SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_3_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_1_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:100%;--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_2_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Latin America took a back seat in U.S. foreign policy during the eight years of the Bush presidency, most likely due to the Iraqi distraction, when most of the administration's diplomatic capacity was expended on Baghdad, with little left over for the Americas. The region has to date remained largely unaddressed by the Obama White House, but there are several key policy areas which the U.S. president will be expected to comprehensively address in Port of Spain. Political orientation has altered, outside competition has grown more fierce, and attitudes towards the U.S. have shifted significantly since Washington last engaged to a serious extent with Latin America. Consequently, the scope - indeed, the need - for a new approach is pressing. In fact, many of the moves Obama ought to be considering are not costly in monetary terms, but could prove profitable in terms of diplomatic coinage. However, while the vacuum on Latin American issues which currently characterizes the Obama White House persists, it is unclear whether or not the U.S. president is prepared to come forth with big policy initiatives or has the capacity to grasp the importance of such measures to hemispheric relations.
Treading the Line between Listening and Lecturing
Much of the discussion in Washington in the weeks preceding the Summit has centered on the question of the role the U.S. president should play at the Port of Spain forum. Debates have largely been wasted by the vastly oversimplified question; should Obama go merely to listen to other countries' concerns, or should he arrive with a plan of action? Listening to the views of the rest of the hemisphere is a prerequisite for the kind of improved U.S.-Latin American relations that Obama has promised, and which was routinely ignored by his predecessors. On the other hand, a number of Latin American presidents have made it clear to him in no uncertain terms over the past two months what the region expects of him. Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, acted as Latin America's emissary when he visited Washington on March 14. Lula's message could not have been clearer. "I'm going to ask that the U.S. take a different view of Latin America," he said before meeting Obama. "We're a democratic, peaceful continent, and the U.S. has to look at the region in a productive, developmental way, and not just think about drug trafficking or organized crime."
The White House must now move to outline a plan of action based on the information it has accrued over the past three months in office. To date, Washington has failed to present a coherent strategy for its Latin America policy. This has widely been put down to the fact that the administration remains distracted by events elsewhere in the world and at home. However, this interpretation overlooks the relatively simple nature of the steps it would take for Obama to begin to formulate a consistent and effective policy for the hemisphere.
The administration's preoccupation with the welfare of domestic U.S. industries is certainly understandable, but the current state of the economy must not be used as an excuse for President Obama not to take action in the other crucial areas in which the U.S. shares interests with the rest of the western hemisphere. It seems inevitable that such economic factors will be at the top of the agenda in Port of Spain - and the countries of Latin America quite clearly have a vested interest in ensuring that the U.S. does not attempt to fix its economy in a fashion which may be detrimental to them - but the Obama administration has a whole set of important agenda items to address at the summit, and the approach it takes will dictate not only the direction of U.S.-Latin American relations, but will also have a significant bearing on other aspects of its foreign and domestic policy.
For example, action on Cuba will generate diplomatic repercussions worldwide; the way in which the U.S. addresses subjects which are urgent to Latin America will help dictate the future shape of its international trade; and the future stipulations of regional anti-drug policy will eventually have a direct bearing on hemispheric security, particularly along the U.S.' southern border. In short, arriving with a spelled-out and wide-ranging plan of action that is sympathetic to the grievances of Latin America's governments, may well hold untold benefits for Washington, and is the only way it can balance being considered sufficiently sensitive to its neighbors' most fundamental requirements.
The Cuban Question
President Obama will travel to Trinidad in the knowledge that the biggest diplomatic challenge he will face is most likely the question of U.S. policy towards Cuba. COHA, along with an ever-growing chorus of governments, media, Afro-American groups and church and business organizations, repeatedly have called for the Obama administration to sweep away the clutter and make a clean break with a shameful past by normalizing U.S. relations with Cuba. This would immeasurably improve the goodwill shown to the White House by the rest of the hemisphere and should be no more difficult to do than it was for the Bush administration to normalize ties with an essentially lawless society in the case of Libya. Praiseworthy steps already are being contemplated, like slackening the restrictions on travel and ability to send off remittances imposed on Cuban-Americans by President Bush, and Obama has promised to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo within one year. The administration will attempt to use these moves as bargaining chips. However, the fact that the decades-old trade embargo on the island remains in place - which was so effectively denounced by Richard Lugar (R-In), the minority ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot be overlooked.
