Category World News

You frequently hear the phrase “Mamdani, Mamdani, Mamdani” in the Morrisania neighborhood of New York City.

Morrisania, one of many areas where race and the needs of the working class converge in anticipation of New York’s November 4 mayoral election, is home to a rapidly expanding West African community with many new-immigrant Muslims.

Many people in this area rely on Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old candidate, to win.

After all, Mamdani’s victory over former governor Andrew Cuomo would set off a string of landmark victories for New York City: it had the first Muslim mayor, had the first African-born mayor, and had the first South Asian mayor to lead the largest city in the country.

The diversity of Muslim communities interwoven into the fabric of the city has sparked hope and grim reminders of ingrained Islamophobia and xenophobia.

But Aicha Donza, a shop owner in Morrisania, the Bronx, where annual incomes are half the city’s average, is supported by the avowed Democratic Socialist’s message of affordability: ambitious pledges for free buses, rent freezes on some buildings, and universal childcare, all of which are funded in part by raising taxes on the wealthy.

In addition to the items in her store, Donza compared the items to be imported from Ghana, Liberian palm oil from where she was born, and traditional Islamic clothing from Turkiye, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

People visit the store every day because the rent is so high, she said, and they complain that the prices are too high. If he can manage free buses, that would make a big difference.

Essa Tunkala, 60, a resident of the nearby Islamic Cultural Center of the Bronx, speculated about what the election might mean for the neighborhood, a melting pot of both West African diaspora workers and parking attendants.

Residents of Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Togo, and Mali were listed among the many, with “It almost seems like you’re in West Africa,” Tunkala grinned.

How will Mamdani’s vision be realized, he asked, posing a number of serious questions that still hang over his run. Will he be able to form the kind of coalition with state officials and lawmakers that the mayoral position has the resources to fulfill his marquee pledges?

Tunkala, who sells sporting goods from a table on the street, said, “But we need fresh ideas to create opportunities.” I support him because we are a new generation with fresh ideas for development.

The 55-year-old Sierra Leonean cab driver, Ahmed Jejote, echoed the sentiment.

He made reference to the current city mayor, who was plagued by corruption and who announced his exit from the race in September. “We’ve experienced Eric Adams,” he said. “We’ve seen Cuomo”.

He stated, “Mamdani is just beginning to move forward.” For me, religion is not really what matters.

Mariam Saleh, 46, sat over steaming trays of food at Kumasi Restaurant: banku, a fermented blend of maize and cassava, suya, a spiced meat skewer, and kwenkwen, a type of jollof rice.

Concerning Mamdani’s run’s historical significance, she was less circumspect.

The 46-year-old, who is a native of Ghana, told Al Jazeera, “It is a huge step forward for us that he is Muslim.”

According to Joe Stepansky of Al Jazeera, 34-year-old Zohran Mamdani is running for mayor of New York City. If elected, he will set off a number of firsts.

Following the September assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, United States President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have shaped their political agenda by blaming the left for political violence.

“Political violence, it’s just a statistical fact that it’s a bigger problem on the left,” Vance said while guest-hosting The Charlie Kirk Show podcast on October 15 in the aftermath of Kirk’s killing. About a minute later, he added, “Right now that violent impulse is a bigger problem on the left than the right.”

A Vance spokesperson did not answer our questions. When referring to left-wing violence, a White House spokesperson recently pointed to a September 28 Axios article about a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a nonprofit policy research organisation.

Democrats, calling your political opponents Nazis has consequences.

Study: Left-wing terrorism climbs to 30-year highhttps://t.co/30NvIj9nzC

The study found that “2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right”. The study also showed that for the 30 years before 2025, right-wing attacks had outpaced left-wing violence.

“The rise in left-wing attacks merits increased attention, but the fall in right-wing attacks is probably temporary, and it too requires a government response,” the authors wrote in the study.

Vance’s statement oversimplified political violence and drew from part of one study of a six-month period. The federal government has no single, official definition of “political violence”, and ascribing ideologies such as the left wing and the right wing is sometimes complicated. There is no agreed upon number of left- or right-wing politically violent attacks.

Research before 2025 largely points to higher levels of right-wing violence over longer periods of time.

Trump has used the administration’s statements about rising left-wing violence to label antifa as a domestic “terrorist threat”, and administration officials also said they will investigate what they call left-wing groups that fund violence.

Although political violence is a small subset of violent crime in the US, it “has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarisation”, sociology professors at the University of Dayton, Arthur Jipson and Paul J Becker, wrote in September after Kirk’s assassination.

In an email interview with PolitiFact, Becker said the report in question “indicates there MAY be a shift occurring from the Right being more violent but 5 vs 1 incidents in 6 months isn’t enough to completely erase years of data and reports from multiple sources showing the opposite or to dictate new policies”.

