Washington DC:

US President-elect Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, on Saturday said she has withdrawn her name from consideration for a seat in the Senate. Ms Trump, who is married to Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump, stepped down this month as co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), fueling speculation that she might replace outgoing Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Incoming President Trump has picked Mr Rubio to serve as secretary of state. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is set to pick Mr Rubio’s replacement, who is expected to resign as senator when Trump takes office on January 20.

Taking to X, Lara Trump wrote that  she had decided to remove herself from consideration “after an incredible amount of thought, contemplation, and encouragement from so many.” She said she wished Florida Governor DeSantis luck in picking a replacement to serve the remainder of Mr Rubio’s six-year term ending in 2026.

“I could not have been more honoured to serve as RNC co-chair during the most high-stakes election of our lifetime and I’m truly humbled by the unbelievable support shown to me by the people of our country, and here in the great state of Florida,” she posted.

After an incredible amount of thought, contemplation, and encouragement from so many, I have decided to remove my name from consideration for the United States Senate.

I could not have been more honored to serve as RNC co-chair during the most high-stakes election of our… https://t.co/ARdvTQki9N

— Lara Trump (@LaraLeaTrump) December 21, 2024

She said she has a “big announcement” to share in January but did not provide details. Ms Trump added that she remains passionate about public service and looks forward to serving again in the future.

While noting there was already strong interest from possible candidates, DeSantis said last month that a selection would likely be made by early January.

Ms Trump, born Lara Lea Yunaska on October 12, 1982, is an American television producer, campaign advisor, and former television host. She was elected RNC co-chair in March, solidifying her father-in-law’s influence over the party as he campaigned for the presidency.

She, alongside her husband Eric Trump and brother-in-law Don Jr, emerged as one of the top campaign surrogates for the Republican candidate in the run-up to the election.

If you’re looking for an insight that helps explain what happened in the US Presidential election and why it happened, consider this observation from a key player in US politics: “There is a difference between what offends people and what affects them.”

Donald Trump offends people as if it were a religion. His constant lying offends; his cruelty offends; his racism offends; his misogyny offends; his open contempt for “losers” offends; his lack of remorse offends; his vanity offends; his affinity for chaos offends; his admiration for dictators offends; his vow for retribution and revenge against the “enemies of the people” (anyone who has crossed him or might cross him) offends; his promise to begin “mass deportation” of “25 million” illegal immigrants on Day 1 offends; his vow to upend world trade by imposing a 20% tariff on all goods and 60% on Chinese goods offends; his promise to “protect women whether they like it or not” offends; his commitment to dismiss climate change and pursue a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy offends; his commitment to end Obamacare offends. The list is endless.

It’s Trump’s World…

Yet, Trump is the first Republican in 20 years to win the popular vote, and the MAGA movement has given him unfettered power by securing both the Senate and the House. The US Supreme Court is already aligned with him 6-3 and has effectively granted him virtual immunity from any presidential acts. Project 2025 has a blueprint ready to fulfil his promise to crush the “Deep State” (i.e., federal officials committed to the Constitution and the rule of law) and replace up to 50,000 federal employees with loyalists. The independence of the Federal Reserve and the Justice Department will be under threat. All of this has been clear as daylight since Trump announced his re-run in December 2022.

But Trump won because he successfully positioned himself as the Agent of Change (‘Trump will Fix It’), addressing the issues that affect his core voter base—62% of Americans without a college degree. These voters, who typically show little interest in politics but are deeply focused on improving their material well-being and preserving their cultural values, were key to his success.

And what affects them? Some of the most important issues include rising costs over the last four years: grocery prices up 20%, rents up 40%. There are also concerns about men’s self-image: girls outperforming boys in school and college, the #MeToo movement, and college-educated women seeing the highest increases in income and status. Then there is what many perceive as the imposition of ‘Wokeism’: it’s not just about accepting the full rights and recognition of the LGBTQ community, but also about children having the right to change their gender before adulthood.

The Fear Of Immigrants

In some cases, there are deeply held beliefs based on fear and misinformation. I know a Texas-based psychotherapist whose patient confided that she was afraid to go out at night due to fear of immigrants, even though she employs a migrant—likely an undocumented worker—as a housekeeper. Another patient believes Trump was sent by God and that the opposition party was sent by the Devil. Neither patient suffers from psychosis; these are culturally sanctioned beliefs, according to the therapist.

Finally, there are outright misconceptions—such as the belief that tariffs won’t raise the cost of household goods, or that Trump’s first term, with no new wars, proves he could end the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts immediately upon taking office. There is also the notion that the mass deportation of illegal immigrants would not cripple industries that rely heavily on immigrant labour, like the US meat industry. According to The Economist, roughly half of the labour on US farms is undocumented.

This same Texas-based psychotherapist couldn’t believe his eyes when he saw a massive billboard in rural Texas proclaiming, “Born in New York, Thinks Like a Texan.” That’s the story Trump sold to voters. And in politics—especially electoral politics—perception is reality.

Is There Really A Tectonic Shift?

Yet, even in the face of what some view as an impending apocalypse for the Democratic Party, it’s important to note that Trump’s win in the popular vote was narrow: 75.8 million votes (50.2%) to Kamala Harris’s 72.8 million votes (48.2%), with nearly all votes counted. In 2016, Biden led Trump by 7 million votes. But credit where it’s due—Trump won the popular vote by actively pursuing it, rallying supporters in New York and California, even though those blue states’ electoral college votes were never in play for him. This effort came in the final weeks of the campaign when conventional wisdom would suggest focusing on the seven key swing states.

