Trump administration seeking to exile immigrants to Ukraine, Libya and Rwanda

Jacob Crosse

Restraints lie on the tarmac as personal belongings of immigrants who entered the United States are loaded onto a plane for a deportation flight to El Salvador by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [AP Photo/David J. Phillip]

Multiple reports in recent days indicate that the Trump administration is attempting to deport immigrants and refugees in the United States to distant countries where they are not citizens—some of which are currently embroiled in active armed conflicts.

Over the past week, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, New York Times and the Washington Post have reported that the Trump administration has been engaged in ongoing talks, some dating back to January, with multiple governments about accepting deportees from the United States.

Under the proposed agreements, the US government would offer cash payments or political concessions to governments in exchange for accepting deported immigrants. These individuals would be expelled to distant countries with which they or their families have no prior connection and to which they never intended to immigrate.

One of the central grievances that led to the American Revolution was the British Crown’s practice of transporting colonists to England or other colonies for trial and punishment, thereby denying them the right to be tried by local juries and courts.

This denial of basic due process was cited in the Declaration of Independence as one of the formal charges against King George III: “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences. “

In his speech and practice, Trump has made clear he considers himself unbound by the Constitution and that all basic democratic rights are null and void.

Some deportations have already taken place. Last month, independent journalist Marisa Kabas reported on a series of US State Department cables from the American Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda, which confirmed that the US government had deported Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, an Iraqi national, to Rwanda after Ameen stated that he feared persecution if returned to Iraq.

Ameen and his family fled Iraq for Turkey in 2012. In 2014, they were granted refugee status in the United States. Four years later, in 2018, the Trump administration initiated deportation proceedings against Ameen, falsely accusing him of being a high-ranking member of ISIS.

Ameen was arrested, incarcerated and faced deportation until a judge ruled in 2021 that the allegations against him “were simply not plausible.” However, after his release, the Biden administration re-arrested him and renewed deportation proceedings under the false pretense that he had lied about being a terrorist.

On April 4, Ameen, against his will, was forcibly deported to Rwanda. According to journalist Marisa Kabas, a US State Department cable dated April 22 revealed that the Rwandan government had requested policy concessions and a one-time payment of $100,000 to cover social services, residency documents and work permits. The payment was made, and the cable indicated that Rwanda was willing to “accept another ten TCNs [third-country nationals] of various nationalities.”

According to the cable, Rwanda’s “primary motivation” for accepting Ameen and others was “to improve U.S. relations and show it can advance the America First agenda.”

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is implementing plans this week to deport migrants to Libya. A flight “could leave as soon as Wednesday,” the newspaper reported, citing unnamed US officials.

Libya has descended into war and sectarian conflict since the 2011 NATO war destroyed the country’s government and society. The most horrific conditions of torture and abuse prevail. The Times cites the State Department’s own report, which refers to “harsh and life-threatening” conditions detention centers, where migrants have “no access to immigration courts or due process.”

Earlier, the Washington Post reported that following the inauguration, the Trump administration “urged” the Zelensky regime to accept deportees from the United States. The lawless and criminal Ukrainian government, backed by the US-NATO alliance, has canceled elections, imposed martial law and banned all left-wing and socialist organizations, including the World Socialist Web Site.

For over one year, the Zelensky regime has imprisoned Bogdan Syrotiuk, a 26-year-old Trotskyist, on bogus charges of “treason” for his public opposition to the ongoing proxy war.

The Trump administration is already illegally kidnapping and deporting immigrants, legal residents and even US citizens to nearby countries in Latin America, including Costa Rica, Panama and Honduras.

In March, nearly 300 men, including Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Andry Hernandez Romero, were banished to the Terrorism Confinement Center, a notorious mega-prison and torture complex in El Salvador. Nearly two months after their deportation—many under the pretext of the Alien Enemies Act—the US government has yet to release a full list of those who were removed.

On Sunday, CBS News reported that the US government is in negotiations with Angola and Equatorial Guinea. The Wall Street Journal and other outlets previously reported that the administration had also contacted Benin, Eswatini, Libya, Moldova and Rwanda.

While an Angolan government spokesperson issued a statement on Monday denying that the country is “accepting deported individuals of other nationalities,” Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe confirmed to the Associated Press that his government is in discussions with the US about hosting exiled immigrants and refugees.

Nduhungirehe told the Associated Press that discussions between the US and Rwanda were underway, after previously telling state media that the plans were still in the “early stage.”

This is not the first time Rwanda has been proposed by a major imperialist power as a penal colony for immigrants and refugees fleeing their home countries. In 2022, then–British Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled the “Rwanda asylum plan,” under which asylum seekers would be deported to the African nation. The policy was continued by his successor, Rishi Sunak.

However, upon taking office in July 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the plan, arguing that the funds would be better spent deporting asylum seekers directly to their “home” countries.

However, in November, the Labour government announced a similar “Rwanda plan” proposal, under which immigrants arriving in the Chagos Islands would be deported to the remote island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic.