On his recent visit to Chile, Vice President Joe Biden restated the administration's muddled unwillingness to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba. "We think that Cuban people should determine their own fate and they should be able to live in freedom and have some prospect of economic prosperity," said Biden, using rather contorted logic to suggest that Washington still, after 47 years, believes that regime change is a prerequisite for the embargo's lifting. The regrettable maintenance of the status quo on this front means that Obama cannot be expected to "bring Cuba in from the cold," as the Guardian recently suggested he would use the Summit to do.
Whether or not the promises Obama makes on Cuba at the summit will placate his barrage of right- and left-wing critics or can be expounded upon in a respectable manner is a matter for the future, but the problem will not go away, just as it has not disappeared over the decades. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently called the U.S. embargo against Cuba "absurd and stupid," and has asserted that the issue "has to be discussed" in Port of Spain. The AP reported that the Venezuelan president went on to criticize Havana's exclusion from April's forum, saying, "Cuba is in Latin America ... With what right, for example, am I going to go to a summit where all of Latin America is there ... and Cuba isn't there? Why?" Chavez's ability to drum up sufficiently vociferous support for what the Economist has labeled "the ghost at the conference table" will likely dictate the intensity of the hostility Obama will have to face. In any case, the U.S. president certainly will be passing up the most cost effective method of healing the U.S.' image in Latin America. By doing so, he will lead his administration into an increasingly isolated position at a time when Costa Rica has recently repaired relations with Havana which were first broken off in 1961 and El Salvador has followed suit after the election of Mauricio Funes on March 15, which will make it the last Latin American nation to restore full relations with Cuba.
Taming Caracas
U.S. relations with Venezuela, which deteriorated drastically during the Bush presidency, remain strained. While President Chavez initially welcomed Obama's election, their subsequent exchanges have largely been tense and disagreeably unpleasant. Chavez said on March 18 of his government's preparations for April's summit, "Our artillery is being prepared. There's going to be good artillery." He went on to ask, "What will Mr. Obama come with? I don't know. We're going to see. We'll see what the pitcher throws."
Suspicion of Caracas remains unabated in the corridors of Capitol Hill. Chavez has hardly helped his cause lately by launching what it is hard not to see as a power grab since his impressive February 15 referendum victory, or at least an excess of activity that adds up to an antipathetic strategy that can only lose him more friends internationally and domestically. By seizing control of foreign-owned food manufacturers and a sizeable portion of Venezuela's aviation infrastructure, Chavez not only arms more of his enemies with bad as well as good arguments, but, even more importantly, fills his agenda with far too many items than he or anyone else can effectively address or properly administer. Nevertheless, it is imperative that Obama makes an effort to distance himself from the hostile rhetoric that continues to emanate from the Hill, and occasionally from within his administration.
Caracas seems almost certain to become a less important focus in U.S. foreign policy under an administration which is anticipated to be more attentive to the substantive issues Latin America faces. However, accepting the fundamental fact that Chavez is democratically elected, and taking a rational approach towards a creative engagement with Venezuela in the hope of diminishing its president's incentive to spout vitriol, will help pave the way for a calmer and more productive relationship between Washington and Latin America as a whole, both during and beyond the Summit. Recall that even under the Bush administration, the State Department had come up with a pro-dialogue tactic, which Chavez either cagily or foolishly rejected. But he now seems to be looking around for an honest broker like Lula to intercede with the White House, and one should also recall that constructive engagement was the habitual advice that Fidel had imparted to his protege. Whatever the source or the message, the surly, dismissive content of the Bush White House when it came to Venezuela had nothing to persuade Chavez, and hopefully will be replaced with wiser words and policy formulations under its new tenant.
Drugs and Violence: Looking Beyond Mexico
One aspect of the U.S.-Latin American relationship which has begun to be addressed by the Obama administration is the Mexican security situation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico on March 25 and 26, and the president himself will travel to Trinidad for the Summit via Mexico City on April 16 and 17. These trips, coupled with Mexican President Felipe Calderon's January visit to Washington, demonstrate the high value that the U.S. is placing in its relations with its southern neighbor.
During her visit, Secretary Clinton made several promising remarks that admitted, "what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity ... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible." Moreover, she went on to accept U.S. culpability in exacerbating the violence, taking responsibility not only in failing to halt it, but acknowledging that, "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."