How true is the talk of a tectonic shift in the vote and the creation of a new Republican social coalition? It is true that the identity that moved the non-White vote to Trump was their working-class, non-college-educated identity. These voters believed that Trump would do a better job of bringing back jobs lost to Mexico, addressing their affordability crisis, preserving their conservative cultural values, and securing their legal immigrant status by deporting illegal immigrants.

None of this should have come as a surprise. Pre-election polls from The New York Times found a surprising affinity between Trump’s views and those of Latinos and Black voters. Four out of ten Hispanic voters and one out of five Black voters had a favourable impression of Trump. A majority of them sympathized with his “America First” foreign policy. Only 20% of Hispanic voters and 26% of Black voters felt that the economic conditions were good or excellent. Median weekly wages for full-time Black workers had risen steeply during Trump’s presidency but essentially stagnated under Biden.

However, in absolute numbers, the shift in the non-White vote has not been as significant as it is often portrayed, as columnist Thomas Edsall points out in the NYT. “Roughly six in ten Hispanics voted for Joe Biden; five in ten for Kamala Harris. Nine out of ten Black voters chose Biden; eight in ten for Harris. More than four-fifths of Trump’s votes came from White voters.”

Trump won because he has excellent political instincts and because people know exactly what he stands for. His views on trade and immigration were shaped years before he entered politics. “I believe very strongly in tariffs,” he told a journalist in 1989. “America is being ripped off.” In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he wrote that “our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.”

Rich-Poor Divide

What is particularly disturbing for the Democratic Party is that this election has reinforced the post-2012 electoral reality: the less well-off are siding with Trump, while the college-educated, coastal elites are aligned with the Democrats. With White Americans comprising 67% of the population and 62% of Americans lacking a college degree, the Democrats will need to look beyond conventional politicians—those who twist and turn their positions to conform, always erring on the side of caution—to lead the fightback.

Yet, as we all know, Trump can be his own worst enemy. He is entirely transactional. For him, loyalty is always one-way. His insecurity prevents him from sharing the limelight with anyone else. His vanity leaves him vulnerable to manipulation. Not surprisingly, he is not the best judge of character, and his loyalists continue to cycle through a revolving door.

Team Trump, 2.0

The quote at the beginning of this column is from Kellyanne Conway, the Republican pollster who worked with Trump from 2013 and managed his 2016 campaign. She later joined the first Trump administration but left amid a public feud with her teenage daughter in August 2020, who lambasted her personally and politically and even threatened legal separation.

Conway is not the only person who was once with Trump but is no longer. Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief ideologue and speechwriter, is not in the fold anymore. In his place is Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner have been replaced by Don Jr., who is now in charge of conducting the “loyalty test” for anyone seeking to join the administration. John Kelly, Trump’s longest-serving Chief of Staff who called him a “fascist,” has been replaced by Susie Wiles, Trump’s campaign manager. Wiles is known for her discipline and focus on facilitating whatever catches Trump’s fancy. The big question is: how long will she last?

The New York Times—which Trump both loathes and loves to read—has come in for criticism for suggesting that Trump will be a “lame duck” president, given that the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits a third presidential term. Critics accused the paper of sour grapes. However, in an unintended way, the paper has highlighted Trump’s main dilemma: what legacy does he want to leave behind? He has mined the deep divide and distrust of Washington in US society to become the most dominant figure in American politics for the past decade. Does he now pivot to statesmanship and attempt to unite the country? Or does he pander to his MAGA base and give full rein to his thirst for revenge?

Rein Of Uncertainty

The early signs are ominous. Trump’s nomination of the highly controversial Congressman Matt Gaetz, who is under investigation for ethics violations, as Attorney General has even alarmed The Wall Street Journal. “He’s a nominee for those who want the law used for political revenge, and it won’t end well,” the paper warned.

Similarly, the case of Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who has been outspoken against the Pentagon’s “woke” policies regarding racial and transgender equity, and the appointment of former Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, now a Trump loyalist, as Director of National Intelligence, raise further concerns. Gabbard has shown no evidence of expertise in intelligence. No one should be surprised by this turn of events.

(Ajay Kumar is a senior journalist. He is the former Managing Editor, Business Standard, and former Executive Editor, Economic Times.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

It was well past midnight on November 5, 2024, the election day in the United States. The results were still coming, but a jubilant Republican crowd in Florida was certain of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. They gave him and his entire entourage a hero’s welcome. Among those on stage were his wife, Melania, and his youngest son, Barron Trump, who remained anonymous for much of his father’s campaign trail.

Standing well over 6 feet and 9 inches tall, Barron, an imposing figure, flashed a smile at the sea of supporters. While Barron’s four older half-siblings — Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump and Tiffany Trump —  have all taken on roles as political advisors and business figures, he remained more of a backroom guy.

Barron has reportedly been advising Trump on connecting with the Gen Z voters who are crucial to modern political campaigns. The President-elect credited his youngest son for persuading him to appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast, a major success nearing 50 million views.

The election was special for the 18-year-old, who also cast his first vote this year. Photographed at the voting booth, he proudly supported his father in the presidential race.

Let’s take a closer look at this young man and his journey so far.

Early life

Born on March 20, 2006, Barron Trump is the only child of Donald and Melania. Trump named him Barron, a name he always liked but never had the opportunity to use for his other sons, reported People.

His early years were spent mostly away from the spotlight, which followed the lives of his older siblings and parents.

During Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016, Barron, though young, became a subject of public curiosity. When his father won the presidency and moved into the White House, Barron stayed behind in New York City for several months to finish the school year. This move was initially seen as an attempt to give Barron some semblance of a normal childhood, despite his father’s sudden and meteoric rise to the highest office in the United States.