Study examined three decades of political violence

The CSIS, a national security and defence think tank, published a September report examining 750 “terrorist” attacks and plots in the US between 1994 and July 4, 2025.

The report defined “terrorism” as the use or threat of violence “with the intent to achieve political goals by creating a broad psychological impact”.

The authors wrote that it is difficult to pinpoint some perpetrators’ ideologies, which in some cases are more of what former FBI Director Christopher Wray called a “salad bar of ideologies”. For example, Thomas Crooks, who allegedly attempted to assassinate Trump in 2024, searched the internet more than 60 times for Trump and then-President Joe Biden in the month before the attack.

The full CSIS report gave a more complete picture of politically motivated violence:

• Left-wing violence has risen from low levels since 2016. “It has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers.”
• Right-wing attacks sharply declined in 2025, perhaps because right-wing extremist grievances such as opposition to abortion, hostility to immigration and suspicion of government agencies are “embraced by President Trump and his administration”. The report quotes Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader pardoned by Trump, who said, “Honestly, what do we have to complain about these days?”
• Left-wing attacks have been less deadly than right-wing attacks. In the past decade, left-wing attacks have killed 13 people, compared with 112 by right-wing attackers. The report cited several reasons, including that left-wing attackers often choose targets that are protected, such as government or law enforcement facilities, and target specific individuals.
• The number of incidents by the left is small. A graphic in the report showing the rise in left-wing attacks in 2025 as of July 4 is visually striking. It is based on a small number of incidents: four attacks and one disrupted plot.

Studies have not uniformly agreed on some attackers’ ideological classifications. The libertarian Cato Institute categorised the person charged in the shooting deaths of two Israeli embassy staffers in May 2025 as “left-wing”, while the CSIS study described the motivation as “ethnonationalist”. Ethnonationalism is a political ideology based on heritage, such as ethnic identity, which can create clashes with other groups. The Cato study counted only deaths, while the CSIS analysis was not limited to deaths.

“While Vance’s statement has a factual anchor for that limited timespan, it selectively emphasises one short-term slice rather than the broader trend,” Jipson, of the University of Dayton, told PolitiFact. “In that sense, it can be misleading: It may give the impression that left-wing violence is generally now more dangerous or prevalent, which is not borne out by the longer view of the data.”

The Cato analysis, published after Kirk’s death, said 3,597 people were killed in politically motivated US “terrorist” attacks from January 1, 1975, through September 10, 2025.

Cato found right-wing attacks were more common than left-wing violence. This research has been highlighted by some House Democrats.

Wrong again, JD. The data is clear: for decades, right-wing extremism has been the greater threat.https://t.co/TkxBZ08Xjg https://t.co/PCWv4EuP4H

Cato wrote that during that period, “terrorists” inspired by what it called “Islamist ideology” were responsible for 87 percent of people killed in attacks on US soil, while right-wing attackers accounted for 11 percent and left-wing “terrorists” accounted for about 2 percent. Excluding the September 11, 2001 attacks showed right-wing attackers were responsible for a majority of deaths. Measuring homicides since 2020 also showed a larger number by the right than the left.

Our ruling

Vance said, “Political violence, it’s just a statistical fact that it’s a bigger problem on the left.”

He did not point to a source, but a White House spokesperson separately cited an article about a study that examined political violence from 1994 to July 4, 2025. It found that, in the first six months of 2025, left-wing attacks outnumbered those by the right. It is based on a small number of incidents: four attacks and one disrupted plot.

The study also showed that for 30 years before 2025, right-wing attacks had outpaced left-wing attacks.

The study detailed that the left wing “remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers”. Research before 2025 largely points to higher levels of right-wing violence over longer periods of time.

The statement contains an element of truth because left-wing violence rose in the first six months of 2025. However, it ignores that right-wing violence was higher for a much longer period of time.

We rate this statement Mostly False.

A witness captured the horrific accident that occurred when a Russian drone struck an apartment complex in Sumy, Ukraine. On Tuesday, Russia launched a string of deadly drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.

President Donald Trump’s critics focused on a sizable financial aid package for Argentina as Argentinian soybean farmers compete with American soybean producers for market share.

On September 24, American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland declared, “The frustration is overwhelming.”

In an X-post, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa summed up the concerns: “Why would the USA help bail out Argentina while they take the biggest market for American soybean producers? “?

Why would the US aid in Argentina’s largest market for American soybean producers while they bail them out? Farmers should be top of mind when negotiating with US government representatives because we should use leverage at every turn to help the farm economy.

Despite concerns from US soybean producers, a reporter asked Trump on October 19 why he had chosen to support Argentina.

Trump responded, “Argentina is fighting for its life.” You have no knowledge of it, young lady. They lack any funds. They are without anything.

US soybean producers were hurt by a different Trump policy, including his trade war with China, despite the fact that US aid to Argentina did not directly benefit them. However, the White House faces optics issues as a result of the aid’s timing and the soya bean export issues.

