Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Opinion | How Netanyahu Played Trump for a Fool in Gaza - The New York Times

How Netanyahu Played Trump for a Fool in Gaza

Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

"On July 26 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran this headline: “Israel at War Day 659. Gaza Medical Sources: At Least 25 Killed by Israeli Gunfire, Some While Waiting for Aid.”

If you had been following this Gaza story closely, you would know that Haaretz was running a similar headline almost every day for weeks — only the number of Palestinians killed while waiting for food aid handed out by Israel in Gaza changed. As I watched these stories pile up, the thought occurred to me that roughly a month earlier Israel had managed to assassinate 10 senior Iranian military officials and 16 nuclear scientists sitting in their homes and offices. So how was it that Israel had the capacity to destroy pinpoint targets in Iran, some 1,200 miles from Tel Aviv, and could not safely deliver boxes of food to starving Gazans 40 miles from Tel Aviv?

That did not seem like an accident. It seemed like the product of something deeper, something quite shameful, playing out within the extremist government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Key figures in Bibi’s extreme-right ruling coalition, like the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, openly pushed a policy that would result in the starvation of many Gazans — to the point where they would leave the strip entirely. Bibi knew the United States wouldn’t let him go that far, so he provided just the bare minimum of aid to prevent being toppled by the Jewish supremacist thugs he’d brought into his government.

Alas, that turned out to be a little too bare, and terrible pictures of malnourished children started emerging from Gaza, prompting even President Trump to declareon Monday that there is “real starvation stuff” happening in Gaza. “You can’t fake that. We have to get the kids fed.”

How did we get here, where a Jewish democratic state, descended in part from the Holocaust, is engaged in a policy of starvation in a war with Hamas that has become the longest and most deadly war between Israelis and Palestinians in Israel’s history — and shows no sign of ending?

My answer: What makes this war different is that it pits what I believe is the worst, most fanatical and amoral government in Israel’s history against the worst, most fanatical, murderous organization in Palestinian history.

But they are alike not just in the awfulness of their goals — each seeking to wipe out the other to control all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They are also guided by leaders who have consistently prioritized their own political survival and ideological obsessions over the basic well-being of their own people — not to mention the interests of the United States.

You may have noticed that this war has no generally accepted name — like the Six-Day War, the Sinai War or the October War. Well, I personally have always had a name for it. It’s the War of the Worst.

This is the first Israeli-Palestinian war where the worst leaders on both sides are calling all the shots. The moderate Israeli opposition parties and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have no influence. And that is why I cannot tell you how or when it will end. Because Netanyahu still insists on “total victory” over Hamas, which he will never achieve, and the Hamas leadership still insists on surviving this war in order to still control Gaza the morning after, which it does not deserve.

Let’s go to the videotape: For months Hamas has been fully aware of the acute food and housing shortage in Gaza — shortages it helped trigger by launching a savage attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, without any plan for the morning after other than to kill as many Jews as it could and with no strategy to protect civilians in Gaza from what Hamas knew would be a savage Israeli retaliation. For months now Hamas has also known that if it released its Israeli hostages, agreed that its leadership would leave Gaza and invited an Arab peacekeeping force blessed by the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza instead of Hamas, the suffering of Gazans would stop immediately.

But Hamas refuses to do that. It not only wants to keep control of Gaza after any cease-fire; it also wants the United States to guarantee its safety from a resumption of Israeli attacks if and when it gives up the last Israeli hostages, whom Hamas has stashed in tunnels and elsewhere for more than 21 months. This is a sick, twisted organization that bears huge responsibility for the suffering in Gaza.

But what too many people still have not grasped is just how sick this current Israeli government is. Too many American officials, lawmakers and Jews keep trying to tell themselves that this is simply another right-wing Israeli government, but just a little more right. Wrong.

As I have argued since my column on Nov. 4, 2022, the morning after this Israeli government was elected, which was titled “The Israel We Knew Is Gone,” this Israeli government is uniquely awful.

It has empowered the likes of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who suggested last year that blocking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip is “justified and moral” even if it causes two million civilians to die of hunger, but that the international community won’t allow him to. “We bring in aid because there is no choice,” Smotrich told a conference hosted by the right-wing Israel Hayom newspaper. “We can’t, in the current global reality, manage a war. Nobody will let us cause two million civilians to die of hunger, even though it might be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”

This language is worth parsing, because it goes to the core of what Netanyahu has done to Israel. He has brought into the halls of power people like Smotrich, representatives of a dark, long-repressed minority strain in Jewish history. There has been a deep struggle in the Jewish tradition between those who believe that all humans are created in the image of God, and therefore there is something called “humanity” — and that part of the Jewish covenant with God involves protecting all of humanity — and a minority view that argues there is no humanity, per se; there is just “us” and “them.” For the Jewish people to survive and thrive in this region, according to this line of thought, Jews must overcome their humanism, not be guided by it.

This minority strain of thinking has always been there, but it had never been given the power it has today. It has never been allowed to direct Israel’s huge advanced war machine. This is Bibi’s unique contribution. He has not only empowered the worst of the worst in Israel but also simultaneously sought to unshackle them from the rule of law. He has engaged in a nonstop campaign to strip power from Israel’s independent, ethical gatekeepers, like the former heads of the Shin Bet security service and the Israeli Army. As I write, Netanyahu is trying to oust Israel’s high-integrity, independent attorney general, after a two-year campaign to underminethe oversight powers of Israel’s Supreme Court, precisely to do something no Israeli government has ever done: formally annex the West Bank, if not Gaza, too — and push out as many Palestinians as possible — without any legal restraints.

Trump and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, have never understood this. They think that everyone is just as transactional as they are — whether it’s Vladimir Putin or Netanyahu — and that deep down everyone wants “peace” first and foremost and not “a piece” of Ukraine or “a piece” of the West Bank or Gaza. That is how Bibi and Putin have, each in his own way, managed to play Trump and Witkoff for fools for so long.