Schooling and education

Barron Trump has attended a series of prestigious schools. During his early years in New York City, he was enrolled at the Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. In May 2017, it was announced that Barron would move to St. Andrew’s Episcopal School in Potomac, Maryland. Unlike every other presidential child over the past 35 years, who attended Sidwell Friends, Barron made history as the first to attend St. Andrew’s. In a statement, Melania Trump expressed her admiration for the school’s “diverse community and commitment to academic excellence.”

In 2024, Barron Trump began his freshman year at New York University’s prestigious Stern School of Business, a departure from the tradition set by his older siblings and father. Unlike Donald Trump and Barron’s siblings — Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump and Tiffany Trump — who attended or graduated from institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania and Georgetown University, with strong connections to the family, Barron charted his path.

Moving to the White House

When Trump first won the presidency, he said that Barron was initially nervous about the move from New York City to the White House. At the time, Barron was just nine years old and strongly attached to his life in New York, school and friends. The prospect of leaving everything behind for a new chapter in Washington D.C. was a significant change for the young boy.

“He does love New York and he loves his school. Not so much living in the White House. He does like what he’s got right now. That would be a whole change of life. But when he hears I’m going to help people that solves the problem,” Trump told People magazine.

Finally, at 11, Barron moved into the White House, where he lived with his parents until 2019. That year, the Trump family permanently relocated to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Florida.

Barron Trump’s hobbies

Despite keeping a low profile, Barron’s interests and activities have occasionally come to the media’s notice. He is known for his love for sports, something his mother Melania confirmed in 2018. One of the sports he enjoys is football, but his father, Donald Trump, has expressed some reservations about the dangers in the game. He has also been involved in other activities such as golf and basketball, reflecting a well-rounded personality with a strong interest in athletics.

Command of English and Slovenian

Barron Trump is bilingual and can speak English and Slovenian, the native language of his mother. As a child, Barron would often call his grandmother and speak with her solely in Slovenian, Melania told People magazine. When it comes to the language Barron should use in public, she and her husband, Donald Trump, are in agreement. English remains his primary language.

The tallest Trump

Barron Trump’s height is something you just cannot ignore. Standing at a reported 6 feet 9 inches, he is the tallest member of the Trump family. This towering figure surpasses his father, Donald Trump, who is 6 feet 3 inches tall. Compared to his half-brothers, Barron stands out. Donald Trump Jr. is 6 feet 1 inch and Eric Trump is 6 feet 5 inches.

While Google lists Barron’s height as 6 feet 9 inches, Donald Trump mentioned in a January 2024 speech that Barron is “already 6 feet 7 inches” — still a remarkable height, regardless of the exact measurement. Donald jokingly attributed his son’s height to the home-cooked meals prepared by Melania’s late mother, Amalija Knavs.

Barron’s height often draws attention, especially during public appearances.

After Trump’s victory in elections, his campaign’s senior adviser Jason Miller said Barron was involved in recommending several podcasts his father must do ahead of the November 5 voting. “Hats off to the young man. Every single recommendation he’s had has broken the internet,” Miller told Politico’s Playbook Deep Dive podcast.

With Donald Trump already making important appointments to his cabinet ahead of the January 20th inauguration for his second term, many wonder if the 18-year-old will be more actively involved in the next four years. 

New Delhi:

With Donald Trump set to become the next US president after the recently closely contested presidential polls, India and other Asian countries are expected to benefit due to rising US-China tensions and potential investment restrictions in strategic sectors, as per Moody’s Ratings.

“In the Asia-Pacific region, trade and investment flows might be further diverted away from China as the US tightens investments in strategic sectors, which would negatively affect China’s economy and consequently dampen regional growth. However, this shift might benefit India and ASEAN countries,” the global rating agency said.

The global agency anticipated a significant shift under the Trump administration across fiscal, trade, climate, and immigration issues, departing from the approach of the administration of the current US President Joe Biden.

The rating agency added that Trump could have both legislative and executive avenues to advance his agenda on every front.

It further added that as a candidate, Trump promised tax reform, with plans to make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, lower the corporate tax rate, and implement income tax relief. These initiatives, along with targeted and broad tariffs, including steep tariffs on Chinese imports, are expected to increase federal deficits.

It highlighted that the US under Trump will adopt a protectionist trade policy, which would be more disruptive and increase the risks to global growth.

“Protectionist measures could disrupt global supply chains and negatively affect sectors that rely on imported materials and goods, such as manufacturing, technology, and retail,” it added.

Trump’s trade policy approach would likely bring immediate impacts to the manufacturing sector, the credit rating agency said, adding that although a divided Congress might slow down or adjust the scope of such measures.

The climate initiatives of the US are also likely to see reversals as Trump seeks to boost fossil fuel production under the banner of “American energy dominance.”

Reduced funding for clean energy projects and a possible withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would undermine the US’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While federal support for green technologies may wane, private-sector initiatives and state-level mandates, particularly in renewable energy, are expected to partially offset this shift.

Some industry experts believe market-driven growth in wind and solar could continue, as these energy sources have become cost-competitive in many parts of the country.

“The shift would likely result in renewed support for the fossil fuel industry, reduced funding for clean energy and green technologies, and loosened environmental regulations, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to reduce emissions in the power and auto sectors. It is likely that the Trump administration will withdraw from the Paris Agreement again and reverse commitments to meeting net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” the agency said.

On the regulatory front, Trump is expected to pursue a lighter approach, as per the Moody’s, which will include relaxed rules for small and midsized banks, potentially reducing their capital requirements but also exposing creditors to higher risks.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Tokyo:

Some Asian countries stand to gain if US president-elect Donald Trump pushes ahead with his promised massive tariffs on China and triggers a new wave of factory relocations to the rest of the region.

But a trade war between the world’s biggest economies would also destabilise markets everywhere, with Asia — which contributes the largest share of global growth — the most affected.

