After Months Of Clashes, Trump And Mamdani Agree To Talk

---

USA | Planet & Commerce

After months of public feuding, pointed insults, and political theatrics, President Donald Trump and New York City mayor-elect Zohran Kwame Mamdani are finally set to meet face-to-face in the Oval Office on Friday. The long-anticipated sit-down marks the first direct engagement between the Republican president and the Democratic socialist whose rapid political rise has unsettled Trump and electrified progressive circles nationwide.

Trump confirmed the meeting late Wednesday in a social media post, writing that Mamdani—whose middle name “Kwame” he highlighted with quotation marks—had requested an audience at the White House. “Further details to follow!” the president announced, setting the stage for what could be either a rare moment of bipartisanship or a dramatic political confrontation. For the incoming New York mayor, the meeting is described as routine, not symbolic. Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec noted it is “customary” for an incoming New York City mayor to meet with the president, adding that Mamdani intends to discuss “public safety, economic security and the affordability agenda that over one million New Yorkers voted for just two weeks ago.” The 34-year-old mayor-elect, born in Uganda and naturalised as a U.S. citizen in 2018, will take office in January after a decisive victory that made him one of the youngest and most left-leaning leaders ever elected in the nation’s largest city.

Yet the path to Friday’s meeting has been anything but customary. For months, Trump publicly derided Mamdani, calling him a “communist” and predicting disaster for New York City under his leadership. The president even went so far as to threaten to deport Mamdani—despite his U.S. citizenship—and to cut off federal funding to the city. Those attacks intensified during Mamdani’s campaign as he became a symbol of Democratic momentum in urban centers and an ideological target for Trump’s conservative base. However, the political landscape shifted dramatically after November’s elections, in which Republicans suffered major losses in New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia. With the GOP confronting renewed doubts about its electoral strategy, Trump has recalibrated his message, embracing affordability and economic anxiety—issues that were central to Democratic success at the ballot box. In a social media post last week, Trump proclaimed that Republicans were now “the Party of Affordability!” signalling a shift toward themes long championed by his new political rival.

The president has since softened his tone toward Mamdani, telling reporters on Sunday that he planned to meet the mayor-elect and was confident “we’ll work something out.” Mamdani, for his part, confirmed on Monday that his team had reached out to the White House and that he hoped the meeting would produce tangible outcomes for New Yorkers. His comments echoed his victory-night pledge to work with “anyone, including the president, if it benefits New Yorkers.” But Mamdani’s stance on Trump remains unmistakably firm. During his election-night speech, he declared that he wanted New York City to “show the country how to defeat the president.” He has also vowed to “Trump-proof” the city’s institutions, protect vulnerable populations, and pursue progressive reforms even if they conflict with federal policies. The mayor-elect stands at the center of one of the most consequential ideological clashes in American politics: the Trump-led populist right versus a rising generation of left-wing leaders reshaping Democratic power centers.

Friday’s Oval Office meeting thus arrives at a delicate moment. Trump is managing internal Republican turbulence after electoral setbacks, even as he seeks to reassert control over national narratives on the economy, crime, and immigration. Mamdani is assembling his transition team and preparing to lead a city grappling with housing shortages, public safety concerns, and widening inequality—all while balancing his identity as both a critic of Trumpism and a participant in institutional governance. Political analysts say the meeting carries strategic value for both sides. For Trump, sitting down with Mamdani allows him to project presidential openness and bipartisanship at a time when the GOP is under pressure to broaden its appeal. For Mamdani, securing a meeting with the president underscores his position as a serious executive leader, not just a progressive firebrand.

It also reflects the enduring importance of New York City’s relationship with Washington. Despite years of tension between Trump and New York officials—including his clashes with former Mayor Bill de Blasio and current Governor Kathy Hochul—federal cooperation remains essential on issues ranging from counterterrorism and immigration enforcement to infrastructure funding and disaster response. Behind the scenes, aides from both camps are working to shape an agenda for Friday that avoids an explosive confrontation while still addressing their stark ideological differences. Mamdani is expected to focus on public safety initiatives, housing affordability, and federal support for transit modernization. Trump, meanwhile, may use the meeting to highlight national economic performance and Republican plans to revive urban centers.