What is an example of that? In January, Israel and Hamas agreed to a three-phase cease-fire deal that involved a hostage exchange and a prisoner swap. But Trump and Witkoff let Netanyahu unilaterally break the cease-fire in March, before the last two phases could be negotiated. Bibi cited Hamas’s refusal to meet Israel’s demandto release more hostages before negotiations would resume — even though Hamas was never obligated to do so in Phase 1 of the U.S.-brokered deal.

An analysis by Amir Tibon in Haaretz this week headlined “How Trump Facilitated Netanyahu’s Gaza Starvation Policy and Failed to Bring the Hostages Home” argued that there was no military rationale for Bibi to restart the war. Hamas as a military force had been defeated.

It was all to serve Bibi’s political needs. Smotrich and the other extremists effectively told Bibi he had to restart the war or be toppled, and Bibi duped Trump and Witkoff into believing he could free the hostages with harsher military blows on Hamas and more hardship for Gazan civilians, and by confining the population to a small corner of the strip.

It all turned out to be wrong. Hamas was not defeated, and when Israel eventually had to resume supplying food through its distribution organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, it was so bungled that countless Gazans were dying each day swarming the Israeli distribution sites.

Hamas, Tibon noted, having seen “that Netanyahu’s blockade and starvation strategy had become a P.R. disaster for Israel, raised its demands in the ongoing hostage negotiations.” The bottom line, he concluded, is this: “Netanyahu dragged Trump and Witkoff into adopting a failed policy — one that returned no living hostages, cost the lives of nearly 50 Israeli soldiers since the war was resumed in March, led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians and precipitated a full-blown humanitarian disaster. The consequences of this failure will haunt Israel for years.”

Alas, it will haunt Palestinians as well, because I fear it has improved the chances that Hamas will come out of this war without having to cede power in Gaza. Bibi and Hamas have been tacitly enabling each other’s political survival for decades. It is quite possible that this disastrous war will end with both of them still in power.

If that is the case, say goodbye to any two-state solution and hello to a forever war. Because, to paraphrase the philosopher Immanuel Kant, out of the crooked timber of Bibi and Hamas no straight thing will ever be made.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.

Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Opinion columnist. He joined the paper in 1981 and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award. @tomfriedman •"


Opinion | How Netanyahu Played Trump for a Fool in Gaza - The New York Times

In Game-Changing Climate Rollback, E.P.A. Aims to Kill a Bedrock Scientific Finding - The New York Times

In Game-Changing Climate Rollback, E.P.A. Aims to Kill a Bedrock Scientific Finding

"The proposal is President Trump’s most consequential step yet to derail federal climate efforts and appears to represent a shift toward outright denial of the scientific consensus.

Lee Zeldin, wearing a dark jacket and a brightly colored checkerboard pattern tie, stands at a podium between the flags of the United States and the E.P.A.
Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, at the agency’s headquarters this year.Kent Nishimura/Reuters

Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Tuesday the Trump administration would revoke the scientific determination that underpins the government’s legal authority to combat climate change.

Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Mr. Zeldin said the E.P.A. planned to rescind the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which concluded that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The Obama and Biden administrations used that determination to set strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants and other industrial sources of pollution.

“The proposal would, if finalized, amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,” Mr. Zeldin said. He said the proposal would also erase limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks on the nation’s roads.

Without the endangerment finding, the E.P.A. would be left with no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

The proposal is President Trump’s most consequential step yet to derail federal climate efforts. It marks a notable shift in the administration’s position from one that had downplayed the threat of global warming to one that essentially flatly denies the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.

It would not only reverse current regulations, but, if the move is upheld in court, it could make it significantly harder for future administrations to rein in climate pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

Without the United States working to reduce emissions, it becomes far tougher for the world to collectively prevent average global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. That is the threshold beyond which climate scientists say there is significantly greater risk from increasingly destructive storms, droughts, wildfires and heat waves, as well as from species extinction.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has also moved to scrap restrictions on pollution from power plants, halt key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and delay approvals of wind and solar energy projects on federal lands.

“Today’s E.P.A. announcement ignores the blindingly obvious reality of the climate crisis and sidelines the E.P.A.’s own scientists and lawyers in favor of the interests and profits of the fossil fuel industry,” former Vice President Al Gore said in a statement.

To justify the proposal, the E.P.A. cited a report that the Energy Department commissioned from five scientists known for their rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, namely that it is being driven by the burning of fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

The New York Times first reported that the Energy Department had hired these scientists, including Steven E. Koonin, a physicist and author of a best-selling book that calls climate science “unsettled,” and John Christy, an atmospheric scientist who doubts the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.

In their report, the scientists criticized the computer models used to predict climate change, saying they tend to overestimate warming. They also wrote that carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, has positive effects by helping plants grow and increasing agricultural productivity. And they asserted that overall, government climate regulations have a limited effect on global temperature rise. 

The E.P.A. echoed this last argument in the proposed rule, saying greenhouse gases from cars on American roads do not contribute significantly to climate change because they are a small share of global emissions. Reducing these emissions to zero “would not have a scientifically measurable impact” on global climate trends or on public health and welfare, the agency said. Instead, the agency said, climate regulations are what pose the true threat to public health and welfare, because they increase the price of new vehicles and leave fewer choices for car buyers.

Many environmental activists and lawyers criticized those arguments, noting that transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. If the U.S. motor vehicle sector were a country, it would be the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, according to the E.P.A.’s own data.

“If vehicle emissions don’t pass muster as a contribution to climate change, it’s hard to imagine what would,” said Dena Adler, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

Traffic in San Francisco late last year. Environmental activists and lawyers pointed out that transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the country. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Dan Becker, who leads transportation policy for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, called the E.P.A. proposal a “cynical one-two punch” that will lead to more gasoline-burning vehicles on the road and fewer tools to reduce tailpipe pollution. He said that the auto-emissions rules being rescinded were projected to prevent 7 billion metric tons of emissions from entering the atmosphere while saving the average American driver about $6,000 in fuel and maintenance over the lifetime of vehicles built under the standards.