Warning that Japan could play debt “card” in tariff war

Nick Beams

The decision by US President Trump for a 90-day pause, set to expire in July, on “reciprocal tariffs” imposed on a wide range of countries has calmed financial markets, at least for the time being.

But the negotiations—more akin to a series of diktats being issued by the US—are revealing deep conflicts and tensions that could rapidly erupt to the surface.

Apart from China, which has combined tariffs imposed against it of 145 percent, one of the significant targets of the Trump administration is Japan, which was hit with a 24 percent reciprocal tariff, as well as being subject to a 25 percent tariff on autos and auto parts.

Ryosei Akazawa in Tokyo on October 1, 2024. [AP Photo/Hiro Komae]

Last week, as he departed for Washington for talks, Japan’s top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, pointed to the extent of the crisis starting to engulf the auto industry, which accounts for 3 percent of the country’s GDP.

“The head of an automaker we spoke to told us that his company is suffering a $1 million loss every hour,” he told reporters.

The International Trade Centre, a combined agency of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, has estimated that Japan could lose as much as $17 billion from US markets as a result of the tariffs. Other estimates are even higher—up to $24 billion—with Toyota alone hit by a loss of revenue of $12 billion.

So far, Japan has come up empty-handed from the talks. Returning to Tokyo on Saturday, Akazawa said Japan had no intention of striking a deal with the US unless all its new tariffs were reviewed.

“We have pressed the United States to reconsider all of the series of tariff measures as we cannot reach an agreement if that is not properly addressed in a package,” he told reporters.

As the talks were taking place, the Japanese finance minister, Katsunobu Kato, publicly upped the ante in a television interview on Friday when he said the country’s holdings of more than $1 trillion in US Treasury bonds could be a “card” in trade negotiations.

Asked whether Japan would maintain its long-term stance as a non-seller of US assets, Kato said: “It does exist as a card; whether or not we use that card is a different decision.”

Underscoring the significance of the remarks, the Financial Times (FT) described it as a “rare baring of the teeth by America’s closest ally in Asia.”

Speaking on Sunday in Milan, Kato said Japan was not thinking of using its Treasury holdings as a bargaining chip. But despite the apparent walk back, the cat is very much out of the bag.

One of the factors behind Trump’s announcement of the pause on the reciprocal tariffs was the selloff in the US debt market and the decline in the US dollar in marked contrast to what usually takes place when there is a move into US assets in times of turbulence.

Trump pulled back after he was warned by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials that if the selloff continued, it could lead to a crisis, a US weakness which Japan has clearly noted.

Any significant withdrawal by it from the US debt market or even indications that it could withdraw would have major consequences.

The imposition of tariffs against Japan has been characterized by Japan’s prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, as a “national crisis.”

Commenting on the initial Kato remarks, Nicolas Smith, chief Japan strategist at the Hong Kong-based financial firm CLSA, told the FT: “This is a street fight: promising not to use one of your strongest weapons would be both naïve and reckless. You don’t need to use the weapon; just brandish it.”

Trump has insisted that he is operating from a position of strength because of the importance of the US market to all the major economies of the world. But at the same time, the US is dependent on the rest of the world to finance its growing public debt—now at $36 trillion and rising.

Long-time economic analyst of Japan, Jesper Koll, told the FT: “The fact that the usually guarded and diplomatic finance minister spoke up on national TV about what is arguably Japan’s biggest asset in dealing with America confirms the growing confidence of Japan’s elite in their dealings with the US.”

As the conflict intensifies, the effect of the US tariff hikes is ripping through some of the Asian economies.

In Vietnam, which is the subject of a possible 46 percent reciprocal tariff, one of the highest, textile and garment manufacturers are waiting with trepidation for what happens after the pause expires in July. Operating with narrow profit margins, some have started to cut jobs or have stopped hiring.

If the tariffs go ahead, thousands of Vietnamese firms that supply the US market could go under. Even if the pause is extended, this may not alleviate the situation because in conditions of great uncertainty, outlets in the US could decide to reorganize their supply chains.

The character of the negotiations with the US is illustrated by the case of Taiwan, which is the subject of a 32 percent reciprocal tariff.

This week, the Taiwan dollar continued its rise against the US dollar, taking its total rise to 10 percent since the start of April when the tariff war began.

It is widely believed that one of the reasons for the rise is that upward movement in the currency is a demand of the US Treasury Department in its negotiations on a trade deal.

Taiwan’s central bank issued a statement last Friday that this was not taking place. This only increased the belief it has, given the position of the Trump administration that a lower dollar is needed to improve the competitive position of the US in world markets.

Taiwan is also an illustration of how the tariff wars can set off a financial crisis.

Life insurance companies hold a considerable portion of Taiwan’s overseas assets of $1.7 trillion, much of it in the form of US Treasury debt.

The value of these holdings is falling because of the decline in the value of the dollar, leaving them exposed to losses because they have not hedged their dollar holdings sufficiently. Taiwan’s market regulator has held talks with some of Taiwan’s largest insurers to check on their position.

Ju Wang, a strategist at BNP Paribas in Hong Kong, told the FT: “Local exporters are panicking, and local lifers are under-hedged while equity-related outflows have ceased.”