Whether the meeting represents the beginning of a functional working relationship or a single symbolic gesture remains to be seen. Both men thrive on contrast and combat: Trump on populist defiance and Mamdani on progressive transformation. Their encounter could therefore produce anything from cautious cooperation to pointed disagreement. What is certain is that Friday’s Oval Office meeting will be closely watched nationwide. It signals not only the shifting political currents of post-election America but also the emerging centrality of New York City’s new mayor-elect in national politics. As the country navigates heightened polarization, Trump and Mamdani’s first face-to-face interaction may mark a new chapter in the complex, often confrontational intersection between local governance and presidential power.

USA | Planet & Commerce 

A sweeping new national survey reveals a stark reality at the heart of the American political system: while most Americans still believe democracy is the best form of government, very few believe it is functioning properly in the United States. The Kettering Foundation–Gallup report, based on responses from more than 20,000 adults surveyed during July and August, shows rising disillusionment across party lines, deep mistrust in political leadership, and steadily declining confidence in core U.S. institutions. According to the poll, about half of Americans say democracy in the United States is functioning “very” or “moderately” poorly. Only around one-quarter believe it is working “very” or “moderately” well—a sharp decline from several decades ago, when most Americans expressed confidence in the system. Even as the nation prepares to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next year, the data paints a picture of a democracy Americans value in principle but doubt in practice.

The survey shows nearly two-thirds of Americans “strongly agree” or “agree” that democracy is the best form of government, with only a small share disagreeing. Yet the overwhelming sentiment is one of disappointment, as many respondents say government decisions do not reflect the will of the people, and elected leaders are not committed to maintaining a strong democratic system. More than four in ten Americans believe their political leaders are not committed to democracy, and nearly three in ten say they are unsure. This disconnect between citizens and political leadership is growing, and the poll indicates that even those who have faith in their fellow Americans’ democratic values do not extend the same trust to their elected officials. For many respondents, democracy as an idea retains strong support; democracy as it functions today does not. The disillusionment is not confined to any one party. Democrats—now out of power—are more likely than Republicans to say democracy is performing poorly, but independents share that pessimism at nearly the same rate. The sense of a system in decline is visible across political, racial, and socioeconomic groups.

Doug Perry, a 55-year-old 3D modeler from Sarasota, Florida, echoed the frustration of many Democrats. “I think it is falling apart,” he said, pointing to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as evidence that significant portions of the population no longer believe in democratic outcomes. On the Republican side, dissatisfaction is also widespread, though driven by different concerns. Bobbi Black, a retired nurse from Iowa, pointed to the record-long government shutdown and the dysfunction in Congress. She expressed fear over former President Joe Biden’s age and suggested democracy “let us down” by electing him. Biden won the 2020 Democratic primary and defeated Donald Trump in the general election by both the popular vote and the Electoral College. The poll arrives at a moment of immense political tension—rampant polarization, economic pressure on working families, rapid demographic change, and intensifying culture-war conflicts. These forces have combined to erode confidence in institutions long seen as foundational to American governance.

According to the Gallup data, no more than one-third of Americans believe any key institution is performing well. Congress, the criminal justice system, and the division of power between federal, state, and local governments received particularly low marks, with only around two in ten saying these systems are working effectively. The same low confidence applies to the principle that all Americans are treated equally under the law.

For many respondents, the breakdown is structural. “Most institutions are holding on by a thread,” said Antonio Gonzalez, a 39-year-old marketing professional from Delray Beach, Florida. “We have a quickly changing world, but most of these institutions are run by octogenarians.” The poll highlights significant generational divides. Younger Americans express heightened alienation and frustration; older Americans are more likely to believe their voices are being ignored. Struggling families, LGBT adults, and economically vulnerable groups are especially likely to say the government does not reflect their interests.

