Atlantic: The World No Longer Takes Trump Seriously

At parades and in the halls of global power, America has been sidelined.

The leaders of Russia, China, and North Korea are not good men. They preside over brutal autocracies replete with secret police and prison camps. But they are, nevertheless, serious men, and they know an unserious man when they see one. For nearly a decade, they have taken Donald Trump’s measure, and they have clearly reached a conclusion: The president of the United States is not worthy of their respect.

Wednesday’s military parade in Beijing is the most recent evidence that the world’s authoritarians consider Trump a lightweight. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s maximum nepo baby, Kim Jong Un, gathered to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. (Putin’s Belarusian satrap, Alexander Lukashenko, was also on hand.) The American president was not invited: After all, what role did the United States play in defeating Japan and liberating Eurasia? Instead, Trump, much like America itself, was left to watch from the sidelines.

But the parade was worse than a mere snub. Putin, Xi, and Kim stood in solidarity while reviewing China’s military might only weeks after Putin came to Alaska and showed no interest in moving to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. The White House tried to spin that ill-advised summit into at least a draw between Putin and Trump, but when the Kremlin’s dictator shows up with no interest in negotiation, speaks first at a press conference, and then caps the day by declining a carefully planned lunch and flying home, that’s a humiliation, not an exchange of views.

Nor has Trump fared very well with the other two members of this cheery 21st-century incarnation of SPECTRE. In the midst of Trumpian chaos, Xi is adroitly positioning China as the new face of international stability and responsibility. He has even made a show of offering partnership to China’s rival and former enemy India: Chinese diplomats last month said that China stands with India against the American “bully” when Trump was, for some reason, trying to impose 50 percent tariffs on India.

Likewise, the North Koreans, after playing to Trump’s ego and his ignorance of international affairs during meetings in the president’s first term, have continued their march to a nuclear arsenal that within years could grow to be larger than the United Kingdom’s. Trump was certain that he could negotiate with Kim, but the perfumed days of “love letters” between Trump and Kim are long over. Pyongyang’s leadership seems to know that it costs them little to humor Trump politely, but that they should reserve serious discussion for the leaders of serious countries.

Trump responded to his exclusion from the gala in Beijing by acting exactly like the third-tier leader that Xi, Putin, and Kim seem to think he is. As the event was taking place, Trump took to his social-media site—of course—to express his hurt feelings with a cringe-inducing attempt at a zinger. “May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration. Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”

Now, the reality is that Russia, China, and North Korea are conspiring against America, but it is beneath both the dignity and the power of an American president to whine about it. Trump continued his unseemly carping with a demand that China recognize the valor of the Americans who died in the Pacific:

The big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and ‘blood’ that The United States of America gave to China in order to help it to secure its FREEDOM from a very unfriendly foreign invader. Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory. I hope that they are rightfully Honored and Remembered for their Bravery and Sacrifice!

This message does not exactly project confidence and leadership; instead, it sounds like the grousing of a man beset by insecurities. A more self-assured commander in chief would have ignored the parade and, if asked about it, would have said something to the effect that the United States has always respected the sacrifices of our allies in World War II. But not Trump: He petulantly declared that he would not have attended even if the cool kids had invited him.

Authoritarians are unfortunately in good company in treating Trump as an incompetent leader. Even America’s allies have recognized that Trump may be their formal partner, but that they mostly get things done with the American president by soothing his ego and working around him. After Trump emerged from the summit in Anchorage essentially parroting Putin’s talking points, seven top European leaders rushed to Washington to tell Trump that he had done well and that they truly, really respected him, but that perhaps he should hold off on being a co-signer of Kremlin policy.

Trump’s damage to American power and prestige would be less severe if the president had a foreign policy and a team to execute it. He has neither: Trump ran for president mostly for personal reasons, including to stay out of prison, and his foreign policy, such as it is, is merely an extension of his personal interests. He holds summits, issues social-media pronouncements, and engages in photo ops mostly, it seems, either to burnish his claim to a Nobel Prize or to change the news cycle when issues such as the economy (or the Jeffrey Epstein files) get too much traction.