The Taiwan situation, the “national crisis” in Japan, the threatened layoffs and closures in Vietnam are just three expressions, among many, of the economic and financial mayhem triggered by the Trump tariff war and the underlying crisis of the global capitalist economy.

False start for the Merz government

Peter Schwarz

Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader Friedrich Merz was only elected German chancellor in the second round of voting on Tuesday—and only thanks to the help of the Left Party and the Greens. Merz had failed in the first round of voting because only 310 of the 328 members of the Bundestag from the governing coalition of the CDU/Christian Social Union (CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) voted for him. To be elected chancellor, Merz required at least 316 votes, the majority of all parliamentary deputies.

This was unprecedented in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. So far, all chancellors have been elected in the first round of voting. But although the CDU, CSU and SPD agreed after weeks of negotiations on a 144-page coalition agreement, which was passed by the relevant party committees, Merz did not manage to unite the necessary number of deputies behind him.

In order for the second round of voting to take place on the same day, Merz had to rely on the support of the Left Party and the Greens. Both were determined to help him into office as quickly as possible so that he could stabilise the situation and implement the right-wing coalition programme.

In front of a photo of the former German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, CDU Chairman Friedrich Merz addresses the media in Berlin, Germany after the state elections in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. [AP Photo/AP]

The Bundestag’s (Federal Parliament) procedural rules stipulate a deadline of three days for the second round of voting, which can only be shortened by a two-thirds majority. The Left Party and the Greens, together with the governing parties, tabled a motion to this effect, which the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) also agreed to in the end. In the second round of voting, 325 deputies voted for Merz, who was sworn in as federal chancellor in the evening.

The Merz government’s false start provides an unsparing exposure of the real political situation in Germany. His government is not only the most right-wing but also the most unpopular since the Second World War.

At the heart of the coalition agreement is the most comprehensive rearmament program since Hitler, a “fundamental turnaround” in migration policy in the spirit of the AfD, the establishment of a police state and massive social spending cuts that will shift the costs of war and trade war onto the working population. 

This program has no support among the population. In the Bundestag elections, the CDU/CSU achieved the second worst result in its history and the SPD the worst. Together they only received 45 percent of the vote and have since lost a further 7 percent in the polls. According to a survey by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, only 38 percent welcome the election of Merz as chancellor, while 56 percent oppose it.  

However, this opposition is not reflected in official politics. At every opportunity, the AfD offers Merz the chance to implement his right-wing program together with them instead of the SPD. The parliamentary secretary of the AfD, Bernd Baumann, justified its approval of the early second round of voting with the words: “Germany needs a government.”

The nominally “left-wing” opposition parties made their support for Merz and his reactionary program even clearer. As soon as the election debacle became apparent—and share prices began to fall—they forgot their occasional criticisms of Merz and rushed to his aid.

A commentary that appeared on Zeit Online shortly after the first round of voting summed up the attitude of this milieu:

The world order is tottering, and Germany is still without a government. That is quite simply fatal.

Green politician Renate Künast described the weakening of Merz as a “thunderbolt for the whole country.” Katrin Göring-Eckardt wrote: “This is not good.” Even though she does not support the chancellor, she could “only warn everyone against being happy about chaos.”

Britta Hasselmann, parliamentary group leader of the Greens, regretted that “trust in Merz and Klingbeil has been shaken.” The worst thing that could happen to this country now would be new elections, she commented. Her colleague Katharina Dröge added: “Germany needs a stable government.”

Nothing else could have been expected from the Greens. In Olaf Scholz’s government, they were the strongest supporters of military armament, the war against Russia and the genocide against the Palestinians. The only reason they are not part of the new government is because they are not needed for a majority. Outgoing Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock had a visibly good-humoured chat in the Bundestag with her successor, CDU politician Johann Wadephul. She herself will represent the new government at the UN in New York, where she will chair the General Assembly for a year.

The Left Party, which voted for the CDU and SPD’s war credits in the Bundesrat (Federal Council, the upper house) in March, also reacted with visible concern to Merz’s election defeat. Party leader Jan van Aken gave him helpful advice. If Merz does not even get the trust of his own people, van Aken said:

[H]ow is he supposed to win the trust of people who are struggling with the real problems of everyday life?

Co-chair Ines Schwerdtner explained: “It is now up to the CDU whether they dare to talk to us.”

The former Minister President of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow, now Vice President of the Bundestag, was “quite angry” about the election debacle. The party leaders of the planned coalition should have ensured that such a scandal did not occur, he criticised. Ramelow was one of the first to suggest an immediate second round of voting to help Merz out of his predicament. “As the Left Party, we will also help to ensure that the two-thirds majority is achieved,” he said.

The important role played by the Left Party in Merz’s election as chancellor was also recognised by Der Spiegel. One of six lessons that the news magazine draws “from Merz’s stumbling start” is:

It won’t be the last time that the CDU/SPD coalition will have to rely on the approval of Heidi Reichinnek’s party. Merz now has reason to seriously consider overturning the ban on cooperation with the Left Party. It is no longer in keeping with the times.

