A majority of Muslim-Americans voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in this week’s election, while just 21 percent supported Republican Donald Trump and 20 percent voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, according to newly released data.
The survey, conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and released on Friday, polled 1,575 verified Muslim-American voters nationwide.
CAIR also released exit polling results from Michigan and Maryland voters. Out of the 502 Muslim-Americans surveyed in Michigan, 59% supported Dr. Stein, 22% voted for Trump, and 14% pulled the lever for Harris. Stein received 81% of the vote from Muslim-Americans in Maryland with Harris earning 12% and Trump around 4%.
The results stand in stark contrast to results from previous cycles. CAIR found that in 2020 President Biden had support from 69% of those surveyed, with Trump earning 17%, and other candidates 3%. Additionally, a study released in October of 2016 found that 72% of Muslim-American voters supported Hillary Clinton, while 4% voted for Trump, and 5% chose other candidates.
CAIR says the dramatic shift away from the Democratic Party candidate can be explained in large part by President Biden’s Middle East policy. ”Our final exit poll of American Muslim voters confirms that opposition to the Biden administration’s support for the war on Gaza played a crucial role,” CAIR National Government Affairs Director Robert S. McCaw said, “leading to a sharp drop in support for Vice President Harris compared to the support President Biden received from Muslim voters in 2020, and a sharp rise in support for third party candidate Jill Stein. President-Elect Trump also managed to make in-roads with Muslim voters.”
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: Green Party presidential nominee attends a rally in Dearborn, Michigan (REUTERS)
As the Ukraine War passed its 1,000-day mark this week, the departing Biden administration made a significant policy shift by lifting restrictions on key weapons systems for the Ukrainians — drawing a wave of fury, warnings and a retaliatory ballistic missile strike from Moscow.
On Thursday, Russia launched what the Ukrainian air force thought to be a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, which if true, would be the first time such weapons were used and mark a major escalatory point in the war.
In a televised address on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Moscow launched a new, hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile. He added that the long-range strikes from Ukraine this week have given the regional conflict the elements of a global one, and that Russia could use the missiles against countries that have allowed Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia.
U.S. officials have confirmed that the new Russian missile, called the "Oreshnik," is based on the design of Russia’s longer-range RS-26 Rubezh intermediate ballistic missile (IRBM). It can carry multiple nuclear warheads but was armed with conventional weapons in the Thursday attack.
The new missile was experimental and Russia likely possessed only a handful of them, officials said.
The strike was seen largely as a response to the Biden administration’s authorization for the Ukrainian military to use the American-made ATACMS missile system to strike deeper into Russian territory. On Tuesday Ukraine reportedly used the system to fire six missiles into Russia’s western Bryansk region, which Moscow said it successfully defended.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led a months-long effort for NATO authorization to strike deeper into Russia. On Tuesday, according to CNN, he said his military now has the U.S. ATACMS system and its own long-range capabilities, and that “we will use all of this.” The Ukrainian military also struck Russian targets with UK-made long-range Storm Shadow missiles on Wednesday. Some Russian officials warned that the strikes could lead to a “third world war.”
Moscow’s position for months has been that an attack on Russian territory with British, French or U.S.-made missiles would constitute direct warfare against those countries. Russian ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin doubled down on this threat after Ukraine fired UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia on Wednesday.
"Britain and the UK are now directly involved in this war, because this firing cannot happen without NATO staff, British staff as well," Kelin said.
Earlier this week, as an apparent warning to the West, Putin signed an update to Russian nuclear policy that lowers the threshold for a retaliatory strike.
The revised document says Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or WMD strike against Russia or its allied nations, or in response to aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons threatening their sovereignty or territorial integrity.
The doctrine also declares that an attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power is considered a joint attack, and that an attack from one member of NATO would be considered an attack from all members.
The White House said the policy came at no surprise, and that it will not respond with any alteration of its own nuclear policies.
Other Ukraine News This Week:
The U.S. gave Ukraine further slack later on Tuesday, with The Washington Post reporting that Biden approved the provision of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine — undoing his own policy from 2022.
According to CNN, the Americans expect Ukraine to use these mines to defend their own territory, not as an offensive tactic in Russia. Russian forces, on the other hand, have been using similar devices on the front lines since their invasion began in 2022.
Still, Biden’s move could prove controversial, the Post said, citing their indiscriminate nature and a 160-member international treaty banning their use based on an elevated risk to civilians.
The Biden administration’s policy shifts came after a violent weekend of Russian attacks: according to CBS, Moscow launched a drone and missile assault on Ukraine on Sunday, targeting energy infrastructure ahead of the winter and killing scores of civilians.