Trump, who won a crushing presidential victory this week, vowed during his campaign to slap 60 per cent tariffs on all Chinese goods entering the United States in an attempt to balance trade between the two nations.

Analysts however question whether the new president will stick to such a high figure, and dispute the blow such tariffs could inflect on the Chinese economy, estimating GDP could be lowered by between 0.7 per cent and 1.6 per cent.

The cooling effect would also make waves throughout Southeast Asia, where production chains are closely linked to China and enjoy significant investment from Beijing.

“Lower US demand for Chinese goods due to higher tariffs on China will translate into lower demand for ASEAN exports, even if there aren’t US tariffs levied directly onto those economies,” said Adam Ahmad Samdin, of Oxford Economics.

Indonesia is particularly exposed through its strong exports of nickel and minerals, but China is also the top trading partner of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

In addition to China, Donald Trump has also warned of an increase of 10 to 20 per cent on duties for all imports, as part of his protectionist policies and fixation that other countries take advantage of the US.

“The extent of these effects likely depends on the direct exposure of each economy to the US,” said Samdin, who added that America accounts for a 39.1 per cent share of Cambodian exports, 27.4 per cent from Vietnam, 17 per cent from Thailand and 15.4 per cent from the Philippines.

India to be targeted? 

Trump first slapped China with heavy tariffs in 2018 during his first administration, leading to the emergence of “connector countries”, through which Chinese companies passed their products to avoid American taxes.

Those countries could be in the line of fire now.

“Vietnam’s electronics exports to the US could also be targeted by Trump, in a bid to halt the diversion of Chinese electronic products to the US via Vietnam since 2018,” said Lloyd Chan, a senior analyst at MUFG, Japan’s largest bank.

“This is not inconceivable. Trade rewiring has notably gained traction in the region’s electronics value chain.”

“India could itself become a target of protectionist measures by the US due to the large share of Chinese components in Indian products,” added Alexandra Hermann, an economist with Oxford Economics.

Trump could also impose higher tariffs on Indian goods in sectors such as “automobiles, textiles, pharmaceuticals and wines, which could make Indian exports less competitive in the US”, said Ajay Srivastava of the New Delhi-based Global Trade Research Initiative.

A trade war would be dangerous for India, said Ajay Sahai, director of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations.

“Trump is a transactional person. He may target higher tariffs on certain items of Indian exports so he can negotiate for lower tariffs for US products in India,” he told AFP.

Supply chain rejig 

In the medium term, these negative effects could be counterbalanced by establishing factories outside China to escape the fallout.

The “China+1” strategy initiated during Donald Trump’s first term saw production shifts to India, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

With its geographical position and cheap skilled labour, Vietnam has already been one of the main beneficiaries.

The country has notably received investments from Taiwanese Apple subcontractors Foxconn and Pegatron and South Korea’s Samsung, becoming the second-largest exporter of smartphones in the world behind China.

“The likelihood increases that even more businesses will want to… have a second, or third, production base outside China,” said Bruno Jaspaert, chairman of the European Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam.

Chinese firms themselves are investing massively from Vietnam to Indonesia in sectors including solar, batteries, electric vehicles and minerals.

“American companies and investors are very interested in opportunities in Vietnam and this will continue under the incoming Trump Administration,” said Adam Sitkoff, executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi.

But whether it is low-end or high-tech production, China’s competitive advantage in terms of price, scale and quality is difficult to reproduce, warns Nomura Bank.

A reorganisation of production chains could lead to a “loss of efficiency” and increased prices, “with a negative impact on global growth”, Thomas Helbling, deputy director of the IMF for Asia, recently explained to AFP.

Asian countries could therefore gain export market share but ultimately see their situation deteriorate amid weakening global demand.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A political analyst in the US called Donald Trump’s victory ‘magic realism’. Intellectuals in America are in shock. They are aghast to see the margin of Trump’s victory and are trying to figure out the reason. They are struggling to understand if it is the defeat of elite politics or a rejection of democracy as was being played out in America. But what surprised me more was the reaction of certain sections in India. Instead of mourning the defeat of an Indian-origin candidate, they are celebrating the victory of an American Christian, supported by an evangelical church. These are the same people who were angry when Hindus were targeted in Bangladesh and in Canada by the ‘forces of evil’. 

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Hindu mother. She is proud of her Hindu origin. A Hindu woman who went on to become the Vice President of America and finally a candidate for the post of president, is a remarkable story. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she is not the product of entitlement or member of American establishment; she is an outlier who rose from humble background to become the Vice President of America by sheer grit, talent and hard work.

Why Are Indians Happy?

But why are these people happy in her defeat? Is it because she did not pay any lip service to Bangladeshi Hindus, like Trump did? Or is it because the politics of Kamla Harris—she is not divisive and she talks about democracy and constitutionalism—makes these people uncomfortable? Is it because she does not support the politics of majoritarianism? Or that she speaks for people of all faiths and does not discriminate between people on the basis of their race and gender? Or is it because she does not crack crass and sexist jokes like Trump does? 

Those who are celebrating Trump assuming that he is a friend of India and that India will benefit from his presidency are living in a fool’s paradise. They are victims of false consciousness and prisoners of a fantasy. It is important to remember that Trump is an American and the President of the United States. His promise is to make America great again—not India. Any steps Trump takes to fulfil his promise of making America great again will likely come at India’s expense, as well as that of the rest of the world. If taking strong measures against India becomes necessary, he will not hesitate to do so.

Trump Politics Is Transactional

We must remember that his politics is not doctrinaire but purely transactional. India will soon face the impact of his cynicism. He will likely impose restrictions on the entry of Indians into the United States, with the H1B visa program being the first casualty. Trade with the US will become more challenging as he will pressure the Indian government to “cut tariffs” and may even “impose higher tariffs on Indian goods”. Even before his election, he had grouped India with Brazil and China on the issue of tariffs and called India a “very big abuser of tariffs”. If he follows through on his promise to expel immigrants—a major commitment to his American voters—Indians will not be exempt.