Worse, Trump is no longer surrounded by people who care about foreign affairs or can competently step in and create consistent policy. In his first term, Trump had a secretary of defense, James Mattis, who helped to create a national-defense strategy, a document that Trump might have ignored but was at least promulgated to a national-security establishment that needed direction from someone, somewhere. Now, at the Pentagon, Trump has Pete Hegseth, who shows little apparent inclination or ability to think about complexities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was supposed to be one of the new “adults in the room,” but he has instead become a man in a Velcro suit, with the president sticking jobs and responsibilities onto him without any further guidance. He has been reduced to sitting glumly in White House press sprays with foreign leaders while Trump embarrasses himself and his guests. Meanwhile, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is spending her time trying to root out the spies she thinks hate the president. Unfortunately, the agents she’s hunting are Americans, which must bring a smile to Xi’s face and perhaps even produce a belly laugh from former KGB officer Putin.

America is adrift. It has no coherent foreign policy, no team of senior professionals managing its national defense and diplomacy, and a president who has little interest in the world beyond what it can offer him. Little wonder that the men who gathered in Beijing—three autocrats whose nations are collectively pointing many hundreds of nuclear weapons at the United States—feel free to act as if they don’t even think twice about Trump or the country he leads.

What do you expect when you turn your country over to a narcissistic grifter with dementia, 6 bankruptcies, and 34 felony convictions?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/trump-parade-china-putin-xi-kim/684113

Associated Press: A Chinese student was questioned for hours in the US, then sent back even as Trump policies shift

The 22-year-old philosophy student from China did not expect any problems after his 29-hour flight arrived at a Texas airport this month as he was on his way to study at the University of Houston.

His paperwork was in order. He was going to study humanities — not a tech field that might raise suspicions. He had a full scholarship from the U.S. school and had previously spent a semester at Cornell University for an exchange program with no issues.

But the student, who asked to be identified only by his family name, Gu, because of the political sensitivities of the matter, was stopped, interrogated and 36 hours later, put on a plane back to China.

He also was banned from coming back for five years, abruptly halting his dream for an academic career in the United States.

“There is no opportunity for the life I had expected,” Gu said.

He is one of an unknown number of Chinese students with permission to enter the United States who have been sent back to China or faced intense questioning after their arrival, drawing strong protests from Beijing and showing the uncertainty from President Donald Trump’s shifting policies.

His administration has quickly pivoted from a plan to revoke visas for Chinese students to Trump himself saying he would welcome hundreds of thousands of them, partly to help keep some American schools afloat.

The US has put restrictions on Chinese students

Even so, some officials and lawmakers have expressed suspicions about Chinese students, especially those who study advanced technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, and their possible links to the Chinese government and military. Some lawmakers want to ban Chinese students altogether.

There’s no immediate data available on how many Chinese students with valid visas have been interrogated and repatriated from U.S. airports in recent weeks. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for that data or for comment on Chinese students being questioned or sent back.

In recent days, Trump said he told Chinese President Xi Jinping that “we’re honored to have their students here.” But he also added, “Now, with that, we check and we’re careful, we see who is there.”

The Chinese Embassy said it has received reports involving more than 10 Chinese students and scholars being interrogated, harassed and repatriated when entering the U.S.

“The U.S. side has frequently carried out discriminatory, politically driven and selective law enforcement against Chinese students and scholars, inflicting physical and mental harm, financial losses, and disruptions to their careers,” the Chinese Embassy said in a statement.

They were repatriated under the pretext of “so-called ‘visa issues’ or ‘might endanger U.S. national security,’” the embassy said.

The students and scholars were taken into small rooms for extended interrogation, repeatedly questioned on issues unrelated to their academic work, and forced to wait long hours in cold rooms without blankets or quilts, the embassy said. Some relied on aluminum foil to keep warm, and some were detained for more than 80 hours, it said.

Such acts by the U.S. side “run counter to the statements” made by Trump, the embassy said, accusing some U.S. departments and law enforcement personnel of not “faithfully acting on the president’s commitment.” The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a Friday interview with the conservative news site Daily Caller, Trump said “it’s very insulting to a country when you say you’re not going to take your students.” The interview was published on Sunday.

“I think what we’re doing is the right thing to do. It’s good to get along with countries, not bad, especially, you know, nuclear-powered countries,” Trump said.

One Chinese student had no concerns as he headed to the US

Gu told AP that he liked his Cornell experience so much that he applied for a master’s program to study philosophy in the U.S.