The new, ultra-right Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) took a similar view. He said:

Today it was relatively clear that if we want a two-thirds majority, we have to give the Left Party a call. ... Where two-thirds majorities are needed, we will have to do so again in the future, regardless of whether the political colouration suits us in any given case.

It is not known which 18 deputies from the governing parties refused to vote for Merz in the first round of voting and what their reasons were. The vote is secret. However, it is clear that the Merz government is extremely weak and internally divided.

Broad sections of the working class and youth will inevitably come into conflict with it when it militarizes society, reintroduces compulsory military service, suppresses political opponents, cuts social spending and wages and cuts tens of thousands of jobs in the escalating trade war.

South Asian confrontation escalates as Indian airstrikes hit inside Pakistan

Peter Symonds

The Indian government has provocatively escalated tensions with Pakistan after the Indian military struck targets inside Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and deep inside Pakistan itself shortly after midnight on Wednesday.

Rooftop of a mosque damaged by a suspected Indian missile attack near Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan controlled Kashmir, on May 7, 2025. [AP Photo/M.D. Mughal]

The Indian defence ministry announced that nine targets had been struck but provided no details. It claimed that the attacks were “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature,” targeting “terrorist infrastructure” and avoiding Pakistani military bases and facilities.

Without providing evidence, India has accused Pakistan of being behind the April 22 terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-controlled Kashmir that killed 26 people and vowed retaliation.

The Pakistani government has flatly denied any involvement for the attack and offered a neutral investigation of the incident.

The airstrikes have deliberately inflamed one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints for war. The two nuclear-armed countries have already fought three wars over Kashmir which both claim. Now the conflict is intertwined with the US-led preparations for war with China, which has strong ties to Pakistan. As it has escalated its confrontation with Beijing, Washington has strengthened its military ties with New Delhi as its major strategic partner in South Asia.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has condemned the airstrikes as “cowardly attacks” by a “deceitful enemy” and vowed retaliation for carrying out “cowardly attacks.” “Pakistan has every right to give a robust response to this act of war imposed by India, and a strong response is indeed being given,” he said.

Pakistan claimed to have shot down at least five Indian air force jets. Its foreign affairs ministry said that the Indian aircraft had remained in Indian airspace and used “stand-off weapons” to carry out the attacks. According to Al Jazeera, the Pakistani military has already commenced heavy artillery fire along the Line of Control (LoC) separating Pakistan-held Azad Kashmir and Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir. It claims to have destroyed an Indian infantry brigade headquarters.

Armed forces spokesman Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said India’s air force had “martyred innocent civilians, which includes women and children” in missile strikes near the cities of Muridke and Bahawalpur inside Pakistan, as well as in Bagh, Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-held Kashmir. Eight people were killed, another 35 injured and two people are reported missing.

Among the dead were a child and two others who were killed in a strike on a mosque in Punjab.

The airstrikes followed nightly exchanges of small arms fire by Indian and Pakistani troops across the LoC over the past fortnight. Last night’s airstrikes are the first time since 2019 that India has attacked targets inside Pakistani territory, when its warplanes hit multiple locations after blaming Islamabad for a suicide car bombing that killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary troops. Moreover, the latest attacks on Ahmadpur East and Muridke in Pakistan’s Punjab province are the deepest inside Pakistan since the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war.

The attempts by New Delhi to downplay the severity of today’s strikes are belied by the bellicose response of India’s rightwing Hindu supremacist government headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the April 22 terrorist attack. Since then, Modi and top government leaders have repeatedly threatened not just the perpetrators, but to smite the “masters of terror” and the “organizers”—a barely veiled threat against the Pakistani government and armed forces.

The Modi government has for the first time suspended its participation in the Indus Water Treaty threatening to cut off water for Pakistani towns and cities as well as agriculture. The Indus River Treaty signed in 1960 involved a complex sharing of water resources from the river system, on which Pakistan is heavily dependent, that has its ultimate source in China but flows through India.

In offhand remarks at the White House, US President Trump declared that the dangerous military escalation by India against Pakistan was “a shame.” He claimed to have just heard about the Indian airstrikes, adding: “They’ve been fighting for a long time. I just hope it ends very quickly.”

In reality, the Trump administration’s close relations and strategic partnership with India has only encouraged Modi to respond aggressively against Pakistan, exploiting the April 22 terrorist attack as the pretext. According to Indian officials, national security adviser, Ajit Doval, briefed Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the airstrikes immediately after they had taken place, but the Trump administration undoubtedly knew in advance that Indian retaliation was imminent.

On April 30, Rubio met with India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and denounced the “horrific terrorist attack” inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. While appealing to “de-escalate tensions,” Rubio nevertheless “reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to cooperation with India against terrorism”—remarks that only encouraged, not restrained, aggressive Indian retaliation.

The decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan is a reactionary conflict that is rooted in the catastrophic 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent into a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India. Military conflict over Muslim-majority Kashmir erupted very rapidly after the Hindu ruler of the princely state opted, under pressure from New Delhi, to join with India.

Successive governments in India and Pakistan have relied on whipping up communal politics, in which the control of all Kashmir has been a key feature, as the means of dividing the working class and shoring up bourgeois rule. The ruling classes in both countries have trampled on the basic democratic rights of the Kashmiri people. India’s anti-democratic policies in Jammu and Kashmir only fueled the eruption of an armed insurgency from 1989, that has been manipulated by Pakistan, and resulted in India’s imposition of draconian police-state measures.

Tensions have only sharpened under Modi’s Hindu chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which in 2019 abolished the special, autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir and placed it more directly under the control of India’s central government.

Far from the latest airstrikes being “measured and non-escalatory,” the Indian government has embarked on a reckless military campaign aimed at undermining its longstanding regional rival, Pakistan. It was summed up in a jubilant post last night on X by Rajnath Singh, India’s defence minister, “Victory to Mother India.”

The great danger facing the working class, not only in South Asia but internationally, is that the escalating military confrontation between the two nuclear-armed states can draw in the US and China, along with other major powers, and become the flashpoint for a catastrophic global conflict.

Trump tariff war hits both China and US economies, threatening millions of jobs

Nick Beams

The impact of US President Trump’s tariff war against China is starting to show up in the economic data of both countries amid fears that much worse is to come in the months ahead.

On Wednesday, the US Commerce Department reported that GDP for the first quarter had contracted at an annual rate of 0.3 percent, largely as a result of companies trying to stock up on goods before the 145 percent tariff against China—a virtual economic blockade—comes into effect.

Incoming container ships line up outside the Port of Los Angeles as they wait for dock space. [AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes]

In China, official data showed a contraction in manufacturing activity and a slump in export orders to their lowest levels since the contraction due to COVID in 2022.

US GDP is calculated by subtracting imports from the total of government spending, exports, investment, and consumer spending. Imports for the first quarter surged by 41 percent, and the trade deficit hit a record high of $162 billion for March.

While the import surge was the main factor in the result, consumer spending showed signs of slowing, coming in at 1.8 percent growth, the smallest increase since mid-2023. Government spending also fell as the DOGE axe cut jobs and contracts.

Consumption demand, the main driver of US economic growth, is expected to slow further in the second quarter as Trump’s tariff hikes come fully into effect. Investment decisions by companies are being put on hold because of mounting economic uncertainty.

In a comment to the New York Times, Kathy Bostjancic, chief economist for the financial and insurance firm Nationwide, predicted worsening economic conditions.

“Once everything kicks in, we’ll have a slower economy, the labor market is slowing. Hiring has already stalled, and we expect the unemployment rate to start to rise.”

The chief economist at Moody’s, Mark Zandi, shared these sentiments in remarks to the Wall Street Journal.

The GDP report “probably overstates the economy’s weakness, but the economy’s weak,” he said, pointing to slower consumption spending and government cuts.

“If the administration can’t find an off-ramp on the tariffs soon… then I think we’re going to see a lot more negative GDP numbers ahead, and ultimately job losses.”

The sacking of 20,000 UPS workers is an indication of what is to come.

So far there are no signs of any significant easing of the economic war, the main target of which is China. In an interview on Tuesday to mark his 100 days in office, Trump acknowledged that the tariffs amounted to an embargo.

“That’s good,” he said. “They deserve it.”

“They were ripping us off like nobody has ever ripped us off. Almost every country in the world was ripping us off. They’re not doing that anymore.”

The administration has instituted a 90-day pause on the “reciprocal tariffs” against a wide range of countries to allow negotiations to take place. But all indications are that any lessening of the tariff for individual countries will be tied to an agreement that they act against China.

This is aimed at trying to overcome a perceived weakness in the US position. So far as exports to China are concerned—mainly grains and other agricultural products—China is likely to be able to find other sources of supply.

But there are few alternative sources of supply for the goods that the US imports from China, and, at least to some extent, China will be able to find other markets. Hence the push to ensure that barriers are put in place by third countries to shut off any escape route.

Beijing has stated repeatedly that there will be no negotiations with the US until the tariff hikes are withdrawn. President Xi Jinping has warned of a long battle and that China will “never kneel down” to Washington. The tariffs, however, are starting to have an effect.

The official purchasing managers’ index issued by China’s National Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday dropped to 49 for April, down from 50.5 in March, with a level below 50 indicating a contraction.

The index for export orders dropped even more sharply to 44.7, its lowest level since December 2022, in the midst of the COVID pandemic.

The bureau said the decline in manufacturing activity was due to “sharp changes in the external environment.”

In a note to clients this week, Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the latest data “suggests that China’s economy is coming under pressure as external demand cools” and that steps by the government to pump money into the economy were “unlikely to fully offset the drag.”

Capital Economics, along with others, has forecast the Chinese economy will grow by only 3.5 percent this year, well below the government’s target of 5 percent.

Earlier this week, the Japanese financial firm Nomura Securities predicted that if Chinese exports to the US dropped by 50 percent, then 5.7 million workers would immediately lose their jobs, and the number would grow to 15.8 million as the effects spread.

