Some Arab Americans who voted for Trump are concerned about his picks for key positions

Some Arab Americans who voted for Trump are concerned about his picks for key positions
FILE - Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump, center, listens to Albert Abbas, owner of The Great Commoner, left, as Massad Boulos looks on during a visit to the cafe, Nov. 1, 2024, in Dearborn, Mich. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 18 November 2024
Follow

Some Arab Americans who voted for Trump are concerned about his picks for key positions

Some Arab Americans who voted for Trump are concerned about his picks for key positions
  • The selections have prompted mixed reactions among Arab Americans and Muslims in Michigan, which went for Trump along with all six other battleground states
  • Beyond promising peace in the Middle East, Trump has offered few concrete details on how he plans to achieve it

LANSING: Just a week after winning a majority of the vote in several of the nation’s largest Arab-majority cities, President-elect Donald Trump has filled top administration posts with staunch Israel supporters, including an ambassador to Israel who has claimed “there is no such thing as Palestinians.”
Meanwhile, the two Trump advisers who led his outreach to Arab Americans have not secured positions in the administration yet.
The selections have prompted mixed reactions among Arab Americans and Muslims in Michigan, which went for Trump along with all six other battleground states. Some noted Trump’s longstanding support for Israel and said their vote against Vice President Kamala Harris was not necessarily an endorsement of him. Others who openly supported him say he will be the final decisionmaker on policy and hope he will keep his promise of achieving an end to the conflicts in the Middle East.
Albert Abbas, a Lebanese American leader whose brother owns the Dearborn, Michigan, restaurant Trump visited in the campaign’s final days, stood beside the former president during that visit and spoke in support of him.
Now, Abbas says it’s “too early” to judge Trump and that “we all need to take a deep breath, take a step back and let him do the work that he needs to do to to achieve this peace.”
“I just want you to think about what the alternative was,” said Abbas, referring to the current administration’s handling of Israel’s war in Gaza and its invasion of Lebanon. He added, “What did you expect from myself or many members of the community to do?”
Beyond promising peace in the Middle East, Trump has offered few concrete details on how he plans to achieve it. His transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
Throughout the campaign, his surrogates often focused more on criticizing Harris than outlining his agenda. And visuals of the conflict — with tens of thousands of deaths collectively in Gaza and Lebanon — stirred anger among many in Arab and Muslim communities about President Joe Biden and Harris’ backing of Israel.
Amin Hashmi, a Pakistani American in Michigan who voted for Trump, urged him to stay true to his campaign commitments to bring peace.
“I am disappointed but not surprised,” said Hashmi, who urged Trump to “keep the promise you made to the people of Arab descent in Michigan.”
Trump picks what pro-Israel conservatives call a ‘dream team’
Those in the community with concerns have specifically pointed to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, nominated as Trump’s ambassador to Israel. Huckabee has consistently rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in territories seized by Israel, strongly supported Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposed a two-state solution, claiming “there really isn’t such a thing” as Palestinians in referring to the descendants of people who lived in Palestine before the establishment of Israel.
While Huckabee has sparked the most concern among community members, other Trump Cabinet picks have strongly spoken in Israel’s favor as it targets Hamas following the militant group’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack in which it killed 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds more as hostage.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, nominated for secretary of state, has opposed a ceasefire in the war, stating that he wants Israel to “destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on.”
Trump’s pick to be his ambassador to the United Nations, New York Rep. Elize Stefanik, led the questioning of university presidents over antisemitism on campuses. She has also opposed funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which oversees aid to Gaza.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, which organized for Trump in Michigan, has been outspoken in its support for many of Trump’s Cabinet picks. Sam Markstein, the group’s political director, described the proposed lineup as a “pro-Israel dream team,” adding that “folks are giddy about the picks.” He praised Trump’s pro-Israel record as “second to nobody.”
“The days of this mealymouthed, trying to have support in both camps of this issue are over,” Markstein said. “The way to secure the region is peace through strength, and that means no daylight between Israel and the United States.”
No roles yet for key figures in Trump’s Arab American outreach
Among the reasons some Arab American voters supported Trump was that they believed his prominent supporters would be key in the next administration.
Massad Boulos, a Lebanese businessman and father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany, led efforts to engage the Arab American community, organizing dozens of meetings across Michigan and other areas with large Arab populations. Some sessions also featured Richard Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence, who was well-regarded by those who met with him.
Neither Boulos nor Grenell has been tapped yet for the coming administration, though Grenell was once considered a potential secretary of state before Rubio was selected. Boulos declined to comment and Grenell did not respond to a request for comment.
“Some people expected Trump to be different and thought Massad would play a significant role,” said Osama Siblani, publisher of the Dearborn-based Arab American News, which declined to endorse a candidate in the presidential race.
Siblani himself turned down a suggested meeting with Trump after the non-endorsement announcement.
“But now people are coming to us and saying, ‘Look what you’ve done,’” Siblani said. “We had a choice between someone actively shooting and killing you and someone threatening to do so. We had to punish the person who was shooting and killing us at the time.”


Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope

Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope
Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope

Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope

PARIS: French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday he had called Pope Leo XIV and talked about efforts to reach peace in Ukraine and Gaza in his first conversation with the new pontiff.
In their “first exchange,” the pair “addressed the efforts to let the weapons fall silent wherever conflicts rage in the world, and in particular for a solid and lasting peace in Ukraine and Gaza,” Macron said on X.
“We share the ambition to reconcile the fight against poverty and the protection of the planet,” the French leader said, adding that he had “once again congratulated” the pontiff on his election as head of the Catholic Church last week.
While Macron is not scheduled to join the ranks of the world leaders attending Pope Leo’s inaugural mass in Rome on Sunday morning, France’s Prime Minister Francois Bayrou is due to attend.


Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks
Updated 10 min 23 sec ago
Follow

Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria: Nigeria’s top military officer on Thursday told troops in a region battling increased jihadist unrest that the attacks would be quickly resolved.
The Islamic State West Africa Province group and its rival Boko Haram have intensified assaults on military bases in recent weeks, notably in the northeastern state of Borno, epicenter of an insurgency dating back to 2009.
According to an AFP tally, at least 10 bases have been attacked in two months. At least 100 people, including civilians, were killed in attacks in April.
“Actions have been taken to ensure that we address the series of attacks,” chief of defense staff General Christopher Musa told troops in Borno’s capital Maiduguri, promising new material was being drafted in.
Musa said conflict in the Sahel states including Mali, Chad and Niger “has put a lot of pressure on Nigeria and that’s why you see recent attacks have occurred.”
“Whatever is going on is just for a short while,” he said.
Musa suggested fencing Nigeria’s borders, saying “there are countries that have fenced over a 1,500 kilometer (930 mile) stretch” — roughly the length of the Nigeria-Niger frontier.
While violence has fallen from its 2014-2015 peak, the governor of Borno recently warned that the military was losing ground to jihadists, and the latest attacks have put the conflict back in the spotlight.
More than 40,000 people have been killed and two million displaced in northeast Nigeria since 2009, according to the United Nations.
A Multinational Joint Task Force, a coalition created by Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, Benin and Chad to fight cross-border armed groups, has been hampered by the withdrawal of Niger and threats by Chad to do the same.
According to a recent Nigerian intelligence report seen by AFP, there are also internal problems.
Late payment of salaries “has been a recurring problem,” particularly in the northeast, it said.
The report warned of “frustration and demotivation among security personnel, which could potentially lead to mutinies or unrest, if not urgently addressed.”
President Bola Tinubu this week called for the creation of a “forest guards” unit “to flush out terrorists and criminal gangs.”
Nigeria’s vast, often inaccessible forests have become havens for jihadist and armed criminal groups.
While the Nigerian army often works with local self-defense groups, questions remain over how the proposed forest guard be financed, work with existing security forces and even how long it would take to set up.


13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match
Updated 10 min 34 sec ago
Follow

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match
  • Police ruled case as an accident, described all injuries as "minor"
  • Driver arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury

BARCELONA: At least 13 people were hurt when a driver lost control and plowed into a crowd gathered outside a football match between RCD Espanyol and city rivals FC Barcelona, police said on Thursday.
Police said people were hurt when the vehicle rammed into the crowd outside RCD Españyol soccer stadium in Barcelona at the start of the game.
Police added in a statement on social media site X that the incident did not present any danger to the crowd inside the stadium.
Salvador Illa, the Catalan regional president, said on Thursday all the injuries were “minor” and ruled out any deliberate attack.
The driver has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury.


New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence
Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence
  • Gen. Gwyn Jenkins previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes committed by British forces
  • It is also alleged he oversaw rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from Afghans who served alongside British troops against the Taliban

LONDON: The man chosen as the new head of the UK’s Royal Navy was previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Afghanistan.

Gen. Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was appointed on Thursday, also faced allegations this week that he oversaw the rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from former Afghan special forces members who served alongside British troops against the Taliban, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Jenkins replaces Adm. Ben Key, who stepped down last week over allegations of misconduct.

The new navy chief previously led UK Special Forces in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban. That conflict is under renewed scrutiny in Britain following recent fresh allegations of war crimes involving members of Britain’s elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.

