosions but praised the efforts of Israel’s military and security agencies, stating, “We are at the start of a new phase in the war.” 

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah condemned the attacks, calling them a “severe blow” and accusing Israel of crossing a “red line.” He vowed that Hezbollah would continue its daily strikes on northern Israel as long as the Gaza conflict persists and indicated that an investigation was underway into how the bombings were carried out. [AP News]

Hezbollah has long relied on pagers for communication, as they operate on a different wireless network from mobile phones, making them more resilient during emergencies. This technology had allowed the group to bypass Israeli electronic surveillance on mobile networks, which is believed to be extensive in Lebanon. 

However, recent explosions suggest that even these older communication devices were not immune to Israeli tactics. According to Elijah J. Magnier, a veteran political risk analyst, the pagers involved in Tuesday’s explosions were acquired more than six months ago, though it remains unclear how they were brought into Lebanon.

09-18 International News Story & Updates

Last week, President Vladimir Putin warned that the West would be engaging in direct conflict with Russia if it permitted Ukraine to target Russian territory using Western-supplied long-range missiles. Putin emphasized that such a move would significantly alter the conflict’s nature and scope.

For months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been urging Kyiv’s allies to allow Ukraine to use Western missiles, such as the U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, to strike deep into Russian territory. The goal is to disrupt Moscow’s capacity to carry out attacks. In some of his most assertive statements yet, Putin suggested that providing these missiles to Ukraine would involve the supplier countries directly in the war. He explained that the necessary satellite targeting data and missile programming would require NATO military personnel, as Kyiv lacks the capability to carry out these tasks independently.

“So this is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict,” Putin told Russian state TV. [Reuters] 

“If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.”

Putin stated that Russia would be compelled to respond with “appropriate decisions” in light of new threats, although he did not specify what those responses might entail. In the past, he has alluded to the possibility of arming the West’s adversaries with Russian weapons for attacks on Western targets and has mentioned the potential deployment of conventional missiles within range of the U.S. and European allies.

Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, is also in the process of updating its nuclear doctrine, which outlines the conditions under which Moscow would deploy nuclear weapons. Putin is facing pressure from a prominent foreign policy figure to modify this doctrine to include a willingness to use nuclear arms against countries that “support NATO aggression in Ukraine.” Meanwhile, Russia is conducting significant naval drills with China and contemplating restrictions on key commodity exports.

Western discussions about whether to allow Kyiv to strike Russian territory with long-range weapons are framed as a response to what they perceive as Moscow’s escalation of the war. This follows reports that Russia has received ballistic missiles from Iran, which Tehran has dismissed as “ugly propaganda.”

These concerns for Putin come amidst a sense that the U.S. and Britain are on the verge of making a significant decision in the Ukraine conflict. A pivotal White House meeting took place  on Friday where they discussed allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied missiles to strike within Russian territory, but ultimately no concrete decision on the matter was made. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stern warning on Thursday evening, declaring that such a move would equate to NATO entering the conflict directly. “This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia,” Putin said.

The U.S. has long been reluctant to authorize Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russian forces, fearing that such an escalation could lead to Russian retaliation against a NATO country, such as the weapons supply hub in Rzeszów, Poland. However, the dynamics have shifted, partly due to a significant shipment of Iranian missiles to Russia. British intelligence believes these weapons could give Putin’s forces a decisive advantage as they continue to make gains in eastern Ukraine, particularly around the strategic city of Pokrovsk.

Last week’s  summit is the culmination of a week of intense diplomatic negotiations among Western allies. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken held talks with his British and Ukrainian counterparts earlier in the week, with a U.K. official stating, “We’re really in the last hard yards of diplomatic negotiations now.” [Politico] 

Although formal announcements are not expected immediately, some U.K. officials expressed hope that a deal might be confirmed at the U.N. General Assembly later this month when Biden and Starmer will be in attendance.

Western officials have acknowledged that while the decision, if made, will not singlehandedly change the war’s outcome, it could help Ukraine counter Russia’s recent gains in the east. 

The British position has been more permissive, with former Prime Minister David Cameron previously stating that Ukraine “has that right” to target Russia. However, Washington has remained cautious, concerned about the risk of escalation. [Politico] 

According to a second U.K. official, the revelation that Iran has been supplying ballistic missiles to Russia has altered Western thinking. “Things have changed in light of Russia’s acquisition of ballistic missiles from Iran,” the official explained. Blinken’s confirmation that Iran is now supplying Russia was described as a “significant moment.”