Despite reports of stricter policies by the Trump administration, Gu said he wasn’t too worried, not even when he was first stopped and taken to a room for questioning by a customs officer after landing at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. His belongings were searched, and his electronics were taken away, he said.

After the officer went through the devices, he started interrogating Gu, focusing on his ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Gu said.

He said his parents are party members, but he has never joined, though he — like nearly all Chinese teens and young people — is a member of the party’s youth arm, the Communist Youth League.

The customs officer also grilled him on his connections to the governmental China Scholarship Council, which popped up in his chat history. Gu said it came up in his chats with his schoolmates, but he did not receive money from the Chinese government.

Three rounds of interrogation lasted 10 hours, before Gu was told he was to be deported. No specific reason was given, he said, and the removal paperwork he provided to AP indicated inadequate documentation.

By then, he had hardly slept for 40 hours. The waiting room where he was kept was lit around the clock, its room temperature set low.

“I was so nervous I was shaking, due to both being freezing cold and also the nerves,” Gu said. “So many things were going through my head now that I was being deported. What should I do in the future?”

It would be another day before he was put on a flight. Now, Gu is considering appealing the decision, but that might take years and cost thousands of dollars.

One down, 599,999 to go! But they’ll probably admit thousands of Chinese science and engineering students, who will be much more adept at stealing defense and proprietary information than this unfortunate philosophy student.

https://apnews.com/article/chinese-students-trump-deportations-visas-1820a05254632a3d0fa52ab85f47fe31

Newsweek: Will Venezuela be the first target of Trump’s new MAGA Monroe Doctrine?

President Donald Trump‘s deployment of warships off the coast of Venezuela and authorization for the use of force against drug trafficking organizations is fueling speculation of potential military action looming in South America.

However, the White House’s moves also speak to a broader shift in policy focus under Trump’s “America First” movement that envisions the Americas as a whole as part of the U.S. zone of interest, an outlook reminiscent of the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine that served as the basis for U.S. intervention against European colonialism and communist expansion across the region.

With Venezuela and its leftist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, now in the crosshairs, experts and former officials see the dawn of a new era of U.S. power projection across the Western Hemisphere.

“This massive show of force is consistent with the administration’s efforts to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine that declared the region to be uniquely a U.S. sphere of influence,” Cynthia Arnson, a leading Latin America expert serving as adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies, told Newsweek.

‘Gunboat Diplomacy’

Arnson warned of the potential regional consequences of such an approach, noting how just because “many Latin American democracies would welcome the end of the Maduro regime, that doesn’t mean that they are lining up to applaud a 21st century version of gunboat diplomacy.”

Observers have debated whether or not the recent naval build-up in the waters of South and Central America would serve as a prelude to real action or constituted mere posturing, meant to deliver a message to Maduro who the U.S. has accused of being complicit in drug trafficking.

Arnson argued that “the utility of such a huge deployment in fighting drug trafficking is questionable, although there undoubtedly will be some seizures that the administration will tout to justify the exercise of military force.”

She added: “The number of troops deployed, although large, is not sufficient to invade Venezuela with the aim of toppling the government.”

José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council and U.S. State Department official who has dealt extensively with Latin America policy, said the latest moves would prove far more than showmanship.

“It would be a mistake to consider the U.S. naval deployment off the Venezuelan coast ‘business as usual’ or mere political theater,” Cárdenas, who today is a principal at the Cormac Group consulting firm, told Newsweek. “It is too big, powerful, and costly for that.”

“Rather,” he added, “it is a signal by the Trump administration that the status quo—Venezuela as a hub for transnational organized crime and a regional destabilizer through mass migration—is no longer tenable.”

Believe What He Says, or Else’

Cárdenas spoke of a “wide range of options” available to the Trump administration, short of a “full-scale invasion” that could effect change in Venezuela.

For one, he felt “it is likely the U.S. is in contact with Venezuelan military personnel not involved in narco-trafficking and others in charge of guns to state that if they don’t remove Maduro from power the U.S. is prepared to unleash an asymmetric offensive that could consume them as well.”

“The Trump administration has carefully constructed a policy rationale that this is not ‘regime change’ for the sake of exporting democracy to the world’s benighted peoples,” Cárdenas said. “It is a national security initiative meant to eliminate a source of tons of cocaine from entering the United States. Main Street, USA, can identify with that.”

