Researchers find more accurate way to track polar bears during their most secretive stage of life

University of Toronto

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Polar bear dens are notoriously difficult to study, but researchers have created three statistical models to help.

view more 

Credit: Dmytro Cherkasov, Polar Bears International.

For the first time, researchers have combined satellite collar data with specialized cameras to shed light on one of the most mysterious and important stages in polar bears’ lives – maternal denning, when bears give birth then emerge with their cubs. 

Past research has shown that how long polar bear mothers remain at their dens impacts cubs’ odds of survival. Yet why they stick around for so long and what they’re doing remains poorly understood, and the tracking devices researchers are increasingly using hadn’t been tested against real-life observations of the bears — until now.  

“The Arctic's warming two to four times faster than the rest of the world, humans are expanding into areas that might be important for polar bear denning, and we know they're sensitive to disturbance during this time,” says Louise Archer, lead author of the study and U of T Scarborough postdoc. 

“We need healthy cubs to sustain populations. We're trying to develop tools to better monitor and understand their behavior, so we can better protect them.” 

Denning begins with pregnant polar bears sealing themselves inside dens dug out under the snow, where they give birth. Polar bears are born about as pathetic as humans, and the den protects them from the frigid weather as they grow 20 times their size in just a few months of nursing. Though the mother loses about half her body weight, after breaking out of the snow she doesn’t immediately return to hunting. She and the cubs hang around the den for a few weeks, popping in and out and doing something presumably more important than eating. 

Historically, researchers studied denning with binoculars, then remote cameras, and they’re now primarily using satellite collars that can track location, activity, and ambient temperature. All these methods have their limitations, and the study notes that while collars are gaining prominence because they can monitor the movements of polar bears over several years, most collars only gather data every few hours, and they’re not ideal for observing more minute behaviours or short trips outside the den. 

In a new study, Archer and her colleagues studied bears over six years. Using satellite collars on 13 members of the Barents Sea subpopulation of polar bears, the researchers located and installed cameras outside nine dens in Svalbard, Norway. They found estimates of when polar bears had hit key stages in denning sometimes differed by several days to over a week, depending on whether they looked solely at data from the collars or the cameras.

Each time they gathered collar data, they matched it with the exact image on the camera to confirm what the bears were doing. They then made three statistical models, which other researchers can plug collar data into to accurately predict not just what the bears are doing, but what they will likely do. The models can predict when they’ll first break out, the times they’ll emerge from the den, and when they’ll finally leave. One model can also predict how external factors like temperature influence the behaviour of moms and cubs. 

“Collars do a good job at picking out these broader behaviours, like when the bears first come out of the den and when they depart. We found they corresponded pretty well to what we were seeing on camera,” Archer says. “But it was difficult to tease out the finer scale behaviours we saw on camera.”

Bears emerged from their dens almost always in the daytime, on trips that averaged about 27 minutes (ranging from less than a minute to almost eight hours). About half the time mothers had their cubs in tow, most often staying within 40 metres of the den. Bears were more likely to be seen outside the den with each degree the temperature warmed, and with each day that passed since they’d first broken out. Warmer temperatures meant they were more likely to be seen outside the den and they stayed outside longer the higher the temperature and longer since they’d first broken out. 

Their data suggests these weeks around the den are mainly for cubs to acclimatize to the outside world, and supports other research that found a faster departure after their breakout means cubs likely didn’t spend enough time outside the den and are less likely to survive. 

“The Arctic is a really fast-changing area. We've got a lot of sea ice being lost, so seeing what polar bears are doing and how they're responding to these changes gives us an insight into what we might expect in other parts of the Arctic down the line,” says Archer, who recently completed a study linking a decline in polar bear populations to shrinking sea ice caused by climate change. 

“That's why we're so invested in trying to build out this data set and continue monitoring bears in this region.”

 

The study included researchers from Polar Bears International, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, and the Norwegian Polar Institute. 

---

Journal

Journal of Wildlife Management

DOI

10.1002/jwmg.22725 

Article Title

Monitoring phenology and behavior of polar bears at den emergence using cameras and satellite telemetry

As faith in the US wavers, can France’s nuclear umbrella deter Russia?

A pillar of French sovereignty and source of national pride, France’s nuclear deterrent has long served as a symbol of the country’s independence from Washington. But as Europe’s faith in American protection wavers, does France’s nuclear umbrella offer a realistic alternative?


Issued on: 06/03/2025 

By: Benjamin DODMAN

France has close to 300 nuclear warheads, which can be fired from aircraft based in France or from submarines. © Christophe Ena, AP


French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to hold talks on extending the protection offered by France’s nuclear arsenal to its European partners, amid fears of an American disengagement from Europe.

While the US has made no mention of plans to withdraw the nuclear umbrella that has protected the continent since the Cold War, its dramatically shifting stance on Ukraine, Russia and NATO has sparked alarm across Europe about the strength of America’s decades-long commitment to European security.