The true test for Washington will be whether or not it can find the answers to the questions Clinton has posed. How will the administration prevent the smuggling of weapons that at times are far more lethal than those the Mexican security forces possess? How will it quell the insatiable demand for drugs in the U.S.? Identifying the problems is a welcome and praiseworthy start, but until Washington stops merely analyzing, and begins implementing rational and effective policies to address those problems, any progress towards finding solutions will undoubtedly be highly limited.
In order to make a mark, Obama is going to have to adopt some imaginative, and inevitably controversial, policies. By far the best strategy - and perhaps the only effective way to prevent weapons from being smuggled into the hands of Mexican cartels - is to place greater restrictions on the sale of arms in the U.S. The demand for drugs in this country is only likely to be suppressed with a massive redirection of funds from crop eradication programs in the Andean nations towards domestic schemes, and it will likely take the adoption of a more serious approach towards the question of legalization - recently described by the Economist as the "least bad option" for governments to take - to make a significant dent in U.S. consumption.
Moreover, the common problems which U.S. and Mexican authorities face are symptomatic of a malaise which also affects much of the rest of Latin America. While Mexico, given its proximity, is naturally Washington's most pressing concern when it comes to drugs, violence and crime, the Obama administration cannot afford to ignore the rest of the chain of drug trafficking and associated violence, which stretches through Central America to the Andes and beyond, reaching as far as West Africa and then in the smuggling routes going into Europe.
The administration now has to reiterate that it comprehends the drug-related problems plaguing Latin America by publicly acknowledging the fact that President Calderon's crackdown in Mexico is pushing cartels, and the associated violence, not only into U.S. border cities, but also across Mexico's border with Guatemala and into Honduras. This forces all concerned to devote additional scarce resources to fight this expanded conflict which they are bound to lose. Achieving a reduction in violence and cartel influence in these embattled countries should be high on Washington's list of priorities: it must be concerned about the ramifications of Mexico's situation, but if it is serious about helping, it must show a willingness to embrace multilateral solutions, and throw a lot more funds into the kitty.
It is a brave American president who touches the issues of gun control and drug legalization, and Obama does not appear willing to break the mould of timidity regarding this subject. Speaking at a March 26 press conference, he made light of the legalization question, saying, "I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," to "laughter and applause," reported Politico. Obama will inevitably fail to broach such an unmentionable subject in Trinidad, despite its patent relevance. Action on stemming the cartels' activity in Central America is somewhat more likely - the upcoming forum certainly provides Obama with a perfect opportunity to talk to the region's presidents, and the election of a new administration in El Salvador may well spark a renewed dialogue with the area - but the results of any such progress will inevitably be limited due to a relative lack of executive bravery and a disinclination to throw more money at the problem.
Trade: Avoiding Another Mar del Plata
The last Summit of the Americas, at Mar del Plata, Argentina, in November 2005, was the scene of violent protests against President Bush, and culminated in his failure to gain hemispheric support for the U.S.' proposed region-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA has been a source of much contention throughout the history of the Summit, with negotiations beginning in 1994 in Miami, and violence marring Quebec City's turn at hosting in 2001. Indeed, the recurring presence of Bill Clinton's FTA at these meetings has led the Economist to argue that regional power Brazil regards the Summits as being "indissolubly linked to the doomed FTAA."
The question of trade is also set to feature prominently in the proceedings in Port of Spain. Obama is being pressed by many policymakers on Capitol Hill as well as in Colombia and Panama to achieve progress on the U.S.' pending FTAs with those two countries at the upcoming summit. The president must take on board two considerations while deciding on his course of action on this front. Firstly, he should realize that there are good reasons why the Colombian agreement is being held up in Congress, and that similar reasons could justifiably preclude a deal with Panama. Secondly, he needs to, unlike his predecessor, acknowledge that the notion of free trade with the U.S. on Washington's terms is not an attractive proposition for a good portion of the hemisphere's governments.
