Category World News

Liberians are expressing confusion and anger after United States President Donald Trump praised the English skills of their country’s President Joseph Boakai.

“Such good English,” Trump said to Boakai at the White House on Wednesday, with visible surprise. “Such beautiful English.”

English has been the West African nation’s official language since the 1800s. But Trump did not stop there.

“Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?” he continued, as Boakai murmured a response. “Where were you educated? Where? In Liberia?”

The exchange took place during a meeting in the White House between Trump and five West African leaders, amid a pivot from aid to trade in US foreign policy.

Liberia has had deep ties with Washington for centuries, stemming from the drive to relocate freed slaves from the US.

Foday Massaquio, chairman of the opposition Congress for Democratic Change-Council of Patriots, said that while the remarks were typical of Trump’s engagement with foreign leaders, what some saw as a condescending tone was amplified by the fact that the leaders were African.

“As a matter of fact, it also proves that the West is not taking us seriously as Africans,” he said. “President Trump was condescending; he was very disrespectful to the African leader.”

Kula Fofana, spokesperson for Boakai’s office, told the Associated Press news agency: “I believe that as journalists, it is important to focus on the substantive discussions at the summit.”

“We find it a good thing that President Trump is commending our president for his way of speaking and the clarity he provided during the meeting,” she added. “However, we look forward to achieving the substantive request specifically engaging in a stronger bilateral relationship with the United States.”

Sara Beysolow Nyanti, Liberia’s foreign minister, said on X that “President Trump’s comment on Boakai’s ‘beautiful English’ simply acknowledged Liberia’s familiar American-rooted accent and no offence was taken”.

“Our linguistic heritage is deeply American‑influenced, & this was simply recognised by Donald Trump. We remain committed to strengthening Liberia‑US ties, built on mutual respect, shared values, and meaningful partnership,” the minister said.

Close relationship in the past

But for others, Trump’s comments added to the sense of betrayal that became palpable in Liberia in recent months.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration dissolved the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and said it was no longer following what it called “a charity-based foreign aid model”.

That decision sent shock waves across Liberia, where US support made up almost 2.6 percent of the gross national income, the highest percentage anywhere in the world, according to the Center for Global Development.

Liberians thought they would be spared from Trump’s cuts because of the countries’ close relationship. Their political system is modelled on that of the US, along with its flag. Liberians often refer to the US as their “big brother”.

Liberia was one of the first countries to receive USAID support, starting in 1961. Its street signs, taxis and school buses resemble those in New York.

“Liberia is a longstanding friend of the USA, therefore Trump should have understood that we speak English as an official language,” said Moses Dennis, 37, a businessman from Monrovia. He added that Boakai did not go to Washington for “an English-speaking competition”.

‘Condescending and ridiculing’

Dennis’s views were echoed by Siokin Civicus Barsi-Giah, a close associate of Liberia’s former President George Weah.

“Liberia is an English-speaking country,” he said. “Former slaves and slave owners decided to organise themselves to let go of many people who were in slavery in the United States of America, and they landed on these shores now called the Republic of Liberia.”

For him, the exchange was “condescending and ridiculing”.

“Joseph Boakai was not praised. He was mocked by the greatest president in the world, who is leading the greatest country in the world,” he said.

Some, however, said that given Trump’s style, Wednesday’s remarks were meant as praise.

“To some, the comment may carry a whiff of condescension, echoing a longstanding Western tendency to express surprise when African leaders display intellectual fluency,” said Abraham Julian Wennah, director of research at the African Methodist Episcopal University. “In postcolonial contexts, language has long been weaponised to question legitimacy and competence.”

The UN says that despite being permitted to deliver the first fuel shipment to Gaza in 130 days, it was not enough to cover even a single day’s needs, leaving hospitals and other critical facilities on the brink of shutdown.

The United Kingdom has outlawed Palestine Action – an organisation that disrupts the arms industry in the UK with direct action in the form of strikes and protests – grouping it with ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Supporters of the group now risk up to 14 years in prison, and arrests of protesters opposed to the listing have already begun.

A federal judge in New Hampshire has blocked United States President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship as part of a class-action lawsuit.

Thursday’s ruling is the first to test the limits of a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. It is expected to face an immediate appeal from the Trump administration.

Birthright citizenship is a right protected under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That amendment establishes that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

For decades, that amendment has been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parentage.

But Trump has argued that undocumented parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and therefore their US-born children cannot be considered citizens.

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of a newborn’s parents — but critics have warned that decision could render babies stateless.

That concern has prompted a slew of legal challenges, including the one that came before US District Judge Joseph Laplante on Thursday.

In his federal courtroom in Concord, New Hampshire, Laplante announced that a class-action lawsuit representing all children affected by Trump’s order could proceed.

Then he proceeded to award a preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, suspending Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship. He added that his decision was “not a close call”.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

Laplante, however, did place a stay on his injunction, allowing the Trump administration seven days to appeal it.

What are the origins of this case?

Thursday’s case is one of several seeking to overturn Trump’s executive order.

It was brought on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their children born during Trump’s second term. But they filed their lawsuit as a class action, meaning it represents an entire group — or “class” — of people.

In court filings made on Tuesday, the plaintiffs argued they needed immediate relief from Trump’s executive order, which could deprive the children of Social Security numbers and access to other government services.

“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” the plaintiffs wrote in their lawsuit.

The individual parents and children are not identified by name in the lawsuit. But they did speak to the uncertainty they faced as a result of the executive order.

The pregnant woman, for example, explained that she is seeking asylum in the US after fleeing gangs in her home country of Honduras. Her child is expected to be born in October.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote in the court filings. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff is a father from Brazil who has lived in Florida for five years. He and his wife are in the process of applying for permanent residency, and they welcomed their first child in March.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote, pointing out that his wife’s father is a US citizen.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages undocumented immigration to the US, a trend it has compared to an “invasion”.

Furthermore, it asserts that the modern understanding of birthright citizenship is based on a misinterpretation of the law.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in response to the New Hampshire case.

How has the Supreme Court affected these cases?

The Trump administration had previously faced setbacks in court, with three federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

But those injunctions were overturned on June 27, in a Supreme Court ruling with sweeping implications.

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled that the lower court judges had exceeded their authority by issuing “universal injunctions”.

It suggested federal court injunctions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the case at hand.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.

There was an exception, however: class-action lawsuits.

By definition, those suits could seek protection for a whole class of people. But class-action complaints must follow specific rules, clearly defining the class in question and ensuring no members of that group would be disadvantaged by their inclusion in the lawsuit.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision risked prompting a tsunami of class-action lawsuits in the federal court system.

“District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23,” Alito wrote, referencing the procedures that define what constitutes a class action.

“Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief’.”

The Supreme Court gave a 30-day window for plaintiffs to adjust their lawsuits in the wake of its decision. That window is set to expire on July 27, allowing Trump’s executive order to take effect.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of birthright citizenship itself and is expected to do so in its next term, which begins in October.

Meanwhile, lower courts are weighing how to address the Supreme Court’s decision.

A group of states that brought a case challenging Trump’s executive order, for instance, has asked that a Massachusetts federal court consider whether an injunction they were awarded would still apply under the Supreme Court’s ruling. A hearing is set for July 18.