In a measure of the mounting anxiety, the leaders of Poland, Latvia and Lithuania – countries closely aligned with Washington – all welcomed Macron’s offer on Thursday as they gathered in Brussels for an emergency summit on European security.

That offer has, in fact, been on the table for years. The difference is that France’s European partners are now taking an interest, eager for security alternatives should US President Donald Trump leave them to dry – at the mercy of Russia.

Read more'We should have woken up earlier': Europe races to rearm as old alliances falter

Addressing the French public on the eve of the summit, Macron described Russia as a “threat to France and Europe” and said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our (nuclear) deterrent”. He added: “Europe’s future does not have to be decided in Washington or Moscow.”

Distrust of America

The French nuclear deterrent is rooted in a lingering distrust of its American ally that dates back to the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Washington forced France and Britain to abandon efforts to recapture the strategic Suez Canal in a humiliating setback for Europe’s declining colonial powers.

Seen as an American “betrayal”, Suez convinced the French to develop their own nuclear deterrent in order to protect the nation’s “vital interests”.

A decade later, distrust of America and a desire to pursue strategic autonomy underpinned President Charles de Gaulle’s decision to withdraw France from NATO’s integrated command, resulting in the removal of US military assets from French soil.

Over the years, successive French leaders have urged European allies to reduce their reliance on the US – none more so than Macron, who has repeatedly called on Europe to guarantee its own security.

Read more  France pushes shift to ‘wartime economy’ as US turns its back on Ukraine

As Washington turns its back on Ukraine, warms to an aggressive Russia and cuts Europe out of peace talks, French officials are now feeling vindicated. One analyst described the continent’s current predicament as “Macron’s told-you-so moment”.

05:59Focus © France 24

France’s ‘vital interests’

France is one of two nuclear powers in Europe, along with Britain, which is no longer part of the European Union and relies on US input to maintain its nuclear arsenal.

French nuclear deterrence is strictly conceived as defensive, designed to protect the country’s “vital interests”. The deliberately vague nature of these interests has traditionally given France greater leeway compared to Britain, whose nuclear capabilities are explicitly assigned to the defence of NATO.

Since a 2020 keynote speech, Macron has said that France's “vital interests” have a “European dimension” – comments that he reiterated in recent days. His predecessors have made similar statements in the past, with former president François Mitterrand once touting the need for a “European doctrine” on nuclear deterrence.

“Maintaining a certain vagueness about France’s vital interests is at the heart of the ‘strategic ambiguity’ that underpins nuclear deterrence,” said Alain De Neve, a researcher at the Royal Higher Institute for Defence in Brussels.

The idea, he added, “is to keep opponents in the dark about the scope of France's nuclear umbrella”.

Keep adversaries guessing

Nuclear deterrence involves maintaining ambiguity about which circumstances would lead to the use of nuclear weapons, in order to prevent a potential aggressor from calculating risks.

In this case, it means striking a balance between giving substance to French claims of a vested interest in Europe’s defence and avoiding detail about how far Paris would go to defend the continent.

France “likes to remind people of its capabilities in order to be credible in its deterrence”, said Emmanuelle Maitre, a senior research fellow at France's Foundation for Strategic Research.

“But there’s also an element of ambiguity, because it’s not a question of telling our adversary exactly what our red lines are,” she added. “No nuclear power does this.”

A French nuclear-armed submarine pictured at sea during a visit by President Emmanuel Macron to mark Bastille Day on July 14, 2017. © Fred Tanneau, AFP

Engaging in a constructive and permanent dialogue with its European partners would be an important first step towards extending France’s nuclear umbrella, argued De Neve.

“The mere fact that a permanent dialogue has been established could already leave Russia wondering whether an attack on, say, a Baltic state might lead to a nuclear escalation,” he explained.

Credibility gap

Responding to Macron’s televised address on Thursday, Russian officials lambasted the French leader’s “confrontational speech”, noting that his tough rhetoric was not backed up by military power.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Macron of “threatening” Russia and warned him against dragging the continent into a wider conflict. The ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested the French president might want help measuring his country’s true military size.

The US and Russia possess approximately 88 percent of the world’s total inventory of nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists. They are followed at a distance by China, with France in fourth position and Britain in fifth.

“Without US support, the balance of power appears largely unfavourable to France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads compared to at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads on the Russian side,” noted Benoît Grémare, a defence analyst at the Université Jean Moulin in Lyon, writing on The Conversation.

“Moving toward a Europeanisation of nuclear force means increasing deterrent capabilities and, therefore, expanding the French arsenal so it can respond to threats affecting all 27 EU member states,” Grémare added.

America’s vastly superior firepower, and the greater diversity of its arsenal, explain why European countries have so far relied on Washington for their protection rather than Paris or London.