Colombia's record on human rights, along with the endemic corruption which is a disturbing feature of President Uribe's government, has stalled the progress of the U.S.-Colombian FTA in Congress since 2007. Despite Bogota's recent attempts to revive the process by dispatching its ministers to Washington in February, as part of a huge PR blitz put on by Uribe, events in Colombia continue to provide Congress with good reasons not to proceed in a positive direction. The recent exposure by the Colombia's illustrious news magazine Semana of the Colombian security service DAS's wiretapping practices is just the latest evidence of unremitting government corruption and human rights abuses that have become synonymous with the Uribe administration. Similarly, COHA recently warned the Obama administration against engaging with another "toxic partner," in the form of Panama. The Central American country's murky financial establishments, and the whirlwind of obvious lies and corrupt practices surrounding its upcoming presidential election, should make Obama think twice about promising the FTA enactment which Panama craves but unfortunately, ill deserves.
The Obama administration additionally should realize that the enthusiasm shown by these two countries to sign up to trade deals with the U.S. is not a universally held desire in Latin America. Since the failure of the FTAA under Bush, the region has developed its own vision of regional trade cooperation. Bodies like Chavez's Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) have emerged, alongside the Brazilian-led UNASUR, and all have in common a focus on supplementing trade with other forms of cooperation, be it political in the case of UNASUR, or social among the ALBA countries. Obama must seek to detach the Summit of the Americas - which clearly has the potential to be an invaluable forum - from the ball and chain of the failed FTAA. By reassuring Latin America that the Summit is not merely a vehicle for the U.S. to realize unadulterated free trade, he may succeed in achieving more in Trinidad than his predecessors have managed at previous hemispheric meetings.
Bringing Latin America to the White House: The Case for a Special Envoy
The agenda for U.S. action in Latin America that the U.S. delegation will be taking to Mexico and then to Trinidad, could ultimately be realized, given a sensitive and highly responsive approach from Washington. There is, however, a question mark hovering over the administration's ability to do this while its current staffing and planning configuration continues unmodified. Former President Bill Clinton revived the role of White House Special Envoy to Latin America when he appointed Mack McClarty to the post in 1994, and Otto Reich subsequently served a grossly undistinguished tenure in a similar role under George Bush. Previously, Reich narrowly escaped being prosecuted in the Iran-Contra affair along with former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American affairs Elliot Abrams. However, the then-president abolished the special envoy position in 2004, leaving the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department as the highest ranking administration representative charged with dealing with the region on a daily basis. This role has been filled since 2005 by Tom Shannon. Shannon remains in his post under Obama at least through Trinidad, and while he is a well-respected and a seemingly moderate figure, this still means that there is no Obama appointee prominently positioned in either the White House or State Department tasked with specifically addressing U.S.-Latin American relations.
Jeffrey Davidow, a career Foreign Service officer who served as Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere during the Clinton administration, and has been the U.S. ambassador to both Mexico and Venezuela, was recalled by the Obama White House to act as the president's special advisor at the Summit. However, a permanent Obama-appointed special envoy is a necessity, and would go a long way towards rectifying what could be described as underrepresentation when it comes to having a major spear carrier to do the new administration's work. A bona fide Latin Americanist would be a welcome addition to his administration. After all, Washington must still come up with a specific methodology to implement any measures or program of action it announces at the summit. At the very minimum, it needs to establish some kind of consistent means of engaging with regional leaders beyond episodic gatherings at a conference hall. The uncertainty over Latin American policy that has characterized the first three months of Obama's presidency, and the schizophrenic nature of U.S. relations with the left-leaning leaders of Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as some of the equally populist members of ALBA, is not something that many of those whose interest is centered in the region wish to see continue. Establishing an influential, and consistent and focused link between Washington and the region is an essential way of stabilizing relations, even if difficult ones.
An Opportunity Not to Be Missed
This coming weekend's Summit of the Americas has long been anticipated as the meeting at which the Obama administration would reveal its grand plan for U..S.-Latin American relations. Indeed, the president must clarify his position on at least some of the range of policy issues across the region, if he is to take advantage of the optimism and good will which has to date characterized most of the assembled governments' positive attitudes towards his election.
Ending the uncertainty surrounding the administration's policy thrust in Latin America should be seen as a priority. The White House has made it clear that Tom Shannon is very much an interim member of the administration, but has shown no signs of having considered his replacement. Announcing the appointment of a successor - ideally someone with a strong background in Latin American relations and not some warmed-over Clintonite who gave us NAFTA - to a post in the administration, as well as outlining a strategy which addresses some of the key policy areas set out above, would send the strongest possible positive message to the rest of the hemisphere that the U.S. is back, but this time is ready and willing to establish mutually cordial and gracious relations, and is ready to become literate in such issues as poverty abatement and the promotion of social justice. After all, those values that the U.S. shares or should be sharing with Latin America are either too pressing, or too dangerous, to be neglected.