He also said that plans were likely already set in place, and any upcoming action would serve to send a message to great power competitors such as China and Russia, which U.S. officials have long warned were gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere.

“Credibility, moreover, is the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Believe what he says, or else. There is no climb-down from the current deployment,” Cárdenas said. “No doubt anti-American despots in Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere are watching the unfolding action in the Southern Caribbean carefully.”

When reached for comment, the White House referred Newsweek to remarks made by press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press conference last week.

“What I’ll say with respect to Venezuela, President Trump has been very clear and consistent,” Leavitt said at the time. “He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”

She continued: “The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela, it is a narco-terror cartel. And Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He’s a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country.”

The Pentagon, meanwhile, shared with Newsweek a statement attributed to chief spokesperson Sean Parnell.

“On day one of the Trump Administration, the President published an Executive Order designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, clearly identifying them as a direct threat to the national security of the United States,” Parnell said. “These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe—that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs.”

He added: “This requires a whole-of-government effort and through coordination with regional partners, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role towards meeting the President’s objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people. As a matter of security and policy we do not speculate on future operations.”

‘Competing Factions’

The brewing crisis is not the first time Trump has sought to unseat Maduro from power, and instead marks the latest episode in a downturn in ties between Washington and Caracas that came about after the Venezuelan leader’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, rose to power through elections in 1999.

Chávez, who would accuse the U.S. of supporting a brief coup against him in 2002, kickstarted what he and his supporters refer to as a Bolivarian Revolution of social and economic reforms that sought to channel 19th-century anti-Spanish colonial leader Simón Bolívar. Somewhat ironically, Bolívar during his time welcomed U.S. President James Monroe’s 1823 declaration of a new doctrine against European imperialism in the Americas.

Yet Washington’s strategy grew increasingly interventionist over the ages, with the U.S. aiding governments and rebels against communist movements across Latin America during the Cold War.

Chávez’s socialist movement emerged from the ashes of this era, painting the U.S. as a new imperialist hegemon seeking to assert its influence across the region. At home, his policies—bolstered by soaring oil prices—initially led to a massive boom in Venezuela’s economic outlook, yet by the time of his 2013 death from cancer, a mix of runaway public spending, economic mismanagement and sanctions had substantially undercut stability, and a subsequent fall in oil prices from 2014 deepened the crisis.

The political situation also escalated in January 2019, as Maduro’s reelection was challenged by critics and rejected by a number of foreign leaders, including Trump, who began a “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela during his first term. An opposition coup led by U.S.-backed National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó was attempted that April only to end in failure.

Like Chávez, Maduro would emerge victorious and went on to easily repel a plot hatched the following year involving dozens of dissidents, as well as at least two former U.S. Green Berets operating as private military contractors.

Tom Shannon, a career diplomat who served as undersecretary for political affairs during the Trump administration, noted how past errors have likely informed the president’s thinking as he grapples with conflicting movements in his second administration.

“When he decides to begin his maximum pressure campaign in Venezuela and recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela and slaps on secondary sanctions on oil and gas and even attempts to generate a military coup against Maduro, all of which fail, he does this on the advice of people who were advising him on Venezuela, including the current Secretary of State,” Shannon told Newsweek.

“And they were wrong, and he knows they were wrong,” Shannon, now senior international policy adviser at Arnold & Porter law firm, added.

Upon taking office in January, Trump took a different approach. He sent special envoy Richard Grenell to strike a deal in Caracas, specifically to negotiate the release of imprisoned U.S. citizens and secure a license for oil giant Chevron to resume operations in the country.

Trump went on to revoke this license, a move Shannon pointed out took place as the president sought to secure votes for his “Big, Beautiful Bill,” only to reinstate it once again last month.

“I think part of the confusion is that there are competing factions around the president,” Shannon said. “You have [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, who would love to do the strike, but then there’s people like [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent, whose attitude is, ‘You’re out of your mind.'”

Noting how “Venezuela is sitting on the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], through its licensing process, gets to control who works in the oil and gas sector,” Shannon argued that if U.S. or European companies were licensed to work in the country, foreign competitors, including some of the nations viewed as hostile to U.S. interests, would be expelled.