“The E.P.A. is revoking the biggest single step any nation has taken to save oil, save consumers money at the pump and combat global warming,” Mr. Becker said.

The administration’s plan has its backers. Daren Bakst, who directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market research organization, said, “It is unreasonable to claim that pollutants contribute to endangerment if emissions are de minimis.”

Mike Braun, the governor of Indiana, said at the event in Indianapolis that the Biden administration’s vehicle emissions rules had burdened the auto industry in the state. “As a lifelong entrepreneur for 37 years actually in the automotive business, I think I know a thing or two about it, and you can count on Indiana being for common sense and reining in government,” he said.

John Bozzella, chief executive of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a lobbying group for most major carmakers, said in a statement that he was still reviewing the E.P.A.’s announcement. “At the same time, there’s no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren’t achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions, to keep the auto industry in America competitive,” he said.

While the Chamber of Commerce and fossil fuel groups had fought the endangerment finding when it was first written, none have been clamoring in recent years for its reversal. This year Marty Durbin, who leads the chamber’s energy institute, called the finding “settled law” and said his group, which is a major business lobbying organization, was not seeking its repeal.

“I’m not aware of anyone in industry who has been pushing for it,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, an energy attorney with the law firm Bracewell who served in the E.P.A. during the administration of the first President George Bush and, later, that of President George W. Bush.

The plan to eliminate the endangerment finding showcases the political evolution of Mr. Zeldin, who for years took moderate positions on climate change and other environmental issues.

A former congressman from a coastal community on Long Island that is struggling with rising sea levels linked to global warming, Mr. Zeldin once joined a bipartisan caucus to address climate change. In 2019 he broke with fellow Republicans to vote against an amendment that would have prohibited the E.P.A. from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

An ally of Mr. Trump who prominently defended him during House impeachment hearings, Mr. Zeldin moved to the right on energy and other issues during his unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022. Just weeks after his nomination to lead the E.P.A., Mr. Zeldin declared that he would be “driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion” by repealing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions

“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Mr. Zeldin said on the conservative podcast “Ruthless” earlier on Tuesday. One of the co-hosts of the program called the endangerment finding “the left’s tent pole to begin the whole climate grift,” to which Mr. Zeldin agreed.

The proposed repeal of the endangerment finding is all but certain to draw legal challenges, and David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said he expected that it would eventually be struck down in court. He noted that climate science has advanced significantly since 2009, when the finding was issued.

After the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the E.P.A. will solicit comments from the public for 45 days, Mr. Zeldin said. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely in the next year.

Maxine Joselow reports on climate policy for The Times.

Lisa Friedman is a Times reporter who writes about how governments are addressing climate change and the effects of those policies on communities."


In Game-Changing Climate Rollback, E.P.A. Aims to Kill a Bedrock Scientific Finding - The New York Times

Monday, July 28, 2025

How I Use My Unfair Advantages to Build a New Life in Africa!

Thailand and Cambodia Agree to Halt Fighting That Has Killed Dozens - The New York Times

Thailand and Cambodia Agree to Halt Fighting That Has Killed Dozens

"U.S.-backed talks to end the border war, in which militaries have killed dozens of people and displaced hundreds of thousands, began on Monday in Malaysia.

In an ornate, domed room, one conference table is surrounded by four others, with one man in a suit seated behind each.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, center, Prime Minister Hun Manet of Cambodia, left, and Thailand’s acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, taking part in talks on a possible cease-fire between Thailand and Cambodia, in Malaysia on Monday.Pool photo by Mohd Rasfan

By Sui-Lee Wee and Edward Wong

Sui-Lee Wee reported from Surin Province in Thailand, near the two countries’ disputed border. Edward Wong reported from Siem Reap, Cambodia.

Thailand and Cambodia agreed to a cease-fire starting at midnight on Monday, the leaders of both countries said, after the deadliest conflict between their two countries in more than a decade killed at least 38 people and prompted hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee the area.

Thailand’s acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, and Cambodia’s prime minister, Hun Manet, shook hands with each other after holding talks in person for the first time since the fighting broke out five days ago along the countries’ disputed border. Since last Thursday, both countries have pounded each other with attacks, which at times included airstrikes and rockets fired.

Reported sites of attacks and fighting since Thursday

But even on the morning of the talks, the fighting had continued, with sounds of explosions heard near the border. Things appeared to quiet down only in the afternoon as the Thai and Cambodian leaders sat down in Putrajaya, a city about a half-hour drive from Malaysia’s capital.

In the Thai province of Surin, Siriwut Wongcharoen, 59, a local official, who spoke by phone from a bunker in a temple where he was sheltering, said he was skeptical that the fighting would stop. He said he was still hearing gunshots as of Monday evening.

“I’m not leaving this bunker yet, as I don’t feel confident enough,” Mr. Siriwut said. “I will wait for another one to two days.”

Thank you for your patience while we verify access."

Thailand and Cambodia Agree to Halt Fighting That Has Killed Dozens - The New York Times

Opinion | You May Not Be Trump’s Target This Time. But You Could Be Next. - The New York Times

You May Not Be Trump’s Target This Time. But You Could Be Next.

A black-and-white photo of Trump’s face, with an American flag in the background.
Brian Snyder/Reuters

By Vanita Gupta

"Ms. Gupta was the U.S. associate attorney general in the Biden administration.

President Trump’s actions targeting law firms, judges, media organizations, universities and labor unions have demonstrated a norm-shattering zeal for retribution and punishment of anyone who may disagree with his policies. Now, nonprofit organizations are up.