Other European officials have echoed these concerns, with one defense advisor in the Baltic region noting that the shift in Washington’s stance was largely due to the Iranian missile shipments.

A U.S. administration official emphasized that while the Iranian missiles are troubling, this development has not been the primary factor in Washington’s decision-making regarding long-range missile support for Ukraine. “This has been in the works for a long time,” the official said. [Politico] 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently called for permission to use long-range missiles to target key military installations across the Russian border. Leaders from the Baltic states have supported these appeals, arguing that concerns about escalation are misplaced.

Despite this, any agreement is expected to maintain restrictions on the types of Russian targets Ukraine can engage. Starmer remarked, “We have been providing training and capability. And there are obviously further discussions to be had about the nature of that capability.”

Details of the discussions have been kept confidential, but sources suggest a small group of White House officials is finalizing plans to allow Ukraine to strike a broader range of targets inside Russia using American and British weapons. Zelenskyy has urged swift action, warning that delays could give Moscow time to relocate its military assets deeper into Russia.

Zelenskyy has made it clear that he expects any agreement to have real military significance, asserting that “removing restrictions means removing restrictions” and that he seeks a strategy aimed at Ukraine’s victory, not just political maneuvering. [Politico] 

Allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles comes with several complications, including the high cost of the missiles and the fact that some systems used in conjunction with them are U.S.-made. More broadly, U.S. officials have long feared that the risks of escalation could outweigh the benefits.

U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer seemed to dismiss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warnings during their meeting last Friday, where Ukraine’s request to use British-supplied missiles against Russian targets was discussed.

When asked about Putin’s assertion that such an action would draw NATO into the war, Biden responded, “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.” As for Ukraine’s potential use of missiles deeper into Russia, Biden remarked, “We’re going to discuss that now.” [Politico 2] 

After the meeting, Starmer clarified that no final decision on the Storm Shadow missiles had been reached and suggested that more developments could come during the upcoming U.N. General Assembly. He emphasized that the meeting was not focused on a specific capability but rather on broader strategic discussions, adding, “We’ve come to a strong position.” Starmer rejected suggestions that their timing was influenced by the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the possibility of Donald Trump, who once praised Putin as a “genius,” returning to power. He insisted the focus remained on pressing developments in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The two leaders held a private 20-minute discussion in the Oval Office, followed by a larger meeting with key aides, covering issues related to both Ukraine and the Middle East. Starmer had not ruled out allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles, stating, “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away.”

Despite growing pressure from both Russia and Ukraine, officials stressed that no immediate decision on the use of Storm Shadow missiles was expected. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby reiterated that there would be no announcement on long-range strike capabilities targeting Russia, adding, “There’s no change to our policy with respect to that.” [Politico 2] 

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed frustration at the delay, writing on X, “It’s difficult to repeatedly hear, ‘We are working on this,’ while Putin continues to burn down our cities and villages.” On the same day, Russia expelled six British diplomats, accusing them of espionage, a claim the U.K. denied as “baseless,” stating the diplomats had lost their status in August.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv, urging the U.K. and U.S. to authorize the use of long-range missiles like Storm Shadow, SCALP, and ATACMS, warning that “every day that goes by means more pointless and tragic loss of Ukrainian lives.” [Politico 2] 

Grant Shapps, the U.K.’s former Defense Secretary, echoed this sentiment, saying the Biden-Starmer meeting “must deliver one outcome: Ukraine must be able to strike with Storm Shadows inside Russia if Russia continues to launch attacks on Ukraine from these locations.”

Although Biden’s approval is considered critical due to the U.S. technology involved in the Storm Shadow missiles, diplomatic alignment between the U.S. and U.K. was seen as paramount. Two U.K. officials noted that they aimed to avoid any perception of differing stances between the allies, despite skepticism that the use of Storm Shadow missiles alone would significantly alter the war’s course.

Reflecting on the situation, Starmer said, “I think the next few weeks and months could be crucial. It’s very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.” 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, involving tens of thousands of troops, sparked the most significant confrontation between Russia and the West since the Cold War. Putin portrays the conflict as part of an existential struggle with a declining and morally corrupt West, which, in his view, has disrespected Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 by expanding into areas he considers part of Moscow’s sphere of influence, including Ukraine.