However, even if Obama does defy expectations by announcing the appointment of an envoy who is bold and dashing, and not some centrist wannabe, the shape his administration's policy has begun to take, suggests that the region's anticipation may remain largely unsatisfied by this week's Summit. Latin America has never been more looking to the left than it is today. But the limited engagement with which the president has taken on the all-important question of Cuba will delight few, though it may placate those who still believe that the voiding of the extra layer of restrictions that President Bush laid on Cuba earlier in the decade was sufficient to masquerade as a new and enlightened Cuba policy. When it comes to Havana, the U.S. should normalize relations across the board, and then negotiate whether these are to be warm or chilly ties. Regarding Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman, he almost certainly holds less sway today than he did in the earlier part of the decade. Nevertheless, he still is vital and has some good ideas. What he now must do is reflect more and speak less. But he has much to contribute to the hemisphere.
Any movement on the 'drug war' will have to see more aid directed at Central America in addition to the current focus on Mexico. In short, the administration's approach will hopefully assuage some of Latin America's immediate concerns, but is unlikely to solve anything like its litany of problems. These signs suggest that some luster might come off the significance of Obama's emergence in Latin America from the region's unique perspective. The president is now expected to trade in the concept of 'change' for the specific policies on which he will be judged, such as immigration, drugs, trade and protectionism, national security, Cuba, Venezuela, economic and pluralism in Latin America. Of course, Obama's record on the ground will ultimately be the determinant of his status, defined by the Economist, of being "as widely admired in Latin America as Mr Bush was disliked."
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Guy Hursthouse
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
A member of his legal team noted that "the immigration prosecutor, judge, and jailer all answer to Donald Trump, and that one man is eager to weaponize the system in a desperate bid to silence Mahmoud Khalil."
Mahmoud Khalil and his lawyers on Wednesday affirmed their plan to fight an immigration court ruling that paves the way for his deportation, months after plainclothes agents accosted the lawful permanent resident and his US citizen wife outside their home in New York City.
"It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. Their latest attempt, through a kangaroo immigration court, exposes their true colors once again," Khalil said in a statement.
"When their first effort to deport me was set to fail, they resorted to fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations in a bid to silence me for speaking out and standing firmly with Palestine, demanding an end to the ongoing genocide," he continued. "Such fascist tactics will never deter me from continuing to advocate for my people's liberation."
While President Donald Trump has a broad goal of mass deportations, his administration has targeted Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student with a valid green card, and other foreign scholars in the United States for criticizing Israel's US-backed genocide in the Gaza Strip.
"We have witnessed a constant lack of humanity and allegiance to the law throughout proceedings in this farcical Louisiana immigration court."
Federal agents arrested Khalil, an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, in March. He wasn't released from a federal immigration facility until June. During his 104-day detention, his wife, Noor Abdalla, gave birth to their son. Over the past six months, he has been a part of multiple legal battles: his challenge to being deported in a Louisiana immigration court; a civil rights case before US District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey; and a fight for $20 million in damages.
In a Wednesday letter to Farbiarz—an appointee of former President Joe Biden who has already blocked his deportation while the civil rights case proceeds—Khalil's legal team explained that on September 12, Jamee Comans, an immigration judge (IJ), "issued three separate orders denying petitioner's (1) motion for an extension of time, (2) motion to change venue, and (3) application for a waiver, without conducting an evidentiary hearing."
"In denying petitioner's request for a waiver absent a hearing, as well as his motions for extension of time and for change of venue, the IJ ordered petitioner removed to Algeria or Syria... while reaffirming her decisions denying petitioner any form of relief from removal," the letter says. Khalil now has 30 days from September 12 to start an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Noting "statements targeting petitioner by name for retaliation and deportation made by the president and several senior US government officials," Khalil's lawyers "have ample reason to expect that the BIA process—and an affirmance of the IJ's determination—will be swift," the letter continued. "Upon affirmance by the BIA, petitioner will lose his lawful permanent resident status, including his right to reside and work in the United States, and have a final order of removal against him."