An executive order directed every federal agency to send the White House targets for investigation that include large nonprofit corporations or associations and foundations with assets of $500 million or more. The Department of Government Efficiency tried to assign a team to an independent nonprofit organization that had criticized the Trump administration’s mass deportation policies. Last month, a congressional committee launched a probe into over 200 nonprofit organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and dozens of religious institutions, without basis or evidence of wrongdoing. And over the last few weeks, the president’s allies in the House have held multiple hearings with such titles as “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild.” These hearings protested the work of organizations that provide services to vulnerable communities and seek to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

All of this suggests a bigger, more fundamental goal: to shut down debate, cut off services to disfavored communities and dismantle civil society. These actions are unconstitutional, un-American and harm us all.

This latest assault comes at a moment when we need civil society to fill the breach left by a government in retreat from its role in providing humanitarian assistance, asserting global leadership, fighting climate change, safeguarding public health, funding scientific research, expanding economic opportunity, protecting civil rights and supporting immigrants and the poor.

And crucially, because civil society organizations exist outside of government, we rely on them to fight official abuses of power.

That of course is exactly why they make such a fine target for the president. Civil society groups ensure that our government, no matter who is in power, is accountable to the law and to our Constitution. I know this from having sued Democratic and Republican administrations as a lawyer working at nonprofit organizations, as well as from having defended the government as a Justice Department official.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access."

Opinion | You May Not Be Trump’s Target This Time. But You Could Be Next. - The New York Times

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Top 10 Countries Where Black People Are Not Welcomed | A Must-Watch for ...

The bitter feud fuelling the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia

The bitter feud fuelling the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia

“The article describes the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which has escalated due to a feud between former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. The feud has led to a breakdown in diplomatic relations between the two countries, with Thailand downgrading its diplomatic relations with Cambodia and recalling its ambassador.

Thaksin Shinawatra
Thaksin Shinawatra, 76, was the prime minister of Thailand from 2001 to 2006. Photograph: Peerapon Boonyakiat/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

The dispute over Thailand and Cambodia’s contested border, which dates back more than a century to disagreements over colonial-era maps, has broken into conflict before. But the most recent clashes, which erupted on Thursday, have been fuelled by another factor: a bitter feud between two powerful political patriarchs.

Hun Sen, 72, and Thaksin Shinawatra, 76, former leaders of Cambodia and Thailand, were once such close friends they reportedly called one another brothers. Hun Sen has, over the years, supported Thaksin’s family during their long-running power struggle with Thailand’s military. Thaksin and his sister Yingluck stayed at Hun Sen’s home after they were ousted from power, while Hun Sen appointed Thaksin an economic adviser to the Cambodian government. Thaksin frequently visited Cambodia, and Hun Sen was the first foreign guest to see the former Thai leader after he returned home after more than 15 years in self-imposed exile.

But relations have broken down spectacularly over recent months. The exact reasons for their feud are unclear, but analysts say it has created an additional layer of volatility that is exacerbating deadly clashes on the neighbouring countries’ border.

Hun Sen and Thaksin are no longer in office in their respective countries, but both remain powerful. Hun Sen ruled for almost 40 years until 2003, when his eldest son Hun Manet became prime minister after running virtually uncontested in a sham election. Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra became prime minister last year.

Hun Sen
Hun Sen ruled Cambodia for almost 40 years until 2003, when his eldest son Hun Manet became prime minister. Photograph: Heng Sinith/AP

The extent of their falling out became clear last month, when Hun Sen leaked a recording of a phone conversation between himself and Paetongtarn.

In the call, which was about the border dispute, Paetongtarn called Hun Sen “uncle” and told him if there was anything he wanted, she would “take care of it”. She also made disparaging comments about a senior Thai military commander.

The leaked recording caused uproar in Thailand. Critics accused her of kowtowing to Cambodia, putting her family connections before the country’s national interests. She was suspended from office by the constitutional court in July pending an investigation into ethical violations.

It’s not clear why Hun Sen chose to turn on his former friends. He has accused Thaksin of betrayal and threatened to reveal further sensitive information about the Shinawatras. “I never imagined someone so close could act this way,” Thaksin said later, declaring their friendship over.

Some analysts say Hun Sen may be trying to whip up nationalism domestically to increase support for his son, Hun Manet.

Others suggest Hun Sen has been angered by Thailand’s efforts to crack down on so-called “scam compounds” where trafficked workers are held and forced to target people around the world with online scams. This form of lucrative criminal activity has proliferated in the region over recent years, especially in Cambodia.

“The popular narrative in Thailand is that the two men may have had some kind of personal dealings behind the scenes that did not go according to plan and the fallout has spilled over into the realm of national interest,” said Tita Sanglee, associate fellow with ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

Whatever his motivations, Hun Sen has succeeded in damaging Thaksin’s position, exploiting divisions between his family and the military, and creating a power vacuum in Thailand.

Paetongtarn Shinawatra
Thaksin Shinawatra’s daughter Paetongtarn became prime minister of Thailand last year. Photograph: Narong Sangnak/EPA

Hun Sen, meanwhile, “holds near absolute control in Cambodia”, adds Tita. He has stamped out virtually all opposition voices and independent media. “When he chooses to take a strong stance, militarily or politically, it has immediate and direct consequences.”

On Thursday night, Thaksin said he had thanked countries that had offered to mediate the border dispute, but would like to wait, adding: “We need to let the Thai military do their job, and first teach this cunning Hun Sen a lesson.”

Given Thaksin’s weakened position, he may not have a choice but to let the military take the lead.

Last week Thailand downgraded it diplomatic relations with Cambodia, recalling its ambassador, and saying it would expel the country’s envoy in Bangkok.

Thaksin has denied the families’ feud was the cause of the clashes. However awkward questions about his friend turned foe are likely to continue.

As he visited communities sheltering from the conflict in Ubon Ratchathani, in northeastern Thailand, a woman confronted him: “You’re Hun Sen’s friend, aren’t you? Is he your friend? Why do you allow Cambodia to shoot Thai people?”