In contrast, the West and Ukraine describe the invasion as an imperialist land grab, pledging to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Currently, Russia occupies more than 18% of Ukrainian territory.

09/11 – Internationl News Story and Update

Michel Barnier, the European Union’s former chief Brexit negotiator, was appointed as France’s prime minister on September 5th, marking the end of two months of political deadlock. 

President Emmanuel Macron made the announcement following a series of discussions with key political figures in an attempt to resolve the impasse created by the inconclusive parliamentary elections in July.

At 73 years old, Barnier is a seasoned politician from the center-right Republicans party, has held multiple positions in Gaullist governments, including foreign minister under President Jacques Chirac. As a former European commissioner, he is well known in Britain for his firm approach during the Brexit negotiations. [The Economist] 

Barnier is considered to hold a no-nonsense demeanor and a sharp sense of humor, Barnier is an experienced, traditional politician, and he is more than twice the age of Gabriel Attal, the centrist he replaced. 

Although Barnier’s name had been circulating for weeks, he was not Macron’s initial choice. No political group had a majority in the French parliament following the July elections, and Macron struggled to find someone who could garner enough support across party lines to withstand a no-confidence vote. Barnier was ultimately chosen after other contenders, like former Socialist Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve and center-right Xavier Bertrand, faced the risk of opposition from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN), the third-largest parliamentary bloc.

Barnier will be quickly tasked with tackling the looming issue of France’s urgent need to address its public finances. Outgoing finance minister Bruno Le Maire revealed that the budget deficit could reach 5.6% of GDP this year, exceeding the 5.1% initially projected and well above the EU’s 3% limit. Le Maire has called for €16 billion in additional savings for this year alone. The new government must present next year’s budget to parliament by October 1st. [The Economist] 

In recent days, leaders of the National Rally have outlined their conditions for support, which include measures on purchasing power, security, and immigration, the introduction of proportional representation in parliament, and “respect” for far-right lawmakers. 

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right National Rally, gave her strongest indication yet of her willingness to cooperate with the new prime minister, Michel Barnier, in an interview with La Tribune on Sunday. Speaking about President Emmanuel Macron’s choice to replace Gabriel Attal after this summer’s election, Le Pen stated, “We don’t wish to cause obstructions.” [Politico 2] 

Centrist senator and Macron ally Hervé Marseille commented, “Marine Le Pen gives the kiss of death to this figure and then that one. The National Rally has 142 lawmakers, you can’t ignore them,” in an interview with Le Monde. [Politico] 

Although the National Rally failed to win the parliamentary election it had been expected to dominate, it has now emerged as a powerful influence. Le Pen played a pivotal role in the negotiations to select the next prime minister. Initially, conservative heavyweight Xavier Bertrand was a leading contender after meeting with center-right lawmakers who expressed support for a right-leaning prime minister. Macron even called Le Pen to discuss Bertrand and former Socialist Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, another early frontrunner whose chances diminished by Monday. 

While the far right still has the power to topple Barnier’s government, pollster Bruno Jeanbart suggested they may hold back from doing so too quickly. “They have the fate of the government in their hands, but I’m not sure it’s in their interest to topple the government too quickly,” Jeanbart said, adding that the National Rally may prefer to let events unfold in anticipation of the next presidential election, acknowledging that “it’s difficult to run a country without winning the presidential election.” [Politico] 

Macron’s cooperation with the National Rally has raised concerns within his own camp. After dissolving parliament following the far right’s strong performance in the June European election, Macron had campaigned to prevent extreme parties from gaining power in Paris. 

Many believe he has now effectively given the National Rally significant leverage over the future government. 

A centrist lawmaker commented that recent developments do not “correspond to the spirit of the Republican front,” referencing the tradition of mainstream parties uniting to keep the far right from power. The lawmaker emphasized that Barnier’s fate is now in the hands of the National Rally. [Politico] 

“It’s undeniable that Michel Barnier seems to have the same position as we do on migration,” Le Pen told the French daily. [Politico 2] 

Another parliamentarian from Macron’s party blamed the left for failing to come up with innovative solutions. After some internal disagreements, the New Popular Front nominated 37-year-old civil servant Lucie Castets as their candidate for prime minister, arguing that their first-place finish entitled them to make the choice. However, Macron rejected Castets’ bid, citing concerns about institutional stability and predicting she wouldn’t survive a no-confidence vote in the divided National Assembly.