In contrast, the discrepancy with Russia’s nuclear arsenal points to a credibility gap for France’s deterrent.

As a lawmaker from the hard-left France Unbowed party argued during a heated debate in parliament this week, if France doesn’t trust mighty Americal to defend it, why should its European partners trust Paris to risk a nuclear war for their sake?

‘French through and through’

Any French commitment to Europe’s defence would also be vulnerable to the type of radical policy U-turn that the Trump administration has ushered in.

France’s European partners are keenly aware that Macron’s pro-Europe camp leads a minority government, and that two-time presidential runner-up Marine Le Pen is fiercely opposed to any sharing of the country’s nuclear deterrence.

Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party, which has long harboured Russian sympathies, supports France's rearmament but to defend French borders only. Her nationalist camp has described talk of extending France’s nuclear umbrella as a betrayal of its strategic independence.

“Sharing (nuclear) deterrence is equivalent to abolishing it,” Le Pen told French lawmakers on Monday. She argued that “unleashing the nuclear fire cannot be separated from national and popular legitimacy”, which is vested solely in the French president, elected by universal suffrage.

01:24

French government debates extending France's 'nuclear umbrella' to all Europe 

© France 24

In his address on Wednesday, Macron reiterated that France’s nuclear deterrent would remain a prerogative of French presidents, describing it as “complete, sovereign, French through and through”.

“The use and production of nuclear weapons is French and will stay French,” added his Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu, even as he repeated calls for a strategic debate with the rest of Europe.

“While the hand on the button remains that of the head of state, the way in which we contribute to the continent’s global security architecture remains an important debate,” Lecornu said. All European capitals “are going to ask us the question, so we want to be ready to answer”, he added.

Giving ‘concrete form’ to European deterrence

De Neve said European countries would need to “come out into the open” about what they expect from France’s nuclear umbrella – and in what capacity they might contribute.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Brussels, Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Europe should not give up on US involvement in nuclear deterrence but rather complement it with European resources. His likely successor Friedrich Merz has already called for a discussion on “nuclear sharing” with France and Britain, saying he feared NATO may not survive “in its current form” beyond June.

The issue of whether EU partners could contribute to the cost of maintaining or upgrading the French deterrence is likely to be on the table.

43:09


Any upgrade of France's nuclear arsenal would be extremely costly and require significant logistical and operational changes at a time when governments are already stretched financially. Analysts have warned it could take France up to a decade to increase its arsenal by only 100 warheads.

The point is not to match the American or Russian arsenals, but rather to ensure France maintains its ability to inflict “unacceptable” damage on any foe, cautioned Maitre.

“Although France has a limited arsenal, it is considered sufficient to cause unacceptable damage to its adversary,” she explained. “It was designed to be able to retaliate under any circumstances with weapons considered indestructible. That’s why there is always at least one (nuclear-armed) submarine on patrol, whose location is kept secret.”

In the short term, a change in France’s nuclear doctrine, which prohibits the stationing of atomic weapons outside France, could give an extended French nuclear umbrella greater credibility. Allies could be integrated into French nuclear exercises and training through the provision of air escorts and by the development of supply and logistical support, aiming to create a degree of interoperability.

France possesses Rafale warplanes capable of carrying nuclear missiles. Their deployment across Europe “would give concrete form to European strategic autonomy”, adds Grémare, sending a signal of “European solidarity that would make Moscow’s calculations more difficult”.

Macron calls Putin an 'imperialist' after Russian president's Napoleon comments

French President Emmanuel Macron branded his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin an "imperialist" who was trying to "rewrite history" after Putin compared Macron's proposal to extend France's nuclear umbrella to its European allies to Napoleon Bonaparte's failed invasion of Russia in 1812.


Issued on: 07/03/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Matthew-Mary Caruchet

01:45

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with workers and wards of The Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation in Moscow, Russia on March 6, 2025.

 © Vladimir Novikov, AP


Russia views comments by President Emmanuel Macron about extending France's nuclear deterrent to other European countries as a "threat", Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday. Macron responded by calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "imperialist" who was trying to "rewrite history".

Lavrov also reaffirmed his country's opposition to European forces being deployed in Ukraine if an accord was made to halt the conflict.

Macron on Wednesday called Russia a "threat to France and Europe" and said France was "legitimately worried" about the United States shifting its position on the Ukraine conflict under US President Donald Trump.

The French leader said he would open a debate on extending France's nuclear deterrent, following a phone conversation with Germany's likely next chancellor Friedrich Merz.

"Of course it is a threat against Russia. If he sees us as a threat ... and says that it is necessary to use a nuclear weapon, is preparing to use a nuclear weapon against Russia, of course it is a threat," Lavrov said at a press conference.

In an apparent jab at France, Russian President Vladimir Putin said later: "There are still people who want to return to the times of Napoleon, forgetting how it ended."

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the Russian Empire in 1812 in a disastrous six-month military campaign that ended in Russian victory.