Biden is just under two months away from exiting office, with the incoming Trump administration having made clear in recent months its intentions to try to end the war.
In Monday’s press briefing, State Department Matthew Miller repudiated the idea of presidents working together across terms when asked about how typical it might be for a lame-duck president to make significant foreign policy decisions like enabling the long-range missiles.
“...the President was elected to a four-year term and the American people expect him to govern for a four-year term and make the decisions that he believes are appropriate,” Miller said. “There is no one who thinks that for the first two months of the next term they’re supposed to continue to carry out the decisions made by this President.”
Miller condemned Russia’s rhetorical responses to the long-range missile attack in Tuesday’s press briefing.
“Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, [Russia] has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior,” Miller said. “Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia’s irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia’s security.”
“This policy in itself just highlights Russia’s hypocrisy,” he added. “Russia is suggesting here that they would use or could use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant during a press conference in the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv , Israel , 28 October 2023. ABIR SULTAN POOL/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
On Thursday the International Court of Justice (ICC) issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a member of Hamas leadership.
The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were for charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court unanimously agreed that the prime minister and former defense minister “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024,” the court detailed in its allegations.
The ICC also charged Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri for mass killings during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, including rape and hostage taking.
A plan suggested by former IDF general, Giora Eiland, called for the explicit emptying out of northern Gaza and the labeling of all remaining civilians as military targets, as well as the purposeful blockage of humanitarian aid. Netanyahu reportedly did not agree to the plan, but evidence points to aspects of the plan being enacted.
“The ICC decision shows once more how out of sync Biden's Gaza policy is with both American and international law,” says the Quincy Institute’s Executive Vice President Trita Parsi. “Biden has sacrificed America's international standing to arm and protect leaders who the international courts have deemed to be war criminals.”
The ICC’s move comes just one day after unprecedented votes in the U.S. Senate to end the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel. The measures ultimately failed, with the White House telling senators that they would be supporting Iran and Hamas should they vote to curb weapons sales to Israel.
Because of the ICC warrants, Netanyahu or Gallant could be arrested upon entering a nation that has recognized the ICC and its rulings. However, Israel is among dozens of other countries, including the United States, that do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
After warrants were requested in October, Israel reacted by challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC in the matter, but that challenge has been rejected. “Israel's reaction — that no other democracy has been treated this way by the ICC — is indicative of how perverted certain approaches to international law have become,” said Parsi. “Israel essentially argues that because it defines itself as a democracy, it should be above the law. That war-crimes, apartheid, and genocide are ok as long as the perpetrator identifies as democratic. This approach — creating different sets of laws and standards for different countries — is a recipe for global instability and a threat to American security.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks at former U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign event, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 29, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
While the United States has its hands full with conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, Latin America may become a region of greater focus for the incoming Trump administration. The region, sometimes derided by policymakers as the “United States’ backyard,” was hardly brought up directly by Donald Trump, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris on the campaign trail. But issues that were at the center of the election, such as immigration, tariffs and economic policy, are likely to shape how P resident-elect Trump engages with leaders of the Americas, especially newly elected president Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico.
If Trump’s first cabinet picks are any indication of his policy toward Latin America, figures like Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Florida Rep. Michael Waltz, who have been nominated as secretary of state and national security adviser, respectively, could be a sign of a harsher posture, especially as U.S. competition with China plays out in the region .
A more aggressive posture?
Dr. Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, an expert in international relations at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires, Argentina, argues that Trump’s new term may bring a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, a 201-year-old policy that served as the basis for some of Washington’s more aggressive interventions in Latin America from the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars in the 19th century to through the end of the Cold War. Tokatlian told Responsible Statecraft that he sees figures like Rubio using China’s advances in Latin America to revive the policy.
“There are signals, at least, …that this may be a rehearsal of the Monroe Doctrine at least in terms of positioning of the United States. Marco Rubio… has a very strong anti-Cuban, anti-Nicaraguan, anti-Venezuelan, but also anti-Petro and anti-Lula position,” he said in reference to the current presidents of Colombia and Brazil. “This all together in the context of what he sees as a growing challenge of a malign foreign power, … China.”
Rubio has been a champion of some of Washington’s most aggressive policies in Latin America. He has argued in defense of the 62-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba , introduced a bill to prohibit Cuba’s removal from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism List, and promoted Trump’s decision to impose “maximum pressure” sanctions against Venezuela and as part of a larger effort to achieve regime change there . He has also argued at length that China poses a “rising threat” in Latin America on the ideological, economic, and military fronts,
While it cannot be denied that China is advancing in the region — as the recent construction of a Chinese megaport in Peru demonstrates — the U.S. military footprint dwarfs any purported threat that China’s military presence may pose. As for China’s economic advances, Tokatlian argues that years of the United States offering little to nothing of value to Latin American countries have driven them to look more to trade with China.