Marine Tondelier, leader of the Greens, criticized Macron for moving further to the right to placate the National Rally and ensure they wouldn’t bring down the next government. “He’s been constantly cozying up to the far right,” Tondelier remarked. [Politico] 

Opinion: 

Barnier, who adopted a strong stance on immigration during the Republicans’ 2021 presidential primary, seems to be less divisive among the hard-right. After his appointment, Le Pen expressed satisfaction, stating Barnier would at least show her voters respect. 

However, Barnier is not expected to be a compliant subordinate to Macron, as he has previously criticized the president, calling his leadership “solitary and arrogant.” Nonetheless, Barnier’s pro-European stance and international reputation for seriousness may reassure neighbors, financial markets, and French businesses. At his age, Barnier is also unlikely to have ambitions for the next presidential election in 2027.

Following his appointment Barnier will be forced to face political challenges right off the bat. The first of which is the fact that the left is strongly opposed to him. The New Popular Front, a left-wing coalition, holds the largest bloc in parliament with 193 of 577 seats. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the radical-left Unsubmissive France, declared that the election was “stolen” and has called for Macron’s impeachment. Although Barnier might be able to pass legislation with the support of 47 Republicans and most centrists, provided the RN does not block him, the left will likely continue to challenge him both in parliament and through protests. Mélenchon has already called for mass demonstrations on September 7th. [The Economist] 

Barnier faces quite the formidable task as he attempts to form the “unifying government” Macron hopes for, while implementing budget cuts, pacifying the left, managing the hard right, and navigating Macron’s tendency to micromanage.

Many believe that  Macron’s decision to appoint Barnier has handed the far right a significant victory. The survival of Michel Barnier’s incoming government will depend on the support of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, which came third in the recent snap election. 

His stance on immigration could be key in garnering at least passive support from the far right in parliament. A member of the right-wing Republicans party, Barnier has previously called for a temporary halt to non-European immigration for three to five years—a position that closely aligns with Le Pen’s. 

The left-wing New Popular Front, despite winning the most seats, did not secure a majority and has already pledged to back no-confidence motions against Barnier. With Macron’s coalition and the conservative Republican Right only holding 213 seats, far short of the 289 needed for a majority, Barnier will require backing from the far right to avoid an immediate collapse.

Now, Barnier must find a way to balance the interests of his center-right and centrist backers while also appeasing the far right, which opposes many of the proposed budget cuts aimed at addressing France’s growing debt.

09/06 – International News Story

Chinese President Xi Jinping has committed to generating “at least” one million jobs in Africa as part of China’s effort to strengthen its role as the preferred development partner for the Global South. [Al Jazeera]

For nearly 25 years, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has been a key diplomatic event for African leaders, serving as an indicator of the evolving relationship between Africa and its largest trading partner, China. Since its inception in 2000, analysts have looked to this triennial event to assess the state of these ties.

During the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation this week, Xi announced that China would offer African nations 360 billion yuan ($51 billion) in new financial support, along with backing for 30 infrastructure projects aimed at improving connectivity across the continent. This initiative highlights Beijing’s strategic focus on fostering development partnerships and deepening ties with Africa.

Addressing representatives from over 50 African nations in Beijing for the forum, President Xi Jinping announced that 210 billion yuan ($29.6 billion) of the pledged financing would be provided through credit lines, with at least 70 billion yuan ($9.9 billion) allocated for new investments by Chinese companies. [Al Jazeera]

Additional support would come through smaller amounts designated for military aid and other projects. Notably, the financial assistance will be given in yuan, a move likely aimed at promoting the international use of China’s currency.

Xi also advocated for the creation of a China-Africa network of land and sea routes, promoting coordinated development across the continent. He highlighted the achievements of China-Africa cooperation, mentioning joint efforts that have resulted in the construction of roads, railways, schools, hospitals, industrial parks, and special economic zones. According to Xi, these projects have significantly impacted the lives and futures of many people across Africa, as reported by the state news agency Xinhua.

President Xi Jinping expressed confidence that by working together, the Chinese and African people could achieve “new and even greater feats” and lead the “modernisation” of the Global South. 