Macron hit back at Putin after a summit in Brussels on Thursday, branding the Russian president an "imperialist" who sought to "rewrite history".

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier Thursday that Macron was "detached from reality" and making "contradictory statements".

Macron also reaffirmed that European military forces could be sent to Ukraine if a peace accord was signed to guarantee "respect" of a deal.
'No room for compromise'

Lavrov said Russia was unwavering in its opposition to the deployment of European forces in Ukraine as peacekeepers, suggesting they would not be impartial.

"We see no room for compromise. This discussion is being held with an overtly hostile aim," he added.

Russia would consider such troops in the same way as it would view a NATO presence in Ukraine, Lavrov said.

'Macron is in vanguard of EU countries that want this hard line on Putin'

05:51



He compared Macron to Hitler and Napoleon, saying that unlike those leaders, Macron did not openly say he wanted to conquer Russia, but he "evidently wants the same thing".

Macron is making "stupid accusations against Russia" that Putin has dismissed as "madness and nonsense", he added.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Macron's speech "extremely confrontational", saying Russia felt that "France wants the war to continue."

Macron is saying that "Russia has become practically an enemy of France" but not that NATO's military presence is encroaching on Russia's borders, he said.

Defence Minister Andrey Belousov visited Russia's nuclear weapons development laboratory on Thursday.

During the visit he told nuclear scientists the army was looking forward to getting its hands on "new developments" in the near future, the defence ministry said in a statement.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

SECTARIAN PURGE AS WAR CRIME

Syrian authorities move against Assad loyalists, monitor says 134 Alawite civilians 'executed'


Syria's transitional government on Friday launched a sweeping operation in western coastal areas against fighters loyal to the deposed Assad regime. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory later said that 134 Alawite civilians were "executed" by security forces, bringing the death toll from two days of unrest to 229.


Issued on: 07/03/2025

By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Emily BOYLE

01:32

Members of the Syrian security forces enter the western city of Baniyas in Syria's coastal Tartous province to reinforce government troops in clashes with militants loyal to deposed ruler Bashar al-Assad, March 7, 2025. © Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), AFP


Syrian security forces "executed" 134 civilians on Friday in the Mediterranean heartland of ousted president Bashar al-Assad's Alawite minority, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

"Ninety Alawite civilians, at least six of them women, were executed by the security forces in the districts of Baniyas, Latakia and Jableh," the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, taking the overall toll from two days of unrest in Latakia and Tartus provinces to 229.

Syria's new authorities launched the sweeping security operation after clashes with fighters loyal to former president Bashar al-Assad, the biggest challenge to their rule so far.

The violence saw the fiercest attacks on the country's authorities since Assad was ousted in December in a lightning offensive by Islamist-led rebels.


A curfew was imposed in the coastal province of Latakia, the Assad clan's former stronghold and home to a sizeable Alawite community, the same religious minority as the former president.

Security forces began what official news agency SANA described as a "large-scale" operation in cities, towns and the mountains of Latakia and neighbouring Tartus, following the arrival of reinforcements.

The operation "targeted remnants of Assad's militias and those who supported them", a security official cited by SANA said, as he called on civilians to "stay in their homes".

Read moreClashes between Syrian forces and Druze gunmen turn deadly

The authorities also imposed curfews in Homs and Tartus.

Mustafa Kneifati, a security official in Latakia, said that in "a well-planned and premeditated attack, several groups of Assad militia remnants attacked our positions and checkpoints, targeting many of our patrols in the Jableh area".

Kneifati said security forces would "work to eliminate their presence".

"We will restore stability to the region and protect the property of our people," he said.

SANA said meanwhile that security forces had detained Ibrahim Huweija, a general who was "accused of hundreds of assassinations" under the rule of Assad's father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad.
'Everyone's afraid'

Ali, a farmer living in Jableh, told AFP he saw "urban battles and street fighting".

"All night, we heard the sounds of gunfire and explosions," he added.

"Everyone's afraid ... we are trapped at home and we can't go out."

Territorial control in Syria by the different forces

. © Omar Kamal, Nalini Lepetit-Chella, AFP

Thursday's clashes saw security forces conduct helicopter strikes after they clashed with gunmen loyal to Assad-era special forces commander Suhail al-Hassan in the village of Beit Ana, also in Latakia.

Tensions had erupted after residents of Beit Ana, the birthplace of Suhail al-Hassan, prevented security forces from arresting a person wanted for trading arms, the Observatory said.

Security forces subsequently launched a campaign in the area, resulting in clashes with gunmen, it added.

The killing of at least four civilians during a security operation in Latakia also sparked tensions, the monitor said on Wednesday.

Security forces launched the campaign in the Daatour neighbourhood of the city on Tuesday after an ambush by "members of the remnants of Assad militias" killed two security personnel, state media reported.