"Compared to other courts of appeals, including those in the 3rd and 2nd Circuits, the 5th Circuit almost never grants stays of removal to noncitizens pursuing petitions for review of BIA decisions. As a result, the only meaningful impediment to petitioner's physical removal from the United States would be this court's important order prohibiting removal during the pendency of his federal habeas case," the letter points out, referring to Farbiarz's previous intervention.
Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, and the national, New Jersey, New York, and Louisiana arms of the ACLU.
"When the immigration prosecutor, judge, and jailer all answer to Donald Trump, and that one man is eager to weaponize the system in a desperate bid to silence Mahmoud Khalil, a US permanent resident whose only supposed sin is that he stands against an ongoing genocide in Palestine, this is the result," CLEAR co-director Ramzi Kassem said Wednesday. "A plain-as-day First Amendment violation that also puts on sharp display the rapidly free-falling credibility of the entire US immigration system."
In addition to calling out the Trump administration for its unconstitutional conduct, Khalil's lawyers expressed some optimism.
"We have witnessed a constant lack of humanity and allegiance to the law throughout proceedings in this farcical Louisiana immigration court, and the immigration judge's September 12 decision is just the most recent example of what occurs when the system requires an arbiter that is anything but neutral to do the administration's bidding," said Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP. "As with other illegal efforts by the government, this too will be challenged and overcome."
"The Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to our capacity to hold sex offenders to account and undermined support and services for crime victims," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Congressional Democrats and victim advocates took aim Tuesday at President Donald Trump's gutting of federal programs combatcing human trafficking, belying campaign promises to aggressively target perpetrators of such crimes.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday released an 18-page memo "detailing how the Trump administration has repeatedly sided with sex offenders and human traffickers over their victims—often rewarding sexual predators and elevating them to positions of power within the US government while crippling key offices, programs, and grants that combat sex crimes and support survivors."
This seemingly flies in the face of Trump's "Agenda 47" campaign platform, which vowed to aggressively crack down on human traffickers, and the groundswell of Trump supporters' unheeded calls for action and accountability in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Fighting child sex trafficking—both real and imagined—has long been an issue of passionate importance for the MAGA movement.
"Trump began his second term promising to 'make America safe again.' But safe for whom? Law-abiding citizens or dangerous criminals?"
Noting that "Trump and his supporters have gone from demanding the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files to doing everything in their power to prevent their release, openly tampering with potential witness Ghislaine Maxwell and calling the matter a 'Democrat hoax,'" the memo—titled Epstein Is the Tip of the Iceberg—begins by asking: "Trump began his second term promising to 'make America safe again.' But safe for whom? Law-abiding citizens or dangerous criminals?"
The memo notes that in the past seven months, Trump has:
Trump has also been found civilly liable for sexual abuse and has been accused of rape, sexual assault, or harassment by more than two dozen women.
Following whistleblower claims "that the Trump administration concealed information about the safety of unaccompanied Guatemalan children they tried to deport in the dead of night," Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday called for an oversight hearing to examine the US Office of Refugee Resettlement's "mass child deportation efforts and apparent lies under oath."
"The urgent call for a hearing comes after the disclosure alleged that at least 30 of 327 unaccompanied Guatemalan children the administration attempted to deport without due process 'have indicators of being a victim of child abuse, including death threats, gang violence, human trafficking, and/or have expressed fear of return to Guatemala,'" Padilla's office said in a statement Wednesday.
An investigation published Wednesday by The Guardian also detailed how the Trump administration "has aggressively rolled back efforts across the federal government to combat human trafficking."
Jean Bruggeman, executive director of the advocacy group Freedom Network USA, told The Guardian that “it’s been a widespread and multipronged attack on survivors that leaves all of us less safe and leaves survivors with few options."
Numerous critics have warned of the dangers of Trump's diversion of federal resources and personnel dedicated to combating human trafficking to enforcing mass deportations.
As Raskin told Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel during a charged Wednesday hearing, "When Trump decided that rounding up immigrants with no criminal records was more important that preventing crimes like human trafficking of women and girls, drug dealing, terrorism, and fraud, you ordered FBI’s 25 largest field offices to divert thousands of agents away from chasing down violent criminals, sex traffickers, fraudsters, and scammers to help carry out Trump’s extreme immigration crackdown."