However, the situation would have been similar with Kamala Harris too. Had she been elected president, she would have also prioritised America’s interests, despite her Indian heritage. Therefore, regardless of who wins, India has no reason to celebrate. India must focus on protecting its national interests, and it is always preferable to deal with a leader who is predictable and stable. Trump, however, is an unpredictable figure with an unstable character and did not have a clean record during his first term as president.

Trump’s Biggest Supporters? Conservative Christians 

I am sure those who are rejoicing Trump’s victory must be aware that Trump represents a revival of ‘Christian nationalism’, which many like Bishop Michael Curry called a ‘threat to America’s soul’. The New York Times reported, “He (Trump) says he will affirm that God made only two genders, male and female. He will create a task force to fight anti-Christian bias. And he will give enhanced access to conservative Christian leaders, if they elect him.” He says, “We have to save religion.” The New York Times writes, “And for nearly a decade, right-wing Christian power has intensified, largely under Mr Trump’s watch. He won the White House in 2016 promising that “Christianity will have power.”

Trump’s strongest support comes from Middle America, a bastion of conservative Christians. In this election, evangelical churches were especially active among Latin American Christians—who traditionally vote for the Democratic Party—convincing them to support Trump. And they succeeded. More than 40% of Latinos backed Trump, contributing significantly to his substantial victory margin.

Does this mean that those in India who champion Hindu nationalism are now endorsing the rise of Christian nationalism? If so, why do proponents of Hindutva decry Christianity, alongside Islam, as an inimical force threatening India’s unity and integrity, alleging that it channels millions of dollars to convert Hindus to Christianity?

What Golwalkar Said

It is worth remembering that long ago, Golwalkar, a father figure of Hindutva, named Christians as one of the three enemies of India and accused Christian missionaries of working under the guise of humanitarian aid to make India a Christian land. He wrote, “Such is the role of Christian gentlemen residing in our land today, out to demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our life but also to establish political domination in various pockets and, if possible, all over the land.” He further stated, “Wherever they have stepped, they have drenched those lands with the blood and tears of the natives and liquidated whole races. Do we not know the heart-rending stories of how they annihilated the natives in America, Australia, and Africa?”

I don’t know whether the RSS has changed its stance on Christian missionaries or their ideology. Nor do I know if the RSS has reached some form of truce with Christian nationalism. The undeniable fact is that Trump’s America subscribes to the notion of a clash of civilisations and champions Christian causes. Despite its best intentions, Hindu nationalism cannot align with Trump’s Christian nationalism without undermining the very ideology of Hindutva. This raises the question: why is there so much support for Trump?

Is it not ironic that, on one hand, followers of Hindutva issue a clarion call in India for Hindu unity, while on the other, they are unwilling to support a woman of Hindu origin who has achieved significant success abroad—something that should inspire pride among Hindus? Does this not point to a kind of ideological confusion and contradiction within the movement that claims to make India great and position it as a Vishwaguru? This deserves serious contemplation.

(Ashutosh is the author of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and co-founder of SatyaHindi.com)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

A political analyst in the US called Donald Trump’s victory ‘magic realism’. Intellectuals in America are in shock. They are aghast to see the margin of Trump’s victory and are trying to figure out the reason. They are struggling to understand if it is the defeat of elite politics or a rejection of democracy as was being played out in America. But what surprised me more was the reaction of certain sections in India. Instead of mourning the defeat of an Indian-origin candidate, they are celebrating the victory of an American Christian, supported by an evangelical church. These are the same people who were angry when Hindus were targeted in Bangladesh and in Canada by the ‘forces of evil’. 

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Hindu mother. She is proud of her Hindu origin. A Hindu woman who went on to become the Vice President of America and finally a candidate for the post of president, is a remarkable story. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she is not the product of entitlement or member of American establishment; she is an outlier who rose from humble background to become the Vice President of America by sheer grit, talent and hard work.

Why Are Indians Happy?

But why are these people happy in her defeat? Is it because she did not pay any lip service to Bangladeshi Hindus, like Trump did? Or is it because the politics of Kamla Harris—she is not divisive and she talks about democracy and constitutionalism—makes these people uncomfortable? Is it because she does not support the politics of majoritarianism? Or that she speaks for people of all faiths and does not discriminate between people on the basis of their race and gender? Or is it because she does not crack crass and sexist jokes like Trump does? 

Those who are celebrating Trump assuming that he is a friend of India and that India will benefit from his presidency are living in a fool’s paradise. They are victims of false consciousness and prisoners of a fantasy. It is important to remember that Trump is an American and the President of the United States. His promise is to make America great again—not India. Any steps Trump takes to fulfil his promise of making America great again will likely come at India’s expense, as well as that of the rest of the world. If taking strong measures against India becomes necessary, he will not hesitate to do so.

Trump Politics Is Transactional

We must remember that his politics is not doctrinaire but purely transactional. India will soon face the impact of his cynicism. He will likely impose restrictions on the entry of Indians into the United States, with the H1B visa program being the first casualty. Trade with the US will become more challenging as he will pressure the Indian government to “cut tariffs” and may even “impose higher tariffs on Indian goods”. Even before his election, he had grouped India with Brazil and China on the issue of tariffs and called India a “very big abuser of tariffs”. If he follows through on his promise to expel immigrants—a major commitment to his American voters—Indians will not be exempt.

However, the situation would have been similar with Kamala Harris too. Had she been elected president, she would have also prioritised America’s interests, despite her Indian heritage. Therefore, regardless of who wins, India has no reason to celebrate. India must focus on protecting its national interests, and it is always preferable to deal with a leader who is predictable and stable. Trump, however, is an unpredictable figure with an unstable character and did not have a clean record during his first term as president.