Islamist rebels led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham launched an offensive that toppled Assad on December 8, when he fled the country to Russia with his family.

Multiple high-ranking Assad loyalists have also fled since the former president's ouster, but many others remain in the country.

Syria's new security forces have since carried out extensive campaigns seeking to root out Assad loyalists from his former bastions.

Residents and organisations have reported violations during those campaigns, including the seizing of homes, field executions and kidnappings.

Syria's new authorities have described the violations as "isolated incidents" and vowed to pursue those responsible.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

What parallels do historians see between the Trump administration and the Nazi regime?


Elon Musk appeared to make a Nazi salute as he celebrated the start of Donald Trump's second term as US president. Trump’s new administration has said it will acquire Greenland and Panama, defunded US foreign aid programmes, fired federal workers and humiliated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Some historians draw parallels between the second Trump term and Hitler's regime. Eighty years after the end of the World War II, is the comparison relevant?


Issued on: 07/03/2025 
AFP
By: Stéphanie TROUILLARD

A demonstrator holds up a sign during a protest in support of federal workers and against recent actions by US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, February 17, 2025. © Jose Luis Magana, AP

Last October, in the home stretch of the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump told supporters at a rally in Atlanta that he was “not a Nazi”. He was reacting to comments by his former chief of staff, John Kelly, who said in an interview that during his first term in office, Trump more than once suggested that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “did some good things”. Kelly said that after consulting a dictionary he concluded that Trump “certainly” met the definition of a fascist.

Since the start of Trump’s second term as US president, comparisons between his administration and the Nazi regime are back in the spotlight.

White House adviser Elon Musk's raised right-arm gesture at Trump's inaugural parade prompted many historians to call it a Nazi salute. “How could you not?", says Peter Hayes, professor emeritus at Northwestern University in Illinois and author of numerous studies on the Nazi party.

Musk’s salute was not as blatant "as Steve Bannon’s gesture” at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Hayes adds, referring to Trump's former adviser, who made a Nazi salute at the conservative meeting in February.

Tesla and SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk gestures during the Trump inaugural parade inside Capitol One Arena, in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2025. © Angela Weiss, AFP

‘Increasingly relevant’ comparisons

With Western societies facing rising nationalism, extreme right-wing rhetoric and inward-looking attitudes, some experts are increasingly seeing similarities between the current era and the period leading up to World War II.

For historians, it's always difficult to establish parallels between the past and the present. But according to Hayes, certain comparisons are thus proving “exaggerated”, but also “increasingly relevant".

“Exaggerated because Trump has not targeted a distinct group as the root of all evil in the world” to be singled out “potentially for murder”, Hayes says, in an allusion to the Third Reich's extermination of the Jews.

But Trump has multiplied attacks on “the ‘enemies within’ who must be removed from the body politic, and he shows, like Hitler, absolute certainty about his own genius coupled with ruthless determination to remove any impediments to achieving his objectives”.

“And, lately, he’s coupled extreme nationalism with an appetite for expansion that he had not shown before.”

44:28   THE DEBATE © FRANCE 24



During his address to a joint session of Congress on March 4, Trump reaffirmed his expansionist aims for Greenland. The American president said he had a message for “the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America”.

Trump said his administration was “working with everybody involved to try to get” Greenland.

“We need it really for international world security. And I think we're going to get it. One way or another, we're going to get it,” he said in this, his first policy speech since returning to power on January 20.

For Hayes, this desire to seize the autonomous Danish territory can be compared with Lebensraum, or living space, one of the founding concepts of Nazi ideology. “The motivation behind hungering after Greenland and hungering after Ukraine and the Caucasus (in Hitler’s case) is the same: obtaining essential resources. For Trump, it’s minerals; for Hitler, it was grain and oil. Control of these things appears to both men as vital to victory in the dog-eat-dog struggle of world politics,” says Hayes.

US President Donald Trump delivers a policy address to a joint session of Congress in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. © Win McNamee, AP

‘A sense of unfettered power’

Christopher Browning, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina, takes a more nuanced view.

“Insofar as Trump has an image of America's past greatness, it seems to be the late 19th century, with immensely wealthy business tycoons exercising oligarchic rule, and great powers carving out and dominating their respective spheres of influence,” Browning says. “Grabbing Greenland and Panama and subjugating impudent Canada fit into a late 19th century imperial mentality far more than something akin to Hitler's Lebensraum.”

Browning, a specialist in Holocaust studies, shares Hayes's analysis of the fundamental differences between the US president and the Führer.

“Hitler was an ideologue with a fixed idea of history as racial struggle, a false premise, from which he drew many seemingly logical conclusions,” he says.

In contrast, Trump exhibits “a much more personalised rule, based above all on gratifying his insatiable need for praise, a sense of unfettered power, on having all his loyal followers defer to his endless litany of lies substituting ‘Trump truth’ for reality”.