"You ordered hundreds of FBI agents to pore over all the Epstein files," Raskin said, "but not to look for more clues about the money network or the network of human traffickers, pulled these agents from their regular counterterrorism, counterintelligence, or anti-drug trafficking duties to work around the clock, some of them sleeping on their office desks, to conduct a frantic search to make sure Donald Trump’s name and image were flagged and redacted wherever they appeared."
"Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are," Raskin added.
"Trump promised to lower prices on day one and be 'the champion of the American worker,' yet his economic agenda has delivered higher prices, a stalled job market, and sluggish growth," said another economist.
As working-class Americans contend with a stalled labor market and rising prices under US President Donald Trump, economist Alex Jacquez warned Wednesday that the Federal Reserve's "small rate cut will do little to address Trump's economic turmoil."
"Driven by a stagnant job market, the Fed's move offers no real relief to American households, consumers, or workers—all of whom are paying the price for Trump's economic mismanagement," said Jacquez, who previously served as a special assistant to former President Barack Obama and is now chief of policy and advocacy at the think tank Groundwork Collaborative. "No interest rate tweak can undo that damage."
Jacquez's colleague Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at Groundwork, similarly said Wednesday that "President Trump promised to lower prices on day one and be 'the champion of the American worker,' yet his economic agenda has delivered higher prices, a stalled job market, and sluggish growth. He's leaving families and workers high and dry—and no move by the Fed will save them."
The president has been pressuring the US central bank to slash its benchmark interest rate, taking aim at Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom Trump appointed during his first term. Powell remained in the post under former Democratic President Joe Biden.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted to lower the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage points, from 4.25-4.5% to 4-4.25%. It is the first cut since December 2024, and Powell said the decision reflects a "shift in the balance of risks" to the Fed's dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment.
Daniel Hornung, who held economic policy roles during the Obama and Biden administrations and is now a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, said in a statement that "beyond the Fed's September cut, the main story from the Fed's projections is a cloudy outlook for the economy and monetary policy over the rest of the year."
The cut came after Trump ally Stephen Miran was sworn in to a seat on the Fed's Board of Governors on Tuesday—which made this FOMC gathering "the most politically charged meeting in recent memory," as Politico reported.
The new appointee "was the only Fed official to dissent from the decision," the outlet noted. "Miran called for twice as large a cut in borrowing costs, and the Fed's economic projections suggest that one official—likely Miran—would support jumbo-sized rate cuts at the next two meetings as well—an estimate that is conspicuously lower than the other 18 estimates."
Hornung highlighted that "an equal number of members favor hiking, no further cuts, or one cut to the number of members who favor two more cuts, and one outlier member—presumably, President Trump's current Council of Economic Advisers chair—favors the equivalent of five cuts."
"Besides Miran’s outlier status, which sends concerning signals about continued Fed independence," he added, "the wide range of views on the committee is a reaction to the real risks that tariff and immigration policy pose to both sides of the Fed's mandate."
Federal immigration agents across the United States are working to deliver on Trump's promised mass deportations, despite warnings of the human and economic impacts of rounding up immigrants living and working in the country. The president is also engaged in a global trade war, imposing tariffs that have driven up prices for a range of goods.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced last week that overall inflation rose by 2.9% year-over-year in August and core inflation rose by 3.1%. Jacquez said at the time: "Make no mistake, inflation is accelerating and American families continue to feel price pressures across the board from children's clothing, to groceries, to autos. Rate cuts will not ease the inescapable financial pain that the Trump economy is inflicting on households across the nation."
That came less than a week after BLS revealed in its first jobs report since Trump fired the agency's commissioner that the US economy added only 22,000 jobs in August, and the number of jobs created in July and June were once again revised downward.
Jacquez had called that report "more evidence that Trump’s promises to working families have fallen flat."
Recent polling has also exposed how working people are suffering under Trump's second administration. One survey—conducted by Data for Progress for Groundwork and Protect Borrowers—shows that "American families are trapped in a cycle of debt," with 55% of likely voters reporting at least some credit card debt, and another 18% saying they “had this type of debt in the past, but not anymore.”
The poll, released last week, also found that over half have or previously had car loan or medical debt, more than 40% have or had student debt, and over 35% are or used to be behind on utility payments. Additionally, nearly 30% have or had “buy now, pay later” debt through options such as Afterpay or Klarna.