One faint bright spot in the survey concerns the electoral process itself. A majority of Americans believe election administration is functioning at least “okay,” and only about three in ten think it is reasonable to assume election officials acted improperly when results were surprising. While this reflects a more positive view than the debates of recent years might suggest, concerns remain sharpest among communities historically marginalized in voting access. Just one in ten respondents said voting procedures make it difficult for them to cast a ballot. However, Black Americans, younger voters, and those facing economic hardship were more likely to report challenges. As Democrat Jesse Sutton of Detroit observed, “It varies by state,” noting that Republican-led states have tightened ballot regulations since 2020.

Overall, the findings underscore a profound moment of democratic stress in the United States. Americans overwhelmingly believe in democracy as an ideal, but they increasingly question whether current institutions, elected officials, and governing systems are capable of delivering on that ideal. The contrast between aspiration and reality has widened dramatically, and the poll suggests that rebuilding trust will require more than procedural reforms—it will require restoring confidence in political leadership and the responsiveness of government to ordinary citizens. With the nation approaching a milestone anniversary of its founding principles, the data is a sobering reminder that American democracy’s greatest challenge is not external—it is internal. Americans still embrace the idea of democracy; they simply no longer believe that democracy, as practiced today, is working for them.

Azua | Planet & Commerce 

Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader has formally clarified the scope, duration and limits of a temporary anti-drug agreement with the United States, confirming that the deal—signed during US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent visit—will expire in April 2026. The announcement comes amid intensifying US counter-narcotics operations across the Caribbean and growing regional debate over the expanding American military footprint, the legality of recent naval strikes and the broader geopolitical implications for neighbouring countries including Venezuela. Speaking during his weekly press briefing, President Abinader stressed that the agreement strictly applies to restricted security zones inside Las Américas International Airport and the San Isidro Air Base, two of the country’s most sensitive aviation facilities. The accord grants US personnel limited access to these areas, allowing American aircraft to refuel, reposition equipment, and conduct logistical support activities for ongoing anti-drug missions. Abinader emphasised that the deal does not authorise combat operations on Dominican soil and is explicitly framed as a non-military, non-lethal cooperation mechanism.

“This is going to help us a lot, together with the Dominican Navy and with specialized technological information,” Abinader said, noting that the temporary accord extends the bilateral counter-narcotics framework that has existed between the two nations for decades. The current agreement builds upon earlier anti-drug accords dating back to 1995 and 2003, which established intelligence-sharing channels and joint maritime surveillance operations in Caribbean waters. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who announced the partnership during a high-profile visit to Santo Domingo, described the cooperation as a “model that we hope to expand with other countries.” Washington has made no secret of its intention to deepen regional involvement as part of its escalating anti-narcotics strategy, particularly in response to alleged trafficking networks that the US links to Venezuela’s political and military leadership.

The Dominican Republic has long served as a critical transit point for drug-smuggling routes connecting South America to North America and Europe. US officials say increased access to restricted airport zones will enable faster interdiction operations, better intelligence analysis and improved logistical efficiency for aircraft engaged in regional missions. Dominican officials, meanwhile, argue that the cooperation will enhance domestic security capacity, improve technological monitoring tools and strengthen aerial surveillance over vulnerable maritime corridors. However, the new cooperation agreement arrives at a time when the US has dramatically expanded its military activity in the Caribbean. Since September, American forces have carried out at least 21 lethal strikes against vessels Washington claims were carrying narcotics, killing more than 80 people. The operations have generated intense controversy after several reports—most notably a 2 September “double-tap” strike—suggested US personnel may have fired on survivors clinging to a burning vessel. Bipartisan members of the US Congress have since demanded full oversight and public transparency.

The Dominican Republic, positioned geographically between South America and the US mainland, has increasingly found itself at the centre of Washington’s strategy to apply pressure on the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro. Analysts say the new agreement could facilitate quicker US aircraft movements linked to those missions, though Dominican authorities have insisted that their country will not serve as a staging ground for offensive military operations. President Abinader underscored that the agreement authorises no weapons deployment, no joint raids, and no armed US patrols inside Dominican territory. Instead, the activities are categorically defined as logistical support—refueling, maintenance, and coordination—rather than direct engagement in interdiction or conflict. Dominican air force officials have reiterated that they will maintain full oversight of all US activity in the restricted zones and that all incoming and outgoing aircraft will remain subject to Dominican aviation authority protocols.