Browning does, however, note some “uncanny resemblances” between the two men, drawing parallels between the storming of Congress on January 6, 2021, by Trump supporters and the Nazi leader's Munich Putsch in November 1923:

“Hitler launched a failed coup, faced a judicial system that would not or could not hold him accountable, was not expelled to Austria as an unwanted felon” (which would have ended his German political career). He then “revived his political career with support of the traditional conservatives on the right, and obtained power legally, ready then to carry out a ‘legal revolution’ from within,’” Browning notes.

Trump, too, “launched a failed coup, was not impeached (which would have ended his eligibility to run for president), outlasted a lethargic judiciary unable to hold him accountable for his crimes, revived his political career with support of the Republican party, obtained the presidency legally, and now is launched on a ‘legal revolution’ to dismantle and reshape America government”.

Some observers also point to the subservience of a large proportion of the US business elite to Trump, in the same way that German companies Krupp and Thyssen were subservient to the Third Reich.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. © Joseph Prezioso, AFP

For Browning, this analogy is apt: “The business community is obsessed with obtaining lower taxes and more deregulation. Nothing else seems to weigh on the scale as long as they get these two things, regardless of the ultimate cost to society and country. Even the prospect of ruinous tariff wars has no effect on them. In that sense they are as deluded and blinkered about the ultimate consequences of Trump as German businessmen were about Hitler.”

‘A normal procedure for dictators’

Paul Lerner, professor of history at the University of Southern California, also observes a series of parallels between Trumpism and the authoritarian rulers of the 1930s and 1940s. One in particular concerns the type of language used by the US president.

“Especially in the way that Trump uses innuendo. The way he encourages violence, his coy attitude reminds me of Mussolini. The language also parallels fascist anti-intellectualism, contempt for expert knowledge, nuance," Lerner says.

Lerner also says that the American media have been brought to heel since Trump's return to power, something that is “very much standard operating procedure for dictators”.

“Trump already has his ministry of propaganda and he is edging out the mainstream media which has failed to hold him accountable for ten years already. Journalists get stories by keeping access to the White House and if writing critical pieces means you lose your access, eventually only the friendly press will have access.”

Anne Berg, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that “these attacks on the press are horrendous”, but according to her, their implications are far greater today than under Nazi Germany.

“Germans after all could listen to enemy radio,” she says, even though it was “forbidden and during the war, severely punished”.

“Nazi Germany didn’t change the nature of information. What is happening now is much more insidious and much more consequential, globally. We are living in a post-truth environment,” where online information ecosystems “are transformed by AI generated content. There no longer is a Feindsender" (the Nazi regime’s term for enemy radio stations).

“The whole world is on X” (formerly known as Twitter), she says.

“Trump’s attack on the media is actually an attack on truth, fact and objectivity itself, most powerfully expressed in his concerted attacks against higher education and elite universities such as my own,” Berg says. “And while people certainly realize what is happening,” the content they see on their phones ends up being skewed toward the “sensational and entertaining”.

Democrats hold protest signs as President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. © Win McNamee, AP

‘Democracy is under serious threat’

“There’s no doubt that US democracy is in acute danger,” Berg says. “In fact, at this moment we no longer live in a functioning democratic society. The system hasn’t been fully transformed or dismantled, but we are literally watching the making of a dictatorship in real time even if the precise contours of such dictatorship are still ill-defined. The question is how much time do we have until the window for effective resistance closes.”

Her fellow historians are equally pessimistic. “We are six weeks in” to Trump’s second term “and democracy is severely imperilled” says Lerner. “I don’t know if it will be restored in my lifetime, which is very depressing.”

“Trump has strengthened his control on the police powers (the FBI, the Justice Department) and the military,” says Hayes. “Trump is vainglorious, solipsistic, and a bully preoccupied with demonstrating his strength. When things begin to unravel and opposition mounts, he and his backers will instinctively resort to violence.”

For his part, Browning doesn't expect the “immediate construction of a one-party, police-state dictatorship, as Hitler achieved in five months”.

Although he sees “considerable ‘democratic backsliding’ into an ‘illiberal democracy’” akin to the administration of Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, he points out that “the US constitution is very difficult to amend”, and “the US federal system with strong state governments cannot be overturned”.

“The pluralism and diversity of American society and a strong federal system of state governments, combined with the incompetence of so many Trump appointees, is the best hope of slowing down the erosion of democracy,” Browning says.

This article was translated from the original in French by David Howley.

Outrage Over Trump Use of AI to Revoke Visas of Students Deemed 'Hamas Supporters'

"Those pushing for this repression will come to realize the dangerous precedent it will set for freedom of speech," warned one critic.