Solving territorial disagreements is difficult in any context, said Pavin Chachavalpongpun, professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University. “No country would like to sacrifice any inch of sovereignty,” he said. But the personal conflict between Hun Sen and Thaksin has, he added, made their countries’ dispute even more unpredictable.“

Saturday, July 26, 2025

Opinion | What the Democratic Party Still Doesn’t Get About Deportations - The New York Times

Trump Isn’t Getting Rid of Chaos at the Border. He’s Redistributing It.

What the Democratic Party Still Doesn’t Get About Deportations

“The Opinions” round table discusses President Trump’s immigration policies and the emerging resistance to it.

transcript

The “Opinions” round table discusses the president’s immigration policies and the emerging resistance to it.

I think one thing to consider is — Michelle There’s two Michelles. We were waiting for you to do that. I know. Michelle C. I’m Michelle Cottle and I cover national politics for New York Times’ Opinion and I’m here this week with my fabulous colleagues, opinion columnists Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg. And we’re going to take a temperature check on the Trump resistance. And one of the key areas where it’s gaining ground, which is mass deportations. So, friends, Hello. Welcome. Thank you for doing this. Hi, Michelle. Hi, Jamelle. Howdy, Howdy. All right Michelle, we’re going to start with you because you have been out in La reporting on the local resistance movement to Trump’s deportation efforts there. So what drew you and what did you find out. Well, I think what drew me is that I’ve been wanting to write about maybe call it resistance 2.0, which I think looks very different than the resistance. The first time around, and has led some people to think that maybe there isn’t as much of a resistance to Trump as there was in his first administration. I think that’s probably true among elite institutions, but there actually is a huge amount of activism going on. It’s just below the surface, or in ways that are harder for outsiders to see. As I’ll explain. So earlier this month, I was going in New York to immigration court. So basically ICE used to not there was an agreement or a policy that ICE wasn’t going to go to sensitive places like immigration court, because obviously it dissuades people from following the law. So that’s changed. ICE is now you go to immigration court in New York. You go there and anybody can go there. They’re open to the public. And, you see these knots of men looking like foreign paramilitaries. Basically, they’re in of plainclothes with store bought tactical vests and balaclavas or Gator masks that come up to their eyes. They’ve got hats and they wait for people to come out of their hearings, and then they grab them. And when you talk to lawyers and volunteers, the rules or the norms change from day to day. So at first, they were only grabbing people when their cases were dismissed, which having your case dismissed is a good thing in Criminal Court, but it’s not a good thing in immigration court, because it basically means that your claim to asylum has been dismissed. So when that happened, they would take people. Then that changed. And the judge would in some of these cases, the judge would tell them to come back for their next hearing, but nevertheless, they walk out the door and people grabbed them, and sometimes they grab one member of the family and not the other. And you can’t really tell why, because their claims are conjoined. And you can imagine how terrifying this is for the people waiting in a waiting room to go into their hearing, seeing one person after another dragged off. And so what you’ve seen is kind of ordinary people in New York volunteer to just be there to do what they can, and what they can do is pretty limited. They can take down their immigration ID number to file so that somebody is following them through the system. They can get an emergency contact information so that they can call their loved ones and inform them that their person, that the person isn’t coming home, has been sucked into this system. They might be able to in some cases, connect them to lawyers. So anyway, so I’ve been reporting on this, but my understanding for what I was hearing was that these efforts in New York are far more widespread in L.A. because the deportation regime is just much, much more aggressive in L.A. And one of the things that really struck me being there, they have this kind of rapid response network where people are constantly patrolling their neighborhoods to see if ices and the area to alert their neighbors. And one of the things that really struck me, though, was when I was interviewing the mayor, Karen Bass, and she told me that she relies on the rapid response network to know about what ICE is doing in her city, because they’re certainly not telling her anything. And so, I mean, I think the ethos of this movement is that kind of no one is coming to save us. There’s nobody is kind of exercising power on our behalf with a few exceptions. And so people feel like they have to organize to protect their neighbors as best they can. And that was a moment when she said that really drove that home for me. Just listening to Michelle describe ice activity in courthouses. The mask that the snatching. My blood is boiling. Like I’m genuinely furious. Like very angry. Just like hearing it described. And it’s not like I haven’t been watching videos and reading descriptions. So it’s not new to me, but just thinking about it and thinking about what a profound violation it is. Like, whatever, you have to have immigration enforcement. Sure if you think that sure, we got to have immigration enforcement, whatever. But immigration enforcement that involves essentially kidnapping people. And I think I don’t want to but I think it’s important to just underline these are people who are doing everything they’re supposed to do. The people who show up for their immigration appointments are by definition, following the law. Yeah to your point, this discourages people from showing up to try to do the right thing because it’s the obvious target. They are following the law and are being kidnapped, stolen and whisked away by these public servants. ICE agents work for us technically, but who are behaving in an imperious and unaccountable way, hiding their faces, behaving like an actual secret police. And it’s just it is infuriating. And if Americans witnessed it in any other country, they would immediately clock what it is. The only reason why there’s any hint of a debate about what’s happening here is because of some perverse American exceptionalism. But if this were taking place in any other country, Europe, South America, Asia, it doesn’t matter where if we’re happening any other country, we would immediately clock that what we’re witnessing is a disappearance program by an unaccountable secret police. One of the organizers in of the National Day laborers organizing network that I was spending time with is from Salvador and kept saying to me, this is familiar. I know what this is. So next to the economy, immigration was considered one of Trump’s strengths in the last election. And he was pretty harsh about it. He didn’t make any secret of what he planned to do mass deportations. So he campaigned on mass deportations, and he campaigned on removing 20 million people. Of course, there are not 20 million undocumented immigrants. There are around 10 to 12 million, tops. And so the 20 million number was always inclusive of a large number of people who are here legally and following the law. I think, and this is to some extent, Trump’s political superpower, I think that people just didn’t believe it. I think that’s really I think he would say we’re going to deport 20 million people. We’re going to have mass deportations. And what voters heard was we’re going to remove all the criminals and secure the border. But everything will be basically the same. And there’s