“The Chinese are out. The Iranians are out. The Russians are out,” Shannon said of such a scenario. “We control the oil and gas. And guess what? We get to repatriate some of our earnings.”

‘You Should Use Your Power’

Yet the fight for resources does not entirely encapsulate the stakes over Venezuela, nor the administration’s interest in the country.

Trump’s Western Hemisphere doctrine includes pressure campaigns against a host of nations, including otherwise friendly U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as territorial ambitions to seize control of foreign-owned territory like Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Drug cartels, from Mexico to Venezuela, are the latest target of Trump’s rhetoric as he portrays a battle against an “invasion” of narcotics, including fentanyl produced with precursors exported by China.

“He has said he is going to use American power to protect American interests, and he is not tied by diplomatic niceties, or by practice, or even by what we could consider to be the norms of international law,” Shannon said. “He believes that if you are powerful, you should use your power.”

He continued: “He’s focused on drug trafficking, cartels, gangs, whatever you want to call them, because first of all, for him, they’re a political winner. He knows that there is broad support in the United States for the use of the American military and intelligence capabilities against these entities that, in his mind, present a very real threat to the United States, to Americans.”

But Shannon also alluded to the costs of a more assertive position in a region that, despite its complex relationship with Washington, has largely courted U.S. influence and investment. In the globalized 21st century, unlike two centuries ago, he argued that the Trump administration may be better suited to bring China-style infrastructure deals than warships and tariffs to win over South America.

“If there is a new Monroe Doctrine, it’s kind of emasculated in the sense that the president is not bringing what you need to the game in order to win,” he said.

The ‘Ultimate Arbiter’

The dissonance in Trump’s “peace through strength” approach is not lost on his support base. A number of influential voices in the president’s populist “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement voiced displeasure toward his decision in June to conduct limited yet unprecedented strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and some continue to criticize his continued support for Israel’s ongoing wars in the region.

Francisco Rodríguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the Trump administration was looking only to mount a “credible threat of force” that “some hardline opposition figures and Washington hawks” believed “could be enough to push Venezuela’s military to abandon Maduro.”

Yet he said that a similar approach to Trump’s isolated strikes on Iran “cannot be ruled out,” citing former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper‘s memoir in recounting how “targeted strikes on Venezuelan military installations were seriously discussed at the cabinet level” back in 2019.

Today, “some of the same hawkish voices who favored such strikes are again influential in Venezuela policy,” Rodríguez told Newsweek.

And Rodríguez saw neither contradiction nor incoherence in what he called the “broader Trumpian assertion of hemispheric dominance in line with a MAGA interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine,” despite “the coexistence of that vision with a pronounced aversion, in some MAGA circles, to costly military involvement abroad.”

“Rather, it reflects the dynamics of a personalistic regime in which competing factions with divergent preferences overlap, leaving the final decision to the chief executive,” Rodríguez said. “That enhances Trump’s authority as ultimate arbiter, but it also makes policy unpredictable and inconsistent.”

He added: “The Venezuela case illustrates this perfectly: announcing the deployment of warships while simultaneously authorizing Chevron to expand its oil dealings in the country. It is almost as if, after placing a bounty on bin Laden, Washington had turned around and licensed Halliburton to do infrastructure projects with his family business in Afghanistan.”

https://www.newsweek.com/will-venezuela-first-target-trumps-new-maga-monroe-doctrine-2121883

One India: Trump Stuns Allies With Proposal To Deploy Chinese Peacekeepers In Ukraine Ceasefire Plan

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-stuns-allies-with-proposal-to-deploy-chinese-peacekeepers-in-ukraine-ceasefire-plan/vi-AA1LxMUf

Channel News Asia: Why countries like China, Canada and the UK have issued new warnings about US travel

China:

On Wednesday, China warned tourists to “fully assess the risks” before travelling to the US, after Beijing raised tariffs on American imports in retaliation for similar duties imposed by Trump.

“Due to the deterioration in China-US trade relations and the domestic security situation in the United States, (we) advise Chinese tourists to fully assess the risks before travelling to the US,” Beijing’s culture and tourism ministry said in a statement.

UK:

In March, the UK revised its advice for citizens travelling to the US to include a warning that anyone found breaking its entry rules could face arrest or detention.