Trump’s Biggest Supporters? Conservative Christians 

I am sure those who are rejoicing Trump’s victory must be aware that Trump represents a revival of ‘Christian nationalism’, which many like Bishop Michael Curry called a ‘threat to America’s soul’. The New York Times reported, “He (Trump) says he will affirm that God made only two genders, male and female. He will create a task force to fight anti-Christian bias. And he will give enhanced access to conservative Christian leaders, if they elect him.” He says, “We have to save religion.” The New York Times writes, “And for nearly a decade, right-wing Christian power has intensified, largely under Mr Trump’s watch. He won the White House in 2016 promising that “Christianity will have power.”

Trump’s strongest support comes from Middle America, a bastion of conservative Christians. In this election, evangelical churches were especially active among Latin American Christians—who traditionally vote for the Democratic Party—convincing them to support Trump. And they succeeded. More than 40% of Latinos backed Trump, contributing significantly to his substantial victory margin.

Does this mean that those in India who champion Hindu nationalism are now endorsing the rise of Christian nationalism? If so, why do proponents of Hindutva decry Christianity, alongside Islam, as an inimical force threatening India’s unity and integrity, alleging that it channels millions of dollars to convert Hindus to Christianity?

What Golwalkar Said

It is worth remembering that long ago, Golwalkar, a father figure of Hindutva, named Christians as one of the three enemies of India and accused Christian missionaries of working under the guise of humanitarian aid to make India a Christian land. He wrote, “Such is the role of Christian gentlemen residing in our land today, out to demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our life but also to establish political domination in various pockets and, if possible, all over the land.” He further stated, “Wherever they have stepped, they have drenched those lands with the blood and tears of the natives and liquidated whole races. Do we not know the heart-rending stories of how they annihilated the natives in America, Australia, and Africa?”

I don’t know whether the RSS has changed its stance on Christian missionaries or their ideology. Nor do I know if the RSS has reached some form of truce with Christian nationalism. The undeniable fact is that Trump’s America subscribes to the notion of a clash of civilisations and champions Christian causes. Despite its best intentions, Hindu nationalism cannot align with Trump’s Christian nationalism without undermining the very ideology of Hindutva. This raises the question: why is there so much support for Trump?

Is it not ironic that, on one hand, followers of Hindutva issue a clarion call in India for Hindu unity, while on the other, they are unwilling to support a woman of Hindu origin who has achieved significant success abroad—something that should inspire pride among Hindus? Does this not point to a kind of ideological confusion and contradiction within the movement that claims to make India great and position it as a Vishwaguru? This deserves serious contemplation.

(Ashutosh is the author of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and co-founder of SatyaHindi.com)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

As I walked out of my Upper West Side polling station in New York City after casting my vote, the lack of energy in America’s most liberal city was palpable. The pins being sold just outside said “Keep Kamala and Carry On-a-la”, but the calmness was about to explode. 

Donald Trump’s stunning comeback forces an acknowledgement that Americans do not want to simply carry on. Much like India earlier this year. They are increasingly tired of the financial pain that started after the 2008 financial crisis, rendering many of them under-employed. The most powerful ingredients of rapid global economic growth in our lifetimes—globalisation and technological replacement—have ricocheted back to cause acute pain at the working-class Americans’ dining tables. And they are hoping, against the odds, that their ballot can overpower that bullet.

This is precisely the reason why, much like the re-emergence of the former President, a defining trend is now categorising the American election cycle. And, I would argue, the Indian election cycle too.

Incumbents Beware

This is now the third presidential election since 2016 when the incumbent party has been voted out, a trend not seen since the 1970s when Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were voted in quick succession as inflation eclipsed all else. Once is an accident. Twice, a coincidence. Three times, a pattern.

In India, the lack of a majority for the incumbent party this year was an indication of that very problem that is proving difficult for any global leader to resolve. In fact, there has been a dissipation of existing power if not an outright change in every major government across the world this year—from the UK and Italy to Germany and Japan, and others.

As Bill Clinton’s political strategist Jim Carville stated prophetically thirty years ago, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But some would point out that the stock markets are at an all-time high and economic growth was at par in both Trump and Biden years. So, why the discontent? Didn’t life seem good enough?

Yes, but only for the elite, whether in the US or India. The elite are the real beneficiaries of the riches-to-riches story. How long can you ignore the larger population that now has to work an average of 2.5 jobs to keep the same lifestyle as a decade ago? In the case of India, too, yes there are cheap mobile phones and food handouts, but job prospects cannot keep up with young aspirations.

In this discontented mix, a message like Trump’s, which primarily centres around inflation and its many symptoms—immigration being an obvious one—will obviously be attractive. But so is that of any politician who offers a change in the existing status quo. It is akin to a company changing multiple CEOs in the hope its fortunes will change, not realising that the problem lies in the product itself.

The Polarisation Card Is Losing Its Edge 

This election has broken several myths—the overriding one being polarisation—including that echo chambers are permanent and defined and will not sway voters from their trenches. That certainly was the case in 2016, when Trump’s winnability was attributed to a fringe base of non-college-educated men. But in 2024, Trump’s winnability is attributed to virtually all subsets.

A case in point is young men, and shockingly for the democrats, young men of colour—whether Latino or Indian-American—swinging in Trump’s favour. The Left is finally realizing that they cannot club all minorities together, much like the Right in India is realizing the majority cannot always be a single voting bloc. Their loyalty, and more importantly, their ethics, are being questioned. I disagree. This was not a vote for the messenger, it was a vote for the message. 