Still, the timing of the agreement has raised questions. The United States has been tightening sanctions against senior Venezuelan officials, increasing maritime surveillance and publicly warning that land-based operations to halt alleged narcotics flows “may begin soon.” Trump has repeatedly accused the Venezuelan government of using drug-trafficking networks to undermine US national security—charges Maduro denies, insisting they are part of a regime-change campaign aimed at seizing Venezuela’s oil and mineral resources. For the Dominican Republic, the balancing act between security cooperation with Washington and regional diplomatic sensitivities has become increasingly delicate. The Caribbean and Latin American political landscape has shifted sharply over the past year, with tensions rising over US military activity, accusations of extrajudicial strikes at sea and contested narratives over Venezuela’s political legitimacy. While Abinader maintains that the temporary agreement is an extension of historical collaboration, critics argue that the expanding US presence risks entangling the Dominican Republic in Washington’s escalating confrontation with Caracas.

The Dominican Navy is expected to coordinate closely with US aircraft operating under the agreement, with intelligence feeds from radar networks, marine patrols and coastal surveillance systems being integrated into joint command structures. Dominican officials say the enhanced cooperation will improve their ability to intercept traffickers navigating remote maritime routes and strengthen domestic law-enforcement capabilities against organised crime groups. However, human rights organisations across the region continue to express concern over US operations that have resulted in mass casualties without public evidence of narcotics on the destroyed vessels. Several international law experts have warned that the Dominican Republic’s involvement—however limited—may be scrutinised if future US strikes are determined to violate maritime or humanitarian law.

Abinader’s insistence on clarifying the agreement’s expiration date—April 2026—appears aimed at calming domestic political concerns. The president emphasised that the accord is temporary, renewable only through formal negotiation, and that the Dominican government retains full sovereign control of its territory and airspace. Washington’s renewed interest in the Caribbean reflects broader shifts in US geopolitics, with narcotics, migration pressures, energy flows and the Venezuela crisis converging into a single regional security priority. The Dominican Republic’s strategic location and long-standing partnership with the United States make it a natural hub for coordination, but also place it at the intersection of competing regional interests. As American operations intensify and political tensions rise in neighbouring Venezuela, Dominican authorities face a complex challenge: strengthening their own security infrastructure without being drawn into the geopolitical confrontations reshaping the Caribbean basin. For now, President Abinader insists the agreement is a limited, technical and temporary measure. But with the US pushing to extend similar models across the region, the Dominican Republic may find itself increasingly central to Washington’s emerging security architecture.

Tegucigalpa| Planet & Commerce 

The presidential race in Honduras has tightened dramatically after US President Donald Trump’s unexpected intervention altered the final days of campaigning, shaking undecided voters and reshaping the political momentum behind the two leading conservative candidates. Preliminary tallies from Sunday’s national election show Nasry Asfura of the National Party and Salvador Nasralla of the Liberal Party virtually tied, with only 515 votes separating them after more than half of polling places had reported. The governing LIBRE party, led by candidate Rixi Moncada, trails far behind but has refused to concede, raising fears of post-election tension. In the bustling center of Tegucigalpa, 52-year-old food vendor Reyna Vega stirred eggs and fried bananas in her two-table eatery while reflecting on rising prices and tightening household budgets. She voted for Asfura, the former mayor she credits with improving local roads and infrastructure. But like many Hondurans, Vega’s vote was shaped by a broader desire to eject the democratic socialist LIBRE Party from power. For her, Asfura symbolised a return to order, predictability and the economic stability she associates—rightly or wrongly—with earlier conservative administrations.

Yet in the final hours of the campaign, it was Donald Trump’s endorsement that shifted the political calculus. Trump warned Hondurans that Moncada would “turn Honduras into another Venezuela,” and he levelled similar accusations at Nasralla. But the message that reverberated most forcefully was Trump’s explicit support for Asfura. For many undecided voters, it became a deciding factor. Human rights advocate Juan Carlos Aguilar, director of the organisation More Just Society, said Trump’s participation “played a transcendental role and made a drastic change,” pulling Asfura closer to Nasralla than earlier polling suggested. Aguilar believes Trump’s comments pushed undecided conservatives toward Asfura, especially those who had considered temporarily “loaning” their vote to the opposition to ensure LIBRE was removed from power.