“For years the United States did nothing, and so those countries decided to go to the best of their possibilities,” Tokatlian said. This point was demonstrated at the recent G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro when China unveiled the $1.3 billion megaport in a remote fishing town just 37 miles outside of Lima. In contrast, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken boasted that the U.S. is “building a new passenger train line” in Lima. In reality, all the U.S. did was transfer a fleet of retired diesel trains.
Waltz shares much of Rubio’s focus on Latin America and has also promoted aggressive positions in the past. In 2021, he co-wrote a letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations calling on his colleagues to reject Biden administration nominees who “refuse to assure tough stances on Cuba & Venezuela regimes.” Waltz has also argued that China’s advances in Latin America pose a military threat to the United States.
A focus on Mexico
Cuba, Venezuela and China may be the biggest targets of hawkish policies in Latin America, but perhaps the bellwether for what Trump’s policies will look like is Mexico where he will negotiate with leftwing President Claudia Sheinbaum. Last year the country replaced China as Washington’s biggest trading partner, making the U.S.-Mexico relationship a priority. The country, in particular its role in U.S. immigration policy, has been a consistent focus of Trump’s political career and was a focal point of his presidential campaign .
During Trump’s last term, then-Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador agreed, under threat of tariffs, to enforce U.S. border policies to greatly restrict migration from Central America. U.S.-Mexico relations will also be shaped by Trump, with the upcoming renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Aileen Teague, a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute who teaches the history of U.S.-Mexico and Latin America relations at Texas A&M University , anticipates that Trump’s negotiations with Mexico may cause friction in the relationship.
“Issues surrounding security, migration, and the economy are likely to be contentious as Trump, I believe, is unlikely to back away from many of his campaign promises,” she told RS in an email exchange.
“ Trump will increase pressure on Mexico to reduce migration and the drug trade, using the threat of tariffs and the looming revision of the USMCA (and potential consequences on the Mexican economy) to force Mexican action. This is significant,” she stressed. “ With Trump's campaign pledges to impose steep tariffs on Mexican goods, the value of the peso fell on election night (though has since recovered), indicating that investors are anticipating what Trump’s actions will look like and how that will affect economic relations.”
Teague added that Sheinbaum might bring her own demands into negotiations that could cause tension with Trump.
“She could take a more principled stance on some of these issues like crime or migration with a more nationalistic posture, which Trump might not respond well to,” Teague added. “She has suggested Mexico will not bow to U.S. demands over immigration issues.”
On Mexico, Trump’s cabinet picks again signal that the administration may engage aggressively. Waltz, for example, ignitedan interventionist frenzy in the Republican Party last year when lawmakers and presidential primary candidates called for U.S. military action in Mexico. He co-authored legislation for the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Mexican Cartels.
While calls for military intervention in Mexico have largely died down, Waltz once again proposed extreme measures during a FOX News Interview in October, in which he argued that the United States should deploy special forces to Mexico to fight the cartels. Waltz cited the deployment of U.S. Green Berets in Colombia as a successful example of this policy. Critics of the U.S. policy known as Plan Colombia highlight how it failed to reduce cocaine production in Colombia while fuelling an uptick in civilian casualties in the drug war and human rights abuses . The 2008 Merida Initiative, a security cooperation agreement between the United States, Mexico and Central American countries, resulted in similar failures.
Despite the calls for military action by figures like Waltz, however, Teague has doubts about the likelihood of such a policy defining U.S.-Mexico relations during a second Trump administration.
“I could see the Trump administration taking a firmer, more militarized stance in the initial days of his presidency, but I don’t believe such an approach is sustainable,” Teague said.
Rubio, for his part, has said that he would be willing to deploy U.S. troops to Mexico to combat drug cartels, but emphasized “it has to be in coordination with the [Mexican] armed forces and the Mexican police force.”
Of course, Latin America is not a homogenous region. Important countries in the Southern Hemisphere have undergone unprecedented shifts to both the right and the left in recent years. How the different leaders engage with the United States must also be considered, and they may not all have the same approach or same priorities.
But if the past is precedent, and if personnel is policy, U.S. policy toward Latin America may be easier to predict. The next few years could bring a return to economic threats and bombastic rhetoric as ways to address complex issues ranging from drug trafficking, immigration and growing Chinese influence.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.