this delta between what he Trump and Stephen Miller especially intended in what voters heard. That explains, in my mind the sharp decline in his standing on immigration and deportations. Because if you look at the polling, he is underwater on both. And I think it has everything to do with the fact that what voters heard was the status quo, except when they turn on the TV, they don’t see images of. People at the border, that’s what they thought. But what’s actually happening, of course, is kidnappings and renditions of people that most people know. I saw a recent poll that said a quarter of Americans are worried that someone they know loved one friend, whomever coworker is going to get caught up in this kidnapping program, this deportation program. And that just speaks to both the expansiveness of it and the fact that you can’t do this kind of thing without touching the lives of ordinary people, of citizens. I mostly agree with you, Jamelle. I think the thing that I maybe see it a little bit differently is that I think there was, in this case, two groups of Trump voters there. There are certainly Trump voters who look at those videos of say, a mother being ripped away from her screaming children and will post online, this is what I voted for, right. There’s people who eat up the sadistic kind of deportation porn that official White House sites are pumping out. And so I see Trump’s superpower a little differently. I see it as he was able he had the trust of both the people who said he’s going to do exactly what he said he’s going to do, and the people who thought that it was all just hyperbole, or that he just meant criminals. And so that was always a kind of fragile coalition, because you’re only going to make one of those two groups happy. Yeah, I’ll say that. I do think that the people who are like, this is what I voted for. I think that’s a little bit of saving face. I do think that’s a bit of well, this is I don’t I think there’s a sadistic part of the. No, there’s a sadism there. But I also think there’s a bit of like, this is unpopular. People don’t like it. It’s dragging down the president. And so they have to say, well, this is what I wanted. Obviously, this is what I like. Rather than having to reevaluate any of the choices that they made. I think that’s a more optimistic view than I have. It’s not optimistic. I mean, what I’m saying is that when confronted with any kind of divergence between what they may be anticipating and what’s happening, they’re doubling down on their. I just I do think that there are people who love it. Yeah, I think we’re talking about a question of degree. What percentage of people are the ones for whom this is their dream scenario, and they want to go farther. And then I do think a huge chunk of people were like, well, I didn’t think they were going to come after my kid’s soccer coach. That’s terrible. OK, so let me push back a little bit and say, when this first started in L.A., there was this huge uproar nationally. It got a lot of attention. Elected officials all over were standing up and bitching about it. It has not remained in the public eye quite so much. What are the odds of this activism activism gaining traction nationally, and what will it take for us to see what’s happening in L.A. take off broadly across the country. So I’m not sure that whether the media is covering protests is the best gauge of how widespread they are. Because again, these protests are of hard to cover in just like the gut of TV news, especially. If you have 12 people keeping watch on a Home Depot and that’s happening in 10 different places, it’s not a real spectacle. The reason I expect it to catch on nationally is because I think that the tactics we’ve seen in L.A. are going to spread nationally. I mean, L.A., I think was a demonstration project of what they intend to do. And ice has just gotten this unbelievably massive infusion of money in the tax bill that Republicans just passed and is going to be bigger than most countries militaries. And so they’re going to have to do something with all those people. And so I would expect what we’ve seen in L.A. to spread to other places. I mean, already in New York, they’ve talked about flooding the zone here in the last couple of days. And so as it spreads, I think you also just see a lot of people out there who are horrified by what’s happening, but feel powerless or don’t know where to I don’t know what to do about it. They don’t really think that kind of marching and chanting is necessarily going to have any effect. Obviously this is a generalization, but the resistance. The first time around, when Trump was first elected, was very focused on trying to shore up and influence institutions. So you had indivisible that was formed by two former Hill staffers when Trump was first elected and organized people by congressional district. A lot of the work they did was trying to influence their representatives. People don’t necessarily have the same kind of faith that there’s any institution that’s coming to save us. And so people are looking for things to do. Can I say real quick, just on the question of national media coverage, that I think it’s important to remember that there’s CNN, there’s ABC, whatever. But there’s also local news affiliates and a lot of this stuff is being covered. Are there still local news affiliates. There’s still local TV news 100 percent. And local TV news actually does cover this stuff on the regular because it involves community members. It involves public spaces people are familiar with. So it doesn’t even necessarily have to catch on in the National media for people to be aware of this and aware of it in the sense that it’s pervasive. The one last point I want to make, I want to say on this is thinking about the huge amount of funding ICE has just received from Congress and the administration. Pre this ICE was having a hard time hiring and retaining people. It’s not like a great job in terms of things that make you feel good at the end of the day. And there are people in ICE right now who are like, well, this isn’t necessarily what I signed up for. I didn’t sign up to kidnap someone’s abuela. And I do wonder can shovel money at an agency, but I do wonder if they’re going to be able to hire the 10,000 people. They say they’re going to hire. Like, that’s actually not easy. And when you consider that local municipal police departments around the country are having a hard time hiring new people, when the U.S. military is having a hard time hiring people. The thing about the past couple years of a strong labor market is that a kind of job that requires a lot of psychological stress, is just not appealing to people and also not really necessary. See, I look at it from a darker perspective is that they’ve shoveled all this money into it. They’re going to hire all these people. They’re going to wind up hiring people who are really into it. And there are a lot of people out there who you just don’t want doing this. But I would think that if what you’re talking about is a kind of self-selection where the people who have moral qualms about this don’t want it, that just leaves more rooms for the people who the cruelty is the point for them. But it is. Oh, go ahead. I’ve heard some one day when I was at immigration court, there was a public defender who actually, I don’t know if she was a public defender, but a volunteer lawyer or who worked for a group that sent lawyers. And she was really, really good at engaging some of these ICE agents and kind of trying to draw them out and talk about the law and I mean, and it was fascinating both how little some of them knew about the law. They had been repurposed from the southern border. But also there was, as she drew them out, as she talked about the people that she represented and what they had been through, there was just this even just in that short amount of time, this kind of change in the vibe. They were still grabbing people, but there wasn’t the same kind of barking like aggro. It just – I had