Trump is also receiving criticism from Democrats for the financial aid package’s size in relation to the cost of ending subsidies, which lower the cost of Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. Among those who have made this argument are Democratic Senators from Minnesota and California, Adam Schiff, respectively.

What’s happening can be explained here.

What does the phrase “bailout” in Argentina mean?

The key to this narrative is Javier Milei, Argentine president of the far-right, who has a relationship with Trump.

Milei, who was formally enthroned in December 2023, won the presidency on the grounds that it would cut back on government spending and support for other libertarian ideas, a political ideology that emphasizes individual liberty and supports a limited government.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, Milei, who Trump has described as his “favorite president,” presented a chainsaw to Elon Musk as a sign of his aggressive spending cuts.

Milei has encountered difficulties despite experiencing high inflation in her home. The peso, or peso, is a weak currency in Argentina, making it more expensive to purchase goods abroad. This has hampered Milei’s political prospects and worsened the economic standing of the Argentinians.

The Trump administration provided a $ 20 billion rescue package, known as a currency swap facility, to help stabilize the peso ahead of crucial legislative elections in Argentina. Two central banks have reached an agreement to exchange debt under certain conditions. On October 20, the agreement was formally ratified.

The $20 billion in assistance was viewed as financial support for a needy ally, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. If Miliei loses the legislative elections, he won’t be able to carry out his alleged “chainsaw economics,” which saw drastic reductions in social and welfare spending.

Bessent stated to reporters on October 14: “It’s hope for the future.” “I believe Argentina can become great again with the bridge the US is constructing with its strong policies,” he said.

Critics speculate that this could result in the US risking monetary losses by purchasing Argentinian bonds at above-market rates.

According to Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Buenos Aires’ path back to economic stability requires more than a balanced budget.”

“The lack of foreign exchange has historically affected the country’s economy.” Its export market is sparse and heavily regulated. Its foreign exchange reserves are modest and its external debts are moderate.

Has US support for Argentina recently increased by twofold?

Ruben Gallego, a senator from the US, stated in an X-post on October 15 that “Trump is DOUBLING his bailout for Argentina.” Your health insurance premiums are about to double, in addition.

Trump is doubling down on Argentina’s bailout. Your health insurance costs are about to double.

To assist Trump’s top friends, giving $40 billion. lower costs for American families by $0. https://t.co/Q6rLeWV6gz

Officials are considering doubling Argentina’s assistance, but it hasn’t yet been done.

Bessent stated on October 15 that he was looking for ways to increase the US’s “adjacent” to the initial $20 billion by adding another $20 billion to its assistance to Argentina. He claimed that the private sector could contribute the additional $ 20 billion.

Separately, at least one group of Americans’ health premiums could double as a result of receiving more favorable subsidies for health insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

According to research from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare think tank, enrollees will have to pay 114 percent more out of pocket on average for their marketplace coverage if Congress and Trump don’t extend some subsidies before they expire at the end of the year.

How is US support for Argentine soybean farmers being impacted?

From October through March, China imports a lot of soya beans, making it typically the largest country in the United States. However, US farmers have long expressed concern about increased competition from South America, and Chad Hart, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, said Trump’s high-tariff trade policy “amplifies the issues.”

China chose to source US soya beans from Argentina and Brazil instead of US ones after Trump earlier this year imposed tariffs on China.

According to Todd Hubbs, an assistant professor of crop marketing at Oklahoma State University, “the South American soybean crop was good this year and is expected to grow next year.” According to Hart, the soybean crops from Argentina and Brazil are “large enough to meet Chinese needs in the near future.”

To help offset the peso’s weakness and increase the flow of foreign currency into Argentina, Milei temporarily lifted export tariffs on many agricultural goods. According to Hubbs, China almost immediately purchased 7 million tonnes of soya beans as a result of that additional incentive.

When Trump offered assistance to Argentina, the US and China were already at odds with each other, so it couldn’t have happened at a worse time for US soybean producers. They thought Argentina’s aid sounded a favor for a rival nation that was acquiring their business.

Trump promised US aid to farmers who had been harmed by his tariff policies, but the government shutdown has stalled that aid.

How much of the US healthcare subsidies are provided to Argentina in comparison?

Senator Brian Schatz compared the cost of the government shutdown’s ongoing expansion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) enhanced subsidies to the magnitude of the Argentina package.

The ACA tax credits could be paid for a year, Schatz wrote on X on October 14.

Schatz is in the right place when comparing the initial $ 20 billion in assistance to Argentina to the first tranche rather than the second tranche. The nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, predicted that the credit balance would amount to $ 24.6% for the fiscal year 2026.

Although the two expenses share similar amounts, it should be noted that the funds used to support Argentina couldn’t be used to pay for healthcare credits. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, a pool of funds managed by the US Treasury, is dedicated to US intervention in foreign exchange markets.