Following the opening ceremony of the forum, delegates endorsed the Beijing Declaration, which focuses on building “a shared future in the new era.” They also adopted the Beijing Action Plan for 2025-27, outlining future cooperation initiatives, as reported by Xinhua. [Al Jazeera]

Opinion: 

China is aiming to increase its influence in Africa as it faces growing economic and diplomatic tensions with Western nations, particularly the United States. This push for greater engagement comes at a time when China’s economy is experiencing slower growth, grappling with issues such as a long-lasting property crisis and a shrinking population.

As Africa’s largest trade partner, China accounts for nearly a quarter of the continent’s exports, which primarily consist of minerals, fuels, and metals. This strong trade relationship underscores China’s strategic interest in securing resources and maintaining its foothold in the region.

As China’s economy slows and African governments face tighter budgets, few expected major financial commitments from Beijing this year. President Xi ultimately pledged $50 billion, an increase from 2021 but still below pre-pandemic levels. The relationship is less intense compared to the 2000s and 2010s, when China poured billions into African infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). During that period, geopolitical competition in Africa was mostly seen as a contest between “China and the West.” 

China is not withdrawing from Africa, and African countries remain engaged. A senior official in Ethiopia noted that despite perceptions, China remains Africa’s largest economic partner, and maintaining good relations with Beijing is essential. 

China continues to be Africa’s biggest trade partner, with trade volumes reaching a record $282 billion in 2023, partly driven by demand for minerals crucial to green energy. This figure is more than double that of Africa’s second-largest trade partner, India. [The Economist] 

China also remains the top lender to sub-Saharan Africa. After years of declining lending, there was a resurgence in 2023, with new loans supporting both green projects, like solar farms, and large infrastructure, such as a $1 billion railway loan to Nigeria. Despite talk of a shift toward smaller, more sustainable projects, China remains involved in large-scale infrastructure development.

– P.T.

09/05 – International Economics Story

The Biden administration last weekend sent over a letter to Nippon Steel indicating that their attempted $15B purchase of U.S. Steel  poses a national security risk due to the possibility of offsetting and harming the American steel industry. 

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) expressed in the previously undisclosed letter that the deal would harm U.S. steel production and reduce the chances of U.S. Steel continuing to actively pursue trade remedies.

 “The committee has identified risks to the national security of the United States arising as a result of the transaction,” the letter stated, as per one of the sources. [Reuters]

Spokespeople for Japan’s Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel declined to comment on the letter, instead pointing Reuters to earlier statements asserting that the deal poses no national security risks and would bolster the U.S. steel industry. 

“We fully expect to pursue all possible legal avenues to ensure that this transaction, which represents the best future for Pennsylvania, American steelmaking, and all of our stakeholders, is completed,” the U.S. Steel spokesperson added. [Reuters]

Recent developments such as these show signs that the administration is preparing to block the deal from going through. The deal has received bipartisan opposition from many Democrats and Republicans. 

Donald Trump pledged to block the deal if elected and Vice President Kamala Harris stated this week that she also wishes to see U.S. Steel remain “American owned and operated”. [Reuters]

In a 100-page response letter sent on Tuesday, Nippon Steel outlined plans to invest billions of dollars to sustain and enhance U.S. Steel facilities that would otherwise be idled, stating this would “indisputably” allow it to “maintain and potentially increase domestic steelmaking capacity in the United States.” [Reuters]

Nippon also reiterated its commitment not to transfer any U.S. Steel production capacity or jobs overseas, while pledging not to interfere with U.S. Steel’s trade-related decisions, including actions against unfair trade practices under U.S. law.

The company emphasized that the deal would “create a stronger global competitor to China grounded in the close relationship between the U.S. and Japan.”

To address CFIUS concerns, Nippon proposed a national security agreement, including a pledge that a majority of U.S. Steel’s board of directors would be non-dual U.S. citizens, with three independent directors approved by CFIUS to ensure compliance with the agreement.

The share price of U.S. Steel fell by more than 17% Thursday in response to widespread anticipation that President Joe Biden is preparing to block the steelmaker’s takeover by the Japanese firm. 

08/28 – National News Update & Story

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. officially called an end to his campaign on Friday August 23. RFK Jr. followed up his announcement by formally  endorsing Donald Trump. 

Kennedy stated that he will  withdraw his name from ballots in 10 battleground states that are likely to determine the election outcome, while continuing to run as a candidate in other states.

Kennedy joined Trump onstage at a rally in Arizona just hours later. 