University of Texas graduate students, faculty and demonstrators protest the war in Gaza after walking out of a commencement ceremony on May 11, 2024 in Austin.
(Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


In what one critic called "a dangerous new front in the Trump administration's multi-pronged assault on First Amendment rights," the U.S. State Department is launching an artificial intelligence-powered "catch and revoke" program to cancel the visas of international students deemed supportive of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

The State Department is working with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security in what one senior official called a "whole of government and whole of authority approach" to identify and proscribe foreign nationals who appear to support Hamas or other groups the U.S. has designated as "terrorist organizations," Axiosfirst reported.

According to Axios' Marc Caputo, the effort includes "AI-assisted reviews of tens of thousands of student visa holders' social media accounts," and "marks a dramatic escalation in the U.S. government's policing of foreign nationals' conduct and speech."


Explaining the new policy, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday: "We see people marching at our universities and in the streets of our country... calling for intifada, celebrating what Hamas has done... Those people need to go."

Responding to the news, Abed Ayoub, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said in a statement that "this should concern all Americans."

"This is a First Amendment and freedom of speech issue and the administration will overplay its hand," Ayoub added. "Americans won't like this. They'll view this as capitulating free speech rights for a foreign nation."

ADC said:
By employing AI to track and flag individuals for potential visa revocation and/or deportation, the administration is effectively criminalizing peaceful political expression and dissent. Not since the aftermath of 9/11 has such wide-scale surveillance been directed at noncitizen communities, and the reliance on AI tools only magnifies the likelihood of errors, misidentifications, and abuses of discretion. This raises profound questions about privacy and constitutional protections—who is controlling this data, how is it being used, and where is the human oversight?


Progressive podcaster Brian Allen said on the social media site X, "Let's be clear: This is state surveillance on steroids."


"The Trump [administration] is using AI to monitor foreign students' social media and punishing them for political speech," he continued. "So much for 'free speech absolutism'—guess that only applies if you're a billionaire or a Republican."


"The message is loud and clear: Dissent will be crushed," Allen added. "The crackdown is here."

Journalist Laila Al-Arian warned that "those pushing for this repression will come to realize the dangerous precedent it will set for freedom of speech."

The launch of "catch and revoke" follows a January executive order by President Donald Trump authorizing the deportation of noncitizen students and others who took part in protests against Israel's assault on Gaza, which left the coastal strip flattened and more than 170,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing; and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to local and international agencies.

"To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice," Trump said at the time. "We will find you, and we will deport you."

Earlier this week, Trump also threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that allow what he dubiously called "illegal protests."

"Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came," the president said on social media. "American students will be permanently expelled or... arrested."

The ACLU responded to Trump's threats by publishing an open letter to colleges and universities nationwide on Tuesday "urging them to reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech."

ACLU legal director Cecilia Wang said: "It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly. We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus."

"Trump's latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities," Wang added, referring to the extreme repression during the Second Red Scare of the 1940s and '50s.

Israel's war on Gaza sparked the largest wave of nationwide protests—a significant number of them led by Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow—since the Black Lives Matter movement. According to an analysis by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, 97% of the 553 campus protests it studied were nonviolent.

There were, however, numerous reports of pro-Israel counter-protesters and police attacking pro-Palestine demonstrators and encampments, including Jewish religious structures.

While few student protesters have endorsed Hamas—which for years was nurtured by Israel as a counterbalance to the Palestinian National Authority—or the October 7 attack, more have voiced support for Palestinian liberation "by any means necessary," including by armed struggle, a legitimate right under international law.

The United States and around two dozen other nations—all but one of them European or the result of European settler-colonialism—consider Hamas, whose political arm governs Gaza, a terrorist organization. Most of the Arab and wider Muslim world views Hamas, whose military wing led the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, as a legitimate movement for national liberation.

Meanwhile, scores of Global South countries, either directly or via regional blocs, and Ireland are backing a South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Trump administration has hit South Africa, as well as the International Criminal Court—which last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity—with punitive sanctions.

'An American President Is Not a King': Judge Reinstates Labor Regulator Illegally Fired by Trump

"The president seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme."


Protesters participate in a "'No Kings on Presidents Day" action in Detroit, Michigan on February 17, 2025.
(Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Mar 06, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


A federal judge on Thursday reinstated Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, and suggested that U.S. President Donald Trump's attempt to fire her was an example of the Republican testing how much he can exceed his constitutional powers.

Wilcox filed a federal lawsuit in February, after Trump ousted her and NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell—who was appointed by former President Barack Obama to serve in the District of Columbia—declared Wilcox's dismissal "unlawful and void."

"The Constitution and case law are clear in allowing Congress to limit the president's removal power and in allowing the courts to enjoin the executive branch from unlawful action," Howell wrote in a 36-page opinion. She also sounded the alarm about arguments made by lawyers for the defendants, Trump and Marvin Kaplan, chair of the NLRB.

"A president who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution."