The current British travel advice for the US, published online by Britain’s foreign office and most recently updated on Mar 14, states: “You should comply with all entry, visa and other conditions of entry. The authorities in the US set and enforce entry rules strictly. You may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules.”

At the beginning of February, the guidance had only stated: “The authorities in the US set and enforce entry rules.”

The foreign office declined to comment on the reason for the revision or confirm when exactly it took place. It said its travel advice was designed to help people make decisions and that the advice was constantly kept under review.

Earlier in the month, in response to reports that a woman had been detained in the US for more than 10 days over a possible breach of her visa conditions, the foreign office confirmed that it was providing support to a British national detained in the US.

The woman has since returned to Britain.

Germany:

Similarly, in March, Germany updated its US travel advisory to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry after several Germans were detained while entering the country.

Germany’s foreign ministry updated its travel advice website for the US on Mar 11 to clarify that neither approval through the US Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, system nor a US visa entitles entry in every case.

“The final decision on whether a person can enter the US lies with the US border authorities,” said a German foreign ministry spokesperson, who emphasised that the change did not constitute a travel warning.

Canada:

The Canadian government updated its US travel advisory on its website in March to say that those who plan to visit the US for more than 30 days “must be registered with the United States government”, NPR reported.

Those who did not do so could face “penalties fines, and misdemeanour prosecution”, the Canadian government said.

In early April, it updated its advisory again, adding a new paragraph about scrutiny at points of entry into the US, Canadian public broadcaster CBC reported.

This was done “quietly”, CBC said.

Part of the new paragraph reads: “Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices. Comply and be forthcoming in all interactions with border authorities. If you are denied entry, you could be detained while awaiting deportation.”

CBC noted that US border agents had long had the power to ask to search travellers’ belongings and demand access to their electronic devices.

However, it reported that security had been stepped up at the US-Canada border, citing an immigration lawyer.

“There’s been much more heightened security and heightened investigations at the border,” the lawyer told the broadcaster.

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany:

In March, several European countries including Denmark, Finland, France and Germany suggested that transgender, non-binary and intersex people may face difficulties when trying to enter the US.

The Danish foreign ministry changed its US travel advisory to say that transgender people should contact the US embassy in the Nordic country before travelling to the United States.

“When applying for an ESTA or visa to the United States, there are two gender designations to choose from: Male or female,” the travel advisory stated on Mar 21.

“If you have the gender designation X in your passport, or you have changed your gender, it is recommended that you contact the US embassy prior to travel for guidance on how to proceed,” the ministry added.

The “X” gender marker is preferred by many non-binary people, who do not identify as strictly male or female.

While the travel advisory did not explicitly mention the Trump administration, it came only weeks after Trump signed an executive order calling for the US federal government to define sex as only male or female and for that to be reflected on official documents, such as passports, and in policies.

The US State Department has stopped issuing travel documents with the X gender marker.

The department also stopped allowing people to change the gender listed on their passports or get new ones that reflect their gender rather than their sex assigned at birth.

Finland also advised prospective US travellers on its foreign ministry homepage that if their “current gender as recorded in their passport differs from the gender they were assigned at birth, US authorities may deny (them) entry”.

“It is recommended that you check with US authorities in advance for entry requirements,” the ministry said.

France, meanwhile, modified its official advice to its nationals who are travelling to the United States, warning they must now state their gender assigned at birth in visa or ESTA applications.

In advice similar to that issued by Denmark, Germany told travellers who have the X gender entry in their passport or whose current gender entry differs from their gender entry at birth to contact a US diplomatic mission in Germany before they enter the country.

This is so that they can “find out the applicable entry requirements” for the US, the German foreign ministry said.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/us-travel-advisories-warnings-trump-china-canada-uk-immigration-tariffs-5059056

India Today: So much for being Mr Nice Guy: Trump slams China for violating trade deal with US

Trump claimed that by sealing a trade deal with Beijing in order to save China from what was going to be a very bad situation after he imposed unprecedented 145 per cent tariffs on imports from Asia’s largest economy.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, “Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World. We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, “civil unrest.” I saw what was happening and didn’t like it, for them, not for us. I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

Executive summary: I was an *ssh*l*, but now I’m a good guy because I saved you from myself when I was being a really big *ssh*l*.