This election has stuck a needle into the bubble of polarisation that the world has sworn by throughout the last decade. Both sides tried to polarise voters, whether it was Trump with immigration or Harris with abortion. But it did not work. There are voters who have chosen Trump and abortion rights. The choice is no longer binary. Above all else, the voters in America are pragmatic.

The same is true for India. The 2024 India voting reflected the discontent among ordinary voters, where the economy superseded everything else. The conservative argument of caste or religious lines shaping voting patterns is increasingly becoming redundant. 

As it has long been said, democracy is a luxury when there is not enough food on the table. But there are also similarities between the out-of-touch ‘Khan market gang’ in India and America’s coastal elite. Instead of focusing on the real issue of voter pain, the Democrats’ and the Indian Opposition’s patronising tone of ‘How could you vote for him?’ reeked of moral superiority borne out of privilege, not realism.

Only Betting Markets Got It Right  

The media and the pollsters have got it so far wrong that they are in danger of losing their voice. These echo chambers are now functioning as cheerleaders of political thought. They dole out a narrative rather than acting as arbiters of reason. It is ironic that the most truthful picture came from sources that are often the most tainted in history—the betting markets in the US and the satta bazaar in India. Whether Trump’s sweep or the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) underperformance, they were the only ones who got it right.

Kamala Played Well

Kamala Harris also emerged as a hero to many. Clearly, many things that were out of her control went wrong for her: Biden’s selfishness in holding on to power, the war fatigue, and the all-important anti-incumbency. 

When my 10-year-old daughter accompanying me to the voting booth asked me why a woman gets passed yet again for the most powerful job in the world, I told her to walk tall the next day. Because in the shortest presidential campaign in American history, of only 107 days, Kamala managed to achieve the impossible and did better than any reasonable hope. LOTUS for POTUS simply did not have enough time to bloom.

I do not think America acted like it did in 2016 and chose to vote against a female President. The pain threshold that Trump pressed on was much lower on Maslow’s needs chart for the gender ceiling in American politics to even be a conversation. A famous meme from the Kamala campaign was a father going with his daughter to the polling booth and saying he was voting for her. I believe the father did still vote for his daughter, not necessarily as a mark of support for the candidate but as an act of hope of providing his family with a better life.

Trump Needs A Hail Mary 

But will Trump be able to deliver on that hope? In the America of the 1980s, the Republican party’s modern hero, Ronald Reagan, achieved the impossible as he took on the structural inflation problem, giving birth to decades of prosperity.

For Trump to leave the legacy he wants, he will have to be in offensive tackle mode for the next four years and deliver a magical Reaganesque solution to the working class pain. Or else, given the musical chairs game global politics has become, the Dems will be back in the White House in 2028.

(Namrata Brar is an Indian-American journalist, investigative reporter, and news anchor. She is the former US bureau chief of NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors

The results of the US elections held last week have produced both relief and shock in equal measure.

The world at large and the Americans in particular are relieved that even if the outcome was largely unexpected, it was unambiguous, decisive and uncontested. This belied many foreboding predictions. There was a clear swing towards the hard right, with the Republican Party making major gains. Donald Trump, its candidate, defied all odds to win the Presidency. The Republicans expanded their control of the Senate and are poised for a majority in the House of Representatives as well. Factoring in the right-leaning Supreme Court and Federal Reserve under pressure to ease its ‘tight money’ policy—the GOP has never had it this good for a long time.

A Rude Shock For All

On the other hand, the “winner taking it all” outcome was a rude surprise not only for the defeated Democrats but also for the psephologists and the mainstream media, who predicted a victory for Kamala Harris and a greater countervailing balance in Congress. Few expected a massive popular endorsement of Mr Trump, a populist with controversial views often bordering on unsubstantiated extremism. To many, the outcome raised questions about the maturity of the electorate and fidelity to the electoral process itself. Despite a booming economy, low inflation and low unemployment, the American voter succumbed to clever manipulation of popular perceptions with pet popular peeves about immigration, globalisation and personal economics being weaponised. For many, this was not an outcome the US deserved.

But now that this is a fait accompli, the larger question that needs to be answered is: How will this binary split play out during the incoming Trump Presidency? A lot would depend on whether Trump 2.0 would hark back to Trump 1.0 or whether the experiences of being the 45th President have been internalised for the 47th Presidency. This requires a granular analysis to discern the likely course of Trump 2.0.

An Unapologetic Trump 

To begin with, some basic observations are in order. Firstly, when the 78-year-old person concerned is not only unapologetic but triumphant about his past term, it raises some pertinent issues about his plans for the future in a vastly different context. Most of the catchy electoral promises made by candidate Trump were bare-bone intentions without precise targets. Similarly, many of the policy priorities articulated during the campaign intersect domestic and foreign affairs. Some of the planned and pre-announced quick fixes for the beginning of Trump 2.0 may open new Pandora’s boxes. Further, given the unpredictability and transactional inconsistencies seen in Trump 1.0—from building an anti-immigrant wall on the southern border to the Summits with Kim Jong Un—were infructuous and were quietly abandoned. It cast doubts about keeping the new promises. Lastly, the bitter polarisation and name-calling of Trump 1.0 is a legacy that may haunt Trump 2.0. All these tactical complexities and shifts presage a pattern making Trump 2.0 invariably joined at the hip with Trump 1.0.

Pardons To MAGA To Immigration, A Domestic Roller-Coaster

Opening overtures of Trump 2.0 are likely to be dominated by domestic agenda. It’s partly because his support base expects it and also because he has greater authority to do so. Firing inconvenient officials and presidential pardons, etc, are likely to be in the first flush. It may follow some measures at score-settling with “the enemies within” even as the bite may be less than the bark. He would find ways to flesh out his catchphrases such as “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. Stopping illegal immigration and deporting those who have already done so would be a priority, even as some of these measures may be legally questionable.