the sense that she had planted a tiny seed of unease in some of these people’s minds, which I imagine again, how much that is ultimately going to make a difference. I don’t know, but I do think that there is going to be, for some people, a moral injury. And I suspect that they’re covering their faces because it’s intimidating. But I also wonder if some of them are covering their faces because they’re ashamed. OK, so as we’ve noted, this is what the Trump administration campaigned on. Clearly, disorder at the border was a real issue and people wanted it under control. And fair enough. Draconian or not, the administration seems to have figured out how to slow the border flow. So do you think even with these, even with these harsh videos and protests. I mean, is it fair to say that this could still work for Republicans at election time. I mean, we’re also talking about a good stretch of time before anybody can make them can even think about making them pay for this. So, I mean, on the one hand, these are such egregious human rights violations. These are such egregious constitutional violations that he said he was going to do a lot of things. He said he was going to try a bunch of former officials for treason. That doesn’t mean that if he went out and put Obama in handcuffs, we would say, well, promises made, promises kept. That said, I also think that we can see in the polling that it’s not working for them. We could see that he’s way underwater on immigration enforcement in particular. It actually drives me crazy when people say, well, he figured out how to stop, how to stop chaos at the border. Yeah, he did that at the cost of ending asylum in America. And so that’s why previous presidents couldn’t do it, because they didn’t want to end America’s place as a destination for people seeking — They were following the law. Right. And so the only way that they could kind of get the border under control would have been with a massive surge of resources to have more judges and kind of officials to process people since they didn’t have that, they were unable to get things under control. But yes, by ending America’s status as a place that provides asylum and instead shipping people seeking asylum to foreign gulags and keeping them in the most degrading and sometimes deadly conditions, they have been able to get the border under control. I suppose that there’s people who are going to give them political credit for that, but I don’t see the need to join them in that. Or there’s people who just won’t be there. I know they won’t be there driving vote. But I think one thing to consider is Michelle. Michelle, we were waiting for you to do that. I know Michelle C. you said the words you used for chaos at the border. And I want to lob off the border and focus on the chaos part, because I think that the thing that was actually driving the dynamic in favor of Trump last year was his sense of chaos. Voters do not like chaos. One of the things that drives me a little crazy is whenever people talk about the 2020 protests and they say, well, the 2020 protests, contributed to Trump, blah, blah, blah, wokeness, blah, blah, blah. But when you actually look at what happened, in terms of public opinion, the 2020 protests were a huge drag on Trump that if they didn’t happen, Trump would have been in better standing for reelection. And the mechanism there is not so much broad public sympathy with every single message coming out of them, but that people don’t like chaos. They saw all the protests and they were like, this is disorder. And I don’t like it. And they blame the incumbent for the disorder. People blame whatever disorder and chaos was at the border on Biden. What Trump has done is traded one form of chaos and disorder for another. He’s taken whatever may exist at the southern border and then just plopped it into American cities. And so if he’s just trading one form of. Chaos and disorder for another, there’s actually, I think, a good amount of evidence to suggest that this is going to be harmful actively harmful to him because he isn’t getting rid of the chaos, he’s just redistributing it. So here’s my question to you, which is that, yes, that is true. But what it’s going to come down to is a PR war, because what his argument is that, as you note, he’s transporting it into Democratic led cities. He’s pitching the idea. I get it in my feed. I’m sure you do all the time. Lands in my inbox. Look at the chaos in New York. Look at the chaos in California. He’s intentionally targeting blue areas. So he can plant the idea that Democratic run cities are a mess that need to be overseen. So it comes down to in part, who can work this issue the best. So my question for both of you is, so how could the Democratic Party have shaped the narrative better on immigration instead of being reactive to it. And do you think are you optimistic that they’ll be able to do this going forward. So I mean, on the one hand, obviously, I’m not a political strategist. I don’t think that there’s any signs, again, that what Trump is doing is working for him politically. I mean, it’s interesting if you listen to say, Joe Rogan on some of this stuff. Because him being aghast at what he’s seeing is, maybe a more important, much more important indicator than a bunch of New York Times’ columnists being horrified by what they’re seeing. I think that part of when I speak to activists, they feel so profoundly abandoned by the Democratic Party and so disillusioned by the Democratic Party, because the Democratic Party, I think, has internalized the idea that this is a good issue for Trump. But we need I think, Democrats who have a positive vision of immigration who aren’t just talking about how we can control, who are pushing back on the idea that is increasingly prevalent in MAGA world, that immigration is just a kind of net loss for this country, and that we have given up something important about our heritage and are turning into some kind of third world shithole. Which, by the way, it’s bizarre to me that if your real concern is America’s devolution into a third world country, that you want to elect the white Idi Amin. But I also I just I think that you need. How do I put this. Public opinion on immigration, you see, is really thermostatic right. And it’s really kind of reactive to whatever the people in power are doing. So you actually see in polling much more support for immigration than we’ve seen in years. And Democrats, I believe, and I think I can’t tell you for sure if this is the right thing to do. Politically, I can tell you for sure. It’s the right thing to do morally is that they should be picking up on some of that energy and making a positive case for the role of immigrants in our society for what they for the way that they enrich and revitalize this country. And the way that what Trump is doing is an attack on not just their rights, but our rights, foundational principles of what at its best, it is meant to be an American. Yeah I think Michelle is absolutely right to say that the issue here. Part of the reason I think Trump gained this advantage with immigration is because Democrats ceded it to him. They said, oh, well, the polls seem to be moving in his direction. And these are big applause lines for him. So we also need to adopt this tough on the border language by adopting kind of the framing of this all Democrats did was further cede the issue space to Trump, gave him space to mold it and dominate it and shape it even more. If you want an especially dramatic example of this, look across the pond to what’s happening in the U.K. where Labour has adopted basically the kind of Brexit-ish migrants are harming the country language of Nigel Farage. And what it hasn’t done is brought those immigration skeptical voters back into Labour’s camp. What it has done is expanded, ferocious and minded figures, political standing in the country. So here I think Democrats need to as Michelle said, have a positive vision for immigration and not just a kind of well, we’re going to