"Defendants' hyperbolic characterization that legislative and judicial checks on executive authority, as invoked by plaintiff, present 'extraordinary intrusion[s] on the executive branch,' ...is both incorrect and troubling," the judge wrote. "Under our constitutional system, such checks, by design, guard against executive overreach and the risk such overreach would pose of autocracy."

She stressed that "an American president is not a king—not even an 'elected' one—and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here."

"A president who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution," Howell asserted. "In our constitutional order, the president is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the judiciary."

The judge cited a widely criticized February 19 social media post from the White House, which features an image of Trump in a crown, with text that states, "Long live the king."



"The president seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme," Howell warned. "The courts are now again forced to determine how much encroachment on the legislature our Constitution can bear and face a slippery slope toward endorsing a presidency that is untouchable by the law."

The president's attempt to fire Wilcox halted federal labor law enforcement in the United States. AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler celebrated Howell's ruling in a Thursday statement, saying that "more than a month after Trump effectively shut down the NLRB by illegally firing Gwynne Wilcox, denying it the quorum it needs to hold union-busters accountable, the court ordered Wilcox immediately returned to her seat, allowing the NLRB to get back to its essential work."

"The court also sent an important message that a president cannot undermine an independent agency by simply removing a member of the board because he disagrees with her decisions," she said. "Working people around the country count on equal justice and fair decision-making from an independent NLRB—and today, because of Wilcox's commitment to the mission of the NLRB and her refusal to stand by as Trump illegally removed her from the board, the NLRB can get back to work."

Wilcox isn't the only federal worker who has challenged the president's power to fire her. As Politicodetailed:
On Thursday, a federal workplace watchdog fired by Trump—Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger—dropped his legal bid to reclaim his post after a federal appeals court permitted his termination. Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which oversees the grievance process for many federal employees, is also resisting Trump’s effort to remove her and was reinstated last month by a federal judge.

The Supreme Court likely will soon weigh in on Congress' ability to insulate executive branch officials from being fired by the president without cause. With Dellinger's decision to drop his legal fight, Harris' case appears likeliest to reach the high court in the near-term. It’s possible Wilcox's case will get folded into that ongoing fight.

The nation's highest court has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees, though they have at times ruled against the president—including on Wednesday, when five justices refused to overturn a lower court order about foreign aid.

'Cruelty Is the Point': Private Prison Giants Set to Cash In as Trump Revives Family Detention

"Taking away a child's freedom and deliberately putting them in these conditions is unconscionable, as is denying a parent their most fundamental role of providing their child with a loving and nurturing environment."

Mexican migrants turn themselves in after crossing over a section of border into the United States on January 5, 2025 in Ruby, Arizona.
(Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Private prison companies in the United States can hardly contain their excitement as the Trump administration moves to revive the practice of detaining migrant families at facilities with records of horrifying abuses, a decision that advocacy groups say highlights the White House's disdain for human rights as it carries out its large-scale assault on immigrants.

"Reopening family detention facilities with devastating histories of abuses, trauma, and long-term psychological damage underscores that cruelty is the point of these Trump administration policies," Amy Fischer, director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement Thursday after CBS Newsreported the administration's moves.

According to CBS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—newly empowered by President Donald Trump—"was detaining the first group of migrant parents and children" on Thursday "in a detention facility in Texas designed to hold families with minors."

"The group includes three children," the outlet added, citing an internal government report.

Separately, NBC Newsreported Thursday that "U.S. immigration agents are planning a new operation to arrest migrant families with children as part of a nationwide crackdown."

"During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump and border czar Tom Homan said that plans for mass deportations would initially focus on migrants who had committed crimes," NBC observed. "The new plans for national operations show that many of the families and children to be targeted do not have criminal histories."

As part of the revival of family detention—which was used by the Obama administration and the first Trump administration, and largely ended by the Biden administration—immigration officials are "refitting" two Texas facilities, including the notorious detention center in Dilley, Texas.

CoreCivic, a private prison company, has been newly contracted by ICE to reopen the facility for family detention.

"I've worked at CoreCivic for 32 years, and this is truly one of the most exciting periods in my career," Damon Hininger, CoreCivic's CEO, told investors last month.

George Zoley, executive chairman of the GEO Group, said last week that "we've never seen anything like this before," referring to the speed with which the Trump administration is moving to procure contracts for migrant detention.

The New York Timesreported Friday that "a GEO Group subsidiary gave more than $2 million to Republican PACs that accept unlimited donations, with the bulk going to groups that supported House Republicans and Mr. Trump."

"It is enraging to see the Trump administration reinstate family detention, a policy of jailing immigrant parents with their children—including babies."

The Detention Watch Network noted that while the Dilley center was "in operation for family detention, there were reports of foul water and negligent medical treatment, with hospitals confirming that children are consistently released with health issues they dubbed 'Dilley-ish.'"

"In 2018, a 19-month-old girl, Mariee, tragically died after leaving the facility, and in 2019, a guard was accused of physically assaulting a 5-year-old," the organization said