Kennedy mentioned in a news conference earlier that he had multiple meetings with Trump and his aides, during which he discovered they shared views on topics such as border security, free speech, and ending wars. 

“There are still many issues and approaches on which we continue to have very serious differences. But we are aligned on other key issues,” he told reporters. [Reuters]

He emphasized these points again when he appeared alongside Trump at the Arizona rally, where he reiterated his stance on key issues such as combating chronic illness and eliminating hazardous chemicals from the environment and food supply.

Kennedy also mentioned free speech, the war in Ukraine, and “a war on our children” as some of the reasons he would seek to withdraw his name from the ballot in key battleground states. [AP News] 

While Kennedy was on stage, the former president announced that if he were to return to the White House, he would establish a presidential commission on assassination attempts and release files related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

RFK Jr. described their partnership as “a unity party,” an agreement that would “allow us to disagree publicly and privately and seriously.” Kennedy hinted that Trump had offered him a position if he returned to the White House, but neither he nor Trump provided specifics. [AP News] 

Last week, Kennedy’s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, floated the possibility that Kennedy might join Trump’s administration as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Recent polls indicate Kennedy’s support is in the mid-single digits, with reasonable doubts about whether he could achieve even that in a general election.

There is some evidence that Kennedy remaining in the race could disadvantage Trump more than Harris. A July AP-NORC poll showed that Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to have a favorable opinion of Kennedy. Additionally, those who viewed Kennedy positively were significantly more likely to also have a favorable view of Trump (52%) compared to Harris (37%). [AP News] 

Opinion: 

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and outspoken anti-vaccine advocate, entered the 2024 race as a challenger to President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination. As the son and nephew of two of the Democratic party’s icons who were tragically assassinated in the 1960s, his candidacy naturally attracted initial attention. 

At the time, many voters were disillusioned with both the aging Biden and the scandal-ridden Trump, leading to a surge in Kennedy’s popularity. Eventually, he became more disillusioned by the Democratic party who seemed to be purposefully pushing him out, and chose to run as an independent. Then by November 2023, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed him with a significant 20% support in a three-way race with Biden and Trump. [Reuters]

For a while, it seemed both Biden and Trump’s campaigns were concerned that Kennedy could pull enough votes to influence the election’s outcome. 

But, the dynamics of the race shifted dramatically in the last two months, especially after Trump survived an assassination attempt and the withering 81-year-old Biden gave way to Kamala Harris. As a result, voter interest in Kennedy declined sharply. A recent Ipsos poll revealed his national support had plummeted to just 4%, a small but potentially significant number in a tight race between Trump and Harris

There’s something to be said about Kennedy’s unexpected relevance throughout this race. His campaign was chaotic, starting as a Democrat, shifting to an Independent, and now ending by throwing his support behind the Republican candidate. Yet, his candidacy shed light on the sliver of potential for third-party candidates to build a legitimate following and challenge the dominance of the two-party system.

Kennedy’s run also highlighted the rigid, brutally structured nature of the political system, which is heavily skewed against outsiders. In a democracy where anyone is supposed to have the opportunity to rise through the ranks, the reality is that those at the top set the rules, and if they don’t want you to play, you won’t.

There’s a legitimate “lawfare” weaponized by the powerful, especially within the upper echelons of political parties. It was always a long shot for RFK Jr. to win this election, even if he had been on every state’s ballot. But the fact that it’s so difficult for an independent candidate to even get on the ballot and give voters a choice is outrageous.

For the past half-decade, Americans have grown increasingly disillusioned with their options for presidential candidates and frustrated with the two-party system, and yet, the stakes of the two-horse race make it so legitimately considering a competitive third option comes too far fetched. 

For Trump it seems seeking this endorsement at this point of the race makes sense logically. Trump needed to consolidate his base, and it seems quite clear that RFK supporters would lean toward Trump rather than Harris. This became much more coherent after Kennedy and his running mate Shanahan placed much of the blame on the Democratic Party for pushing them out of this race, and his tendency to brand himself as an outsider to the establishment.  

Trump’s polling numbers have undoubtedly taken a hit and he is in a very vulnerable place heading into this election now that Kamala has entered the race. Making sure that he can at least snatch up those extra few percentages in key swing states comes as a no-brainer at his current position. 

Whether this endorsement will ultimately influence the outcome of who will be in the White House next might be a stretch, but there’s no way to know for certain until we watch the tumultuous next few months play out.