protect the border, but also immigrants are nice and we love them. But a full throated, this is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants contribute to this country that iPhone you’re holding in your hand is the product of immigrants like the things that you love about this country are in large part a product of immigrants. I just wrote recently today about JD Vance’s vision of citizenship, and how he cites the Civil War all the time. The Civil War, a war won by Union Army filled with immigrants. Like it’s a part. It’s a deep cut, but it’s I mean, right, but it’s just key to his mythology. right. I don’t know, to me, I mean, I totally take what everybody’s saying. To me, this just smells like the Democrats approach of. We just got to explain to you why we’re right. Well, this isn’t explaining. I mean, well, you do actually do have to explain to the public why we think we’re right. But also I would make the I would make the argument. I would make the argument that it’s when Democrats have been, for lack of a better term, this woke on immigration that they’ve done better. Joe Biden did better in 2020. Hillary Clinton, we’ve had three Trump elections. Hillary Clinton now we can say did second best against Trump with this explicitly like pro-immigrant kind of rhetoric. And she reached a standing with Hispanic voters that no Democrat since has been able to match. So maybe it is simply the case that what’s missing in the political environment are just national political figures willing to say for can we curse on this. Like, oh, you can curse. I encourage it. Come on willing to say like, f–, we’re going to have immigrants here. All right, so before we end this, do we think this energy is going to be sustained long enough to make Republicans pay a price for it. Because as long as everybody’s mad right now, they don’t give two shits. Again, I just think that I feel like there’s such a disconnect between us, Michelle, because I feel like you’re talking about the next election. I understand how important it is believe me. But I also think that the framing of a lot of people I’m talking to and I don’t think it’s wrong, is that we’re in a kind of situation of authoritarian breakthrough where these aren’t the kind of things that can necessarily get fixed in the next election. And I don’t know that there is I mean, I think we should demand and assume that the next election will be free and fair. But I also just think that we’re not in the kind of system that we were in a year or two before. And so the question, I mean, this is a problem for the Democratic Party and that there is this a huge disconnect between this activist energy and the party itself to make sure they understand elections have consequences. And we’re in this mess because people thought, oh, it doesn’t really matter who we vote. I think that that’s right. But I also think that you’re talking I think that the way a lot of people feel is like their communities are under a hostile occupation of people who hate them, and they want to know how they can defend their neighborhoods. And so it’s just a step away. You’re going to see this energy spread, I think, again, because there is just a kind of, among millions and millions of people, a very deep horror over what’s going on and a desperation to do something, even if they don’t know exactly what, whether that in turn. I mean, I think that my guess is how that will manifest immediately politically is in a demand that the Democratic Party change. You see that in Mamdani. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see a lot more primary challenges, the anger out there towards, a Democratic leadership that people feel is feckless and they feel like is not fighting for them and is not defending them is just so profound that I think that we will have a kind of a Democratic Tea Party. The political consequences of that, I think, are hard to predict. Although, I don’t even know if it’s necessarily a question of moving to the left. Because Elissa Slotkin has articulated this really well, that there is, there’s the left right divide, but there’s also the divide between people who think that Trump is an existential threat. And people who think that kind of fixing this as an election away. She’s often touted as the moderate future of the party, but she’s also in the first camp. And I think that Democrats want to see more people like that. Yeah I would say that as far as maintaining any kind of anger or momentum going into the next election. I Michelle’s right to suggest that if the administration continues along these lines, it’s kind of spread organically. But I also think that this is part of the role for political education. I think we have a habit as Americans just in general, of thinking of political parties only in the context of an election year. But it’s like, well within the capabilities of the Democratic Party as fractured and decentralized as it is, individual state Democratic parties, local Democratic parties to begin working first with community groups to do this kind of vigilance work to reference the antebellum America again after the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, you had what were called vigilance committees in lots of Northern cities that worked often with maybe northern Whigs or the Republican organizations that were coming to for at the time to basically watch out for slave catchers. Entirely possible for local Democratic parties to do that kind of work. It’s entirely possible for state, the state Democratic parties and National Democratic parties to basically, do maintain a kind of media presence devoted to disseminating these images of these ICE kidnappings and these ICE assaults. That’s a thing they can do. So my advice, and this has been kind of my advice for some time, is just for Democrats to think more creatively about what they can do. And there’s a lot you can do. There’s no rule that says that you have to wait until the summer before an election to do messaging. You can engage in this stuff year round all the time. And if I were talking to people who funded Democrats, I would say that should spend less time looking for a liberal Joe Rogan, whatever that means, and more time funding the kind of information dissemination and community groups that are actually going to be able to activate when an election comes. OK I like this. You have an action plan. I’m always about creative action plans, so we’re going to leave it there. I thank both of you. Thank you so much for all of this. Thank you. Happy to be here.

Video player loading
The “Opinions” round table discusses the president’s immigration policies and the emerging resistance to it.Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Spencer Platt/Getty

This week on “The Opinions,” the national politics writer for Times Opinion Michelle Cottle and the columnists Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg discuss the growing anger over President Trump’s mass deportation policy and the local resistance movements forming in response.

Trump Isn’t Getting Rid of Chaos at the Border. He’s Redistributing It.

The “Opinions” round table discusses the president’s immigration policies and the emerging resistance to it.

Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.

Note: This episode contains strong language. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Michelle Cottle: I’m Michelle Cottle, and I cover national politics for New York Times Opinion. I’m here this week with my fabulous colleagues the Opinion columnists Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg. We’re going to take a temperature check on the Trump resistance and one of the key areas where it’s gaining ground, which is mass deportations.

So, friends, hello, welcome. Thank you for doing this.

Michelle Goldberg: Hi, Michelle. Hi, Jamelle.

Jamelle Bouie: Howdy, howdy.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access."

Opinion | What the Democratic Party Still Doesn’t Get About Deportations - The New York Times