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/so-much-for-being-mr-nice-guy-us-president-donald-trump-claims-china-violated-trade-deal-with-us-2733300-2025-05-30

MSNBC: The giant Trump banner at the USDA is another sign the U.S. is sliding into autocracy

It may be small and petty, but these changes are part of the erosion of democratic norms, softening people up for potentially more authoritarian behavior.

Many strongmen also love to display giant photos of themselves wherever they can. If you ever go to Tiananmen Square in Beijing, you’ll be greeted with a portrait of Mao Zedong. Mao founded the People’s Republic of China, and he served as chairman of the Chinese Communist Party for more than 30 years. His portrait is about 19½ feet tall and 15 feet wide, and it weighs about 3,000 pounds. It’s been hanging over the gate leading into the Forbidden City since 1949.

If you travel farther to the east, you’ll find something similar in North Korea. In the country’s capital of Pyongyang, there’s an area called Kim Il Sung Square, where you’ll find large portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, the great leader and the dear leader, respectively, overlooking the plaza at all times as people go about their daily lives.

When Putin visited the country last year, North Koreans gave him a warm welcome by plastering his photo everywhere. They even temporarily put up a humongous portrait of Putin next to one of Kim Jong Un during a welcome ceremony.

Neither China nor North Korea invented this idea. They’ve taken their cues from Joseph Stalin, the former brutal ruler of the Soviet Union. He liked to have portraits of himself displayed in public and lofted by his supporters during parades.

That practice continues in many other countries where strongmen rule today. You see it in places like Egypt, where the face of its president, Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, is inescapable. His mug is on billboards and banners, plastered on buildings and hanging along the roadside. That’s especially true ahead of an election, and it’s no wonder he’s been able to easily win three terms in office. (Not to mention the fact that Egypt doesn’t exactly have free and fair elections in the first place.)

In Iran, you’ll find an abundance of murals, posters and portraits of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He’s often depicted with the country’s late leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah KhomeiniTheir images are displayed everywhere — at mosques, in malls and even on the sides of some buildings.

And now, something like that is happening in the United States, too. Last week, a giant banner with Donald Trump’s official portrait was displayed on the United States Department of Agriculture building in Washington, D.C., alongside a similar banner featuring Abraham Lincoln.

Hail, Donald! Long live the King!

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-usda-portrait-road-from-to-authoritarianism-rcna207709

Washington Post: China to donate $500 million to WHO, stepping into gap left by U.S.

Beijing will replace the United States as the organization’s top state donor, expanding its influence as the U.S. retreats from international cooperation.

China has pledged to give $500 million to the World Health Organization as the country is set to replace the United States as the group’s top state donor, expanding Beijing’s global influence in the wake of Washington’s retreat from international cooperation.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong told the World Health Assembly that his country is making the contribution to oppose “unilateralism,” a trait Beijing often ascribes to Washington as relations between the two powers deteriorate.

President Donald Trump in January ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, a move that would leave Beijing as the top donor and most powerful member country.

A good move for China, at the expense of our reputation and prestige. We have only King Donald to blame — and ourselves for electing the bum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/21/china-who-donation-500-million

National Security Journal: NATO Is Now Dead

NATO, in its current form, is depicted as a “corpse,” its strategic effectiveness undermined by decades of European defense underfunding (“free-riding”) and US strategic overstretch.

-Most member states fail to meet spending commitments, rendering the alliance a hollow shell, a reality starkly exposed by the war in Ukraine where the US carries the primary burden.

-President Trump’s approach is seen not as the cause of NATO’s decline but as a catalyst for a necessary reckoning, forcing Europe to confront its defense responsibilities.

-A fundamental reset towards a European-led security framework, with US support rather than dominance, is essential for future relevance.

Washington Post: This Los Angeles port is among the first casualties of Trump’s trade war

Empty berths and idle cranes show the effects of sky-high tariffs on Chinese goods.

The number of shipping containers that arrived at the nation’s top container port last week was roughly one-third lower than during the same period last year — a sharper decline than during the depths of the Great Recession. More than one-fifth of the giant ships that were scheduled to call in Los Angeles this month have already canceled, and that number is expected to rise.

Trump’s 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods — and Beijing’s triple-digit retaliation — are bringing a swift halt to the trans-Pacific flow of electronics, clothing, furniture, industrial parts and everything else that the world’s two largest economies exchange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/11/los-angeles-port-tariffs-trade-tensions