In San Pedro Sula, industrial-sector resident Fabricio Paz Munguía, a Nasralla supporter, acknowledged that even if Trump did not change everyone’s vote, “he made a lot of people reflect” on what they wanted for the country. Trump’s remarks, while polarising, forced political comparisons, reignited debates about Honduras’ future direction and revived memories of previous administrations.

By Monday afternoon, preliminary results from 57% of polling places showed Asfura leading by a razor-thin margin—an advantage experts caution may not hold. Votes from the northern regions, where Nasralla’s base is strongest, have yet to be fully counted. Ana Paola Hall, president of the National Electoral Council, urged patience and noted that the rapid reporting system had finished its initial phase, while the secondary results portal temporarily went offline, adding another layer of uncertainty. Both Asfura and Nasralla filled the information vacuum with their own tallies. Asfura projected calm, saying, “We’re relaxed, the data are going to come out.” Nasralla, equally confident, insisted that the outstanding northern votes would tilt the race in his favour. Hondurans who supported either man expressed a similar sentiment: as long as the result kept LIBRE out of office, they could live with either candidate. This reflects a deeper nostalgia among many Hondurans, even though the current LIBRE government led by President Xiomara Castro has overseen lower homicide rates and improved economic indicators. A significant portion of the electorate feels their day-to-day lives were better under Castro’s conservative predecessor, former President Juan Orlando Hernández. That sentiment became intertwined with Trump’s other dramatic intervention last week: a promise to pardon Hernández, who is serving a 45-year sentence in the United States for facilitating drug trafficking through Honduras.

Twenty-year-old first-time voter Jair Ávila, who supported Asfura, admitted he initially forgot the candidate’s name—but remembered Hernández vividly. Trump’s pledge to pardon the former leader influenced his vote because, as he put it, “life was easier” when Hernández was president. He cited cheaper gasoline, lower market-basket costs and free housing programmes. “We were better off with him, honestly,” he said. For voters like Ávila, Trump’s comments invoked a powerful mix of memory, frustration and desire for the economic stability they associate with the National Party’s past rule. Trump’s involvement also stirred hopes among Honduran migrants living in the United States. Remittances form a lifeline for millions of Honduran families. Vega, who has numerous relatives in the US, hopes Trump’s endorsement of Asfura may translate into some level of protection from deportation for Hondurans if Trump wins the US presidency again. “Thank God, none of them have been deported,” she said. She also suggested that if Hernández were to return home, she believed he would not repeat the mistakes that landed him in US custody.

Despite trailing, Rixi Moncada and the LIBRE Party have not conceded. On Monday night, her supporters gathered at party headquarters, chanting and waving flags as she declared, “The election is not lost.” She accused both leading conservative parties of coordinating a “trap” and urged her base to fight until every vote is counted. With LIBRE nearly 20 percentage points behind, analysts say Moncada cannot realistically catch up, but her refusal to step aside could intensify political instability. At street level, frustration remains high. Many Hondurans insist the election is not just a contest between personalities, but a referendum on the country’s direction. With inequality deepening, economic pressures rising and migration continuing at record rates, voters find themselves pulled between nostalgia, fear, hope and political exhaustion.

Asfura and Nasralla represent different shades of conservatism—one connected to the National Party’s old establishment, the other tied to reformist anti-corruption politics—but both stand as vehicles for a public desperate to oust the ruling party. Trump’s last-minute declarations magnified that sentiment by injecting US geopolitics directly into the Honduran vote. With only partial results tallied, the coming days may bring recounts, disputes and escalating political friction. Electoral officials are under intense pressure to deliver transparent updates, while Hondurans brace for the possibility of legal challenges or public protests from any side that feels cheated by the final outcome. Amid a tense wait, one reality has become unmistakable: Trump’s voice—broadcast from hundreds of miles away—played an outsized role in shaping Honduran voter behaviour. The implications of that influence will echo well beyond this election as Honduras confronts its next political chapter.