In 2023, it emerged that Jenkins had been warned in writing in 2011 that SAS troops had claimed to have executed handcuffed detainees in Afghanistan. Rather than refer this evidence to the Royal Military Police, the BBC reported at the time, Jenkins placed the documents in a safe. However, The Telegraph newspaper reported that Jenkins did pass the evidence up the chain of command at the time.

This week, an investigation by the BBC current affairs program “Panorama” revealed that Jenkins personally appointed an officer under his command to assess the Afghan resettlement applications. Thousands of former elite Afghan soldiers were rejected, despite credible evidence of their service alongside British counterparts.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence said it was “not appropriate … to comment on allegations which may be within the scope of the statutory inquiry,” referring to a public inquiry underway in the UK to investigate the war crimes allegations.

There was “no evidence” that Afghan resettlement applications were rejected to prevent the former soldiers from giving evidence to the war crimes inquiry, it added.

Defence Secretary John Healey on Thursday described Jenkins as a “proven leader with a distinguished career in both the military and at the core of government.”

He added: “I know he will deliver in this pivotal role, making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.”

Sarah Atherton, a former Tory MP who sat on the Defence Select Committee, told The Telegraph: “Military personnel, especially senior leaders, are held to high ethical and behavior standards.

“If somebody is facing an allegation … I know it’s alleged, but it’s just very strange to appoint someone who is in this position, given the circumstances. That is bizarre.”

Jenkins said after his appointment that he wanted to “accelerate” the Royal Navy’s return to a “war fighting force that is ready for conflict.”


US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship
Updated 59 min 33 sec ago
Follow

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship
  • Trump order targeted children of certain immigrants
  • Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the US Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. None of the justices, however, signaled an endorsement of Trump’s order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court’s own precedents.
The justices heard more than two hours of arguments in the administration’s emergency request to scale back the injunctions blocking Trump’s directive, which is a key part of his hard-line approach toward immigration. Three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes Trump’s order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents concerning citizenship. Sotomayor said the court should weigh the order’s legality “if we are worried about those thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless” and leave them ineligible for government benefits.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect, according to the plaintiffs who challenged the directive, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue universal injunctions, and has asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive even without weighing its legal merits. Sauer focused on this issue, calling the increasing use by judges of universal injunctions a “pathology.”
In potentially restricting the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions in certain instances, the conservative justices raised the idea of requiring plaintiffs to funnel claims seeking broader relief into class-action lawsuits, which are filed on behalf of a group of people who suffer similar legal injuries.
Some of the conservatives also signaled that at least for the states that sued, relief might properly extend beyond their borders, as a universal injunction does.
Complicating matters, some justices — conservatives and liberals alike — also seemed reticent to rule without further delving into the underlying legal merits of Trump’s directive. It remained uncertain whether the court would order further briefing, which would further delay resolution of the case.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, “Should we decide or make up our minds on the underlying birthright citizenship question without briefing and argument and deliberation?”
Corkran said the justices should take up the case specifically on the merits of Trump’s order, adding, “The government is asking the court to allow it to ignore this court’s precedents ... and to upend 100 years of executive branch practice.”
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directive violated the 14th Amendment, which long has been understood to confer citizenship on almost anyone born on US soil. It was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War that ended slavery in the United States.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration contends that this citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.

‘All kinds of abuses’
Without a universal injunction blocking Trump’s order, it could be years before the Supreme Court finally decides its constitutionality, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
“There are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions,” Kagan told Sauer. “But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the (executive order) is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?“
Sauer noted that after the dispute percolates in lower courts, the Supreme Court can ultimately pronounce on the legal merits of the policy, prompting conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to express skepticism.
“Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett said.
Sotomayor compared Trump’s directive to a hypothetical action by a president taking away guns from every American who owns one despite the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sauer said that since Trump returned to the presidency, federal judges have issued 40 universal injunctions against his administration’s policies.
“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer said.

Variations by state
The administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the lawyer arguing for the states, said states face high and costly hurdles in managing difficulties in distributing government benefits if the order takes effect and citizenship is applied in a patchwork fashion, adding that class-action cases are “not available for state litigation.”
Feigenbaum suggested that the justices could limit universal injunctions to a narrow set of cases, including in this case where alternatives to such broad relief “are not practically or legally workable.” Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a critic of univeral injunctions, expressed some agreement with Feigenbaum on that point.
Feigenbaum said the legal issue surrounding Trump’s executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago.
An 1898 Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The administration has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
The 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to enslaved and free Black people and helped fuel the Civil War.
“This order reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer told the justices of Trump’s directive.
The case is the first involving a Trump policy to be argued at the top US judicial body since he returned to office, though the justices have acted on an emergency basis in several other challenges to his policies. Three of the justices were appointed by Trump during his first term as president.