Last year, China relied on exports for around one-third of its economic growth, with Goldman Sachs estimating that between 10 million and 20 million manufacturing jobs in China are dependent on exports to the US.

At the same time, the impact of the China embargo is showing up at US West Coast ports, posing risks for jobs.

The number of containers to arrive at Los Angeles is set to drop by more than 35 percent next week compared to the same period last year, and a quarter of the ships scheduled for May have been cancelled, according to Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director.

Based on conversations with companies, he told the New York Times that some of the 125,000 import companies which use the port, including big box retailers and home improvement firms, had halted nearly all their imports from China.

The situation is the same at the port of Long Beach, where the number of ships arriving from China dropped 38 percent this week from last week, and at least 30 ships scheduled in June have been cancelled.

In a report on the situation at the ports, the Times cited comments by Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, who said what was underway was a “pure demand destruction scenario.”

He indicated that if the downturn were sustained, the job consequences would go beyond port workers, extending to trucking and warehouse jobs, with “ripple effects for the broad economic community.”

In a research note issued last month, Torsten Slok, chief economist at the financial firm Apollo Global Management, said the fall in shipments from China could lead to “significant layoffs” in trucking, logistics, and retail in May.

Christmas is still some way off, but it is at this time of year that retail outlets place their orders for toys, Christmas trees, and decorations, the vast bulk of which come from China.

An article in the Times this week said that “alarm in the industry is palpable,” with some business owners consulting bankruptcy lawyers because they are simply unable to continue with 145 percent tariffs.

The article reported that in a survey of 410 toy companies, around 60 percent had cancelled orders, and around 50 percent said they would go out of business within weeks or months if the tariffs remained.

Ukraine, US sign critical minerals deal

Clara Weiss

President Donald Trump meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky at Trump Tower, Sept. 27, 2024, in New York. [AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson]

After tumultuous conflicts between Kiev and Washington, and between the imperialist powers in Europe and the US, the US and Ukraine signed a critical minerals deal on Wednesday.

The deal grants the US significant prerogatives in the exploitation of 57 mineral resources in Ukraine, including critical minerals, oil and gas. Shortly after the signing of the deal, on Thursday, the Trump administration announced that it had released $50 million in US military aid to Ukraine, ending the previous US hold on military assistance. 

Although watered down from the contract of naked neocolonial plunder that the US presented in February, the deal underscores the imperialist and predatory character of the war in Ukraine. Far from defending “democracy” and “liberty,” the conflict has always been rooted in the drive of the imperialist powers to assert control over the vast resources and riches of the entire former Soviet Union, including Ukraine and Russia. This is why they deliberately provoked the reactionary invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime, seeking to make it the starting point for the imperialist carve-up of the entire region.

As the World Socialist Web Site analyzed in 2022, underlying the war was the rapacious quest of the imperialist powers for critical earth minerals that are vital to the functioning of the modern economy, especially the production of microchips and the development of the most advanced technologies, such as AI and electric vehicles. The vast majority of the extraction and processing of critical minerals in the world today is taking place in China, which is the principal target of the war preparations of US imperialism.

It is in this context that the raw material resources of the former Soviet Union, including but not only in Russia and Ukraine, have acquired strategic significance for the imperialist powers. In addition to significant holdings of raw materials like oil, gas and gold, both Russia and Ukraine have large known deposits of critical minerals, such as lithium and titanium. 

Cloaked in the language of “human rights” and “democracy” under the Biden administration, the Trump administration now openly upholds these predatory interests as the driving force of US foreign policy.

In contrast to the February draft, which would have given the US full ownership and rights to the extraction of all of Ukraine’s raw materials, the signed deal provides for the formation of a “Joint Reconstruction Investment Fund” with equal representation from the US and Ukraine. For the first 10 years, all revenues will be directed toward the “reconstruction” of Ukraine. But US companies will have the first right to invest in and purchase any projects initiated by this fund.

Any further US military assistance to Ukraine will count as a contribution to the fund. For this deal, the US has dropped earlier demands by Trump that Ukraine “repay” all the military aid the US has provided to Ukraine so far, an estimated $67 billion. As in the past, the US has refused to mention any “security guarantees” for Ukraine in the deal.

Ukraine will have to use 50 percent of all revenue generated from new licenses for oil, gas and critical minerals to finance its participation in this Fund. 

Whereas the February draft would have given the US exclusive rights to the extraction of Ukraine’s minerals, the signed deal mentions EU membership for Ukraine as an option and allows for renegotiations of conditions “in good faith” to allow Ukraine to abide by potential contractual obligations to the EU. 

The draft in February had triggered angry responses by the European imperialist powers, which fear being sidelined in the plunder of Ukraine. Like the American ruling class, the European bourgeoisie, especially in Germany, France and Britain, has invested billions in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine in order to secure its “right” to the vast raw material resources of the region. To rival the US bid for Ukraine’s raw materials and secure deposits for the European bourgeoisie, the EU in February initiated negotiations about a “win-win partnership” with Kiev.

Notwithstanding a vague nod to the interests of Germany, France and other European imperialist powers, in the language of the deal, it was clearly struck in a successful effort to preempt their moves to get a hold of the booty. The US-Ukraine agreement stipulates that “notwithstanding any new legislation of Ukraine or amendments to legislation of Ukraine that may be adopted in the future,” the US and American companies will “receive treatment no less favorable than required by this Agreement.”

This “treatment” ensures that there will be no taxes, tariffs, duties, deductions or withholdings of any kind to the profits made by US corporations in the extraction of Ukraine’s raw materials. 

Nominally, Ukraine retains full ownership and control over its resources and can decide who will extract what and where. But, from the standpoint of the working class, this “independence” is a fiction. Ukraine is ruled by a criminal oligarchy that, like its Russian counterpart, has emerged out of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s destruction of the Soviet Union, carried out hand in glove with the imperialist powers. Since then, the oligarchs in Ukraine, as in Russia, have amassed enormous amounts of wealth by plundering state assets and selling off the country’s resources to imperialist countries.

Thus, by virtue of its entire socio-economic basis and history, the Ukrainian oligarchy is intrinsically tied to the imperialist powers, between which it constantly maneuvers and on whose behalf it has sent hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to the slaughter. While the deal may provide the oligarchs with a basis to siphon off parts of the profits from the extraction of raw materials for their own enrichment, at its core, it is the pseudo-legal basis for the neocolonial exploitation of the country’s resources.

As in many colonial forays in the past, its objective basis is highly tenuous. A study by the Canadian NGO SecDev in 2022 estimated that the worth of Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits at $12 trillion, figures that have been echoed by NATO politicians since. Yet the vast majority of them are undeveloped, and many experts cast doubt on the envisioned “critical minerals bonanza” in Ukraine.

Javier Blas, an energy and commodities columnist for Bloomberg, noted on Twitter/X:

It’s not the first time that the US has gotten its geology wrong in a war zone. Back in 2010, the US announced it had discovered $1 trillion of untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, including some crucial for electric-car batteries, like lithium. It was utter fantasy. … So does Ukraine have some mineral riches? Yes. It does have large deposits of iron ore and coal, neither of which are strategically important from a global perspective. Before the war, Ukraine produced just a bit more iron ore than countries like the US, Canada and Sweden. ... But the key is that Ukraine doesn’t have any commercial deposits. Almost universally, the documents found online mistake (small) accumulations of some rare-earth-bearing minerals as equating with a commercial mine. They aren’t the same.

Moreover, an estimated 50 percent of all of Ukraine’s mineral resources are now in territories controlled by Russia. They no doubt feature prominently in the current US-Russian negotiations. 

The ravages of war will further complicate any extraction of raw materials. After more than three years of war, Ukraine is now the most mined country in the world. Estimates suggest that, as of late 2024, between 25 and 30 percent of the country’s territory—roughly 174,000 square kilometers—are contaminated with millions of landmines and other explosives. At least 413 people have lost their lives because of landmines since 2022. The heavy mining has already severely undermined Ukraine’s agriculture, which has lost arable land the size of Belgium as a result. It will inevitably pose significant obstacles to the extraction of raw material resources of any kind.

Anti-migrant Reform UK makes major gains in elections in England

Robert Stevens

The far-right Reform UK made major gains in the Thursday’s elections in Britain at the expense of both the ruling Labour Party and opposition Conservatives.

Reform, led by Nigel Farage, won the majority of seats in local elections in England and won the parliamentary by-election for the Runcorn and Helsby constituency in northwest England—formerly considered one of the safest Labour seats.

Nigel Farage addressing Reform UK rally during the General Election campaign at Trago Mills, Devon, June 2024 [Photo by Owain.davies - Own work / CC BY-SA 4.0]

The seat became vacant when Labour MP Mike Amesbury stood down after being convicted of assaulting a man who he punched repeatedly in the street.

Elections were contested across 24 local authorities and 1,641 council seats; and for seats on 14 county councils and eight unitary authorities in England. Six mayoral elections were held, including inaugural mayor contests in Greater Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire.

Reform UK won Runcorn and Helsby by just six votes (12,645 to 12,639) but slashed Labour’s majority of almost 14,700 at the general election held in July last year. The narrowest margin of victory in a by-election since the war was therefore achieved due to a 17 percent swing to Reform on a turnout of 46 percent. Reform also picked up votes from the Conservatives to win the Runcorn seat—with the Tories share of the vote falling by nearly 9 percent from the 2024 general election.

Local elections, held on a rotating basis, were mainly in Conservative held seats that were last contested in 2021, when the Tories were in power under Boris Johnson. Around 1,000 of the seats (957) in the local election were being defended by the Tories, with just 297 being defended by Labour and 224 by the Liberal Democrats.

Reform won most seats taking an average of around 10 percent above other parties. With 20 of 23 councils declaring results by Friday evening, Reform had taken eight, winning 635 seats. The Tories lost 15 councils, taking just 300 seats—a fall of 633. Labour lost one council as it took just 88 seats—a fall of 180. The Liberal Democrats won three councils.

Reform won the mayoralties in Greater Lincolnshire and Hull & East Yorkshire. The party’s Tory defector candidate Andrea Jenkyns, with a huge majority of nearly 40,000 votes, was elected Greater Lincolnshire mayor, and Reform also took Lincolnshire council wiping out a 38 seat Tory majority. Giving vent to Reform’s anti-immigrant agenda, Jenkyns said of asylum seekers in her victory speech, “I say no to putting people in hotels… Tents are good enough for France, they should be good enough for here in Britain.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Reform UK mayoral candidate Andrea Jenkyns look towards the media during their election campaign in Scunthorpe, England, April 29, 2025 [AP Photo/Darren Staples]

Reform also took Kent, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire councils.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party was partially shielded by contesting fewer seats but still proved itself to be massively unpopular after having enforced cuts to pensioners income and £5 billion in welfare cuts with Starmer’s own ratings falling to a record low. Such is the hatred for Starmer that party strategists advised him not to visit Runcorn to campaign for Labour’s candidate.

As well as losing Runcorn, Labour suffered huge losses on Durham Council to Farage. Labour had run the northeast council for almost a century until 2021. With Durham under no overall control, Reform managed to capture the 50 seats needed to take the council (taking 65 in total), with Labour winning just four. An ecstatic Daily Mail described Durham, located in a former coal mining region, as the “spiritual home of the labour movement”.

Reform more than consolidated the gains it made in last July’s General Election in which Farage’s party won over 4 million votes and 14 percent of the poll. Due to Britain’s undemocratic first past the post system, this translated into just five MPs in a 650 seat Parliament. Just prior to the local elections, however, it was polling as the first party nationally on around 26 points, ahead of Labour on 24 and the Tories on 21.

Based on the local election results, Sky News estimated that Reform’s national share of the vote in a general election would reach 32 percent, well ahead of Labour on 19 percent and the Tories on 18 percent.

While the official policy of Kemi Badenoch’s Tories and the Reform leadership is that they will not form a coalition at a national level, with Farage deriding the Tories as a “waste of space”, the parliamentary arithmetic now points to a Reform UK/Tory coalition and the wipeout of the Starmer government at the next election.

Former Tory cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg told the World at One on Friday, “In terms of policy, there’s very little difference between the Conservative party and Reform. It’s basically a matter of personality… I think we need to work together. … conservatism is having a fantastic 24 hours.”

Reform originates in Farage’s earlier UK Independence Party and the Brexit Party (which became Reform UK in 2021). It has only been able to make a breakthrough due to the abandonment of any defence of the working class by Labour and the trade unions.

This has created fertile ground for Farage to win a hearing—including among a layer of mainly older workers in former industrial heartlands—based on an appeal to social despair being channeled into scapegoating migrants for the decimation of housing, education and the National Health Service.

Labour and the Tories share much of the anti-immigration platform of Reform, with Labour boasting of its “successes” keeping out migrants and even using Reform’s turquoise branding. But Farage’s party continually insists that only it is serious about slashing migration. He called in the election campaign for a new Department of Deportations to be created. His agenda is constantly promoted by a filthy tabloid media, keeping a daily tally of how many “illegal” migrants get to the UK on small boats and denouncing Labour’s policies, as did the Express this week, as “migration madness”.

Reform UK are openly aping the fascist US President Donald Trump, who Farage counts as a friend having spoken at Trump rallies and attending his inauguration in January. One of Reform’s slogans is “Make Britain Great Again”. On Thursday, Farage announced that he would end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies in any council Reform won, and reiterated his call for a Trump/Elon Musk-style Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in Britain.

Nigel Farage, the then leader of the Brexit Party speaking at a Donald Trump campaign rally at Phoenix Goodyear Airport in Goodyear, Arizona, October 2020 [Photo by Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0]

But not only does Labour fuel anti-migrant sentiment. Its pro-business agenda and refusal to put forward anything whatsoever to ameliorate massive social hardship, with the cost of living at unbearable levels, allows Reform to portray migration as the root of all evil.

Jeremy Corbyn’s betrayal of the mass movement that backed him as Labour leader—centred on demands to end austerity and war and to kick out Labour’s Blairites—put Starmer, a right-wing man of the state, at the party’s head—paving the way for his government’s savage welfare cuts, warmongering and anti-migrant policies.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) campaigned in the local elections via their Stand Up to Racism campaign, declaring that it was “so important” that they “labelled Reform UK a racist party and campaigned against the myths about immigration.” 

But while the SWP raised the “need for a left alternative at the ballot box that could mobilise breaking with Labour to the left,” those they say should lead this project—Corbyn and the trade union leaders—have no intention of leading any movement against Starmer. Indeed, the pseudo-left’s recent Summit of Resistance, with Corbyn the main draw, specifically ruled out the formation of any political party to challenge Labour “from the left”.

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at the Summit of Resistance

Reform UK have filled the political vacuum this creates. Its rise belatedly mirrors already far advanced developments in major European countries, as evidenced by the rise of the fascist Alternative For Germany and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France.