On the economic side, Trump 2.0 may prune welfare spending and have a smaller government to balance with the promised lowering of taxes. Other intended moves such as high tariffs on imports and “Drill, Baby, Drill” may have collateral consequences in terms of trade wars, higher inflation, further demonise the “big oil”, environmental damage and lower export revenues. Rewarding Elon Musk and other corporate friends may lead to allegations of crony capitalism. The US political system does grant the President a high degree of impunity and the political context at the Congress and Supreme Court may be salubrious. Nevertheless, Mr Trump comes with the baggage of having been impeached twice and has the dubious distinction of being the first US President found guilty of 34 felony counts. His penchant for leaving a positive legacy is likely to restrain him.

The World Has Changed—For Trump, Too

In the foreign policy domain, President Trump would discover that the international context has turned far more complicated and nuanced. Despite bragging about his foreign policy accomplishments, Trump 1.0 was scarred by failed tactical initiatives, such as a deal with the Taliban, mollycoddling autocrats, reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, antagonising longstanding partners, undermining multilateral architecture, etc. No wonder most partners reacted cautiously to the Trump victory. Even the ruling British Labour Party, for instance, had to painfully ruminate over the serious pejoratives it used to describe Trump 1.0. The rightist fringes in Europe and Israel have warmly welcomed his re-ascendence. The countries demonised during Trump 1.0, such as China, and Iran, reacted with predictable defiance.

The reactions to his elections were a foretaste of the kind of difficulties Trump 2.0 is likely to face as his ambitious agenda. While the US remains the world’s primordial superpower, her hard and soft powers are significantly lower now, making unilateral pursuit of a wish list more difficult, particularly as he promises to avoid military engagements abroad. Trump 1.0 diplomacy was more about treating the symptoms than the disease. Living in denial was an often-exercised option on softer global issues such as climate change and disarmament. These tactical approaches merely kicked the can down the road, making the hotspots more numerous, more entrenched and intractable as evinced in the South China Sea, the Urals and the Middle East. Further, the cynical transactional approaches of Trump 1.0 lacked moral underpinnings, often reducing them to exercises in cynical manipulations and/or arm-twisting. More dangerously, it often allowed Trump’s interlocutors to pander to flattery or deception to get their goals.

‘A Man Deserves A Second Chance, But…’

The US under Trump 2.0 has two divergent options: isolationism and living in denial and inverted snobbery, or getting down from the moral horse and engaging either singly or through the same multilateral institutions that were often disfranchised during Trump 1.0. If Trump 2.0 intends to go beyond the palliatives deals and resolve the stubborn global crises, it would need to reinvent and realign itself with the new realities of the China-Russia nexus, more assertive middle-rung countries, including India, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, France, Germany, etc. Even traditional partners such as the UK, Japan, Australia, and Israel need to be courted afresh.

With his disregard for conventions, clipped deliveries, one-liners and over-the-top High Noons too often, Trump 1.0 styled itself more as an urbane cowboy than the conventional politician. We do not know if the invocation to resonate with the WASP psyche was accidental or deliberate. As he prepares to saunter to the White House yet again, it is worthwhile to quote John Wayne, the famous Hollywood Wild West icon: “A man deserves a second chance, but keep an eye on him.”

(Mahesh Sachdev is a former Indian Ambassador. He currently heads Eco-Diplomacy and Strategies, a Delhi-based consultancy)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Elon Musk took part in a phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President-elect Donald Trump. File photo
| Photo Credit: DAVID SWANSON

Elon Musk took part in a phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President-elect Donald Trump after his election victory, a senior Ukrainian official told AFP Friday.

“I confirm it,” the presidency official who asked to remain anonymous told AFP, saying that the claim in a report by US news site Axios about the call on Wednesday was accurate.

Musk, the world’s richest man, played a major role in the Republican’s campaign, spending over $110 million of his personal fortune to help get him elected. Trump has said he aims to include Musk in some form of advisory role in his upcoming government.

His presence during an official call underlines his close ties to the next US president.

Another high-ranking Ukrainian source told AFP that Musk was physically present with Trump during the call.

Musk “wasn’t on the line, Trump gave him the phone. They were there together somewhere,” the source said.

Zelensky “thanked him (Musk) for the Starlinks, they talked briefly,” the source said, referring to the satellite internet devices used by Ukrainian troops as they fight of a Russian invasion.

“But the main conversation was of course with Trump,” the source added, while saying he and Zelensky “didn’t really discuss anything substantial, it was just a greeting conversation”.

– Zelensky congratulates Trump –

Zelensky earlier said that he and Trump shared an “excellent” call, where he congratulated the Republican on his “tremendous victory” and they agreed to “maintain close dialogue and advance our cooperation”.

He did not mention speaking to Musk.

When contacted by AFP, Trump’s team declined to confirm the Tesla boss’s participation in the call, saying they would not discuss private conversations.

Axios reported, citing two sources, that the call lasted some 25 minutes and left Zelensky somewhat reassured by what he heard from Trump, without giving specifics.

Zelensky said after the call that “strong and unwavering US leadership” under Trump was “vital” for a “just peace”.

Trump has repeatedly boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and criticised American aid to Kyiv in its fight against Russia.

Washington has been a key military backer of Ukraine and many in Ukraine are worried that Trump will not give the same level of support — or that he could back a peace settlement to Russia’s advantage.

On Thursday Zelensky said it would be “unacceptable” for Europe to offer the Kremlin concessions to halt its invasion of Ukraine, after Moscow demanded the West enter direct talks on ending the war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday hailed Trump as “courageous” for the way he handled himself following an assassination attempt at a rally in July, and said he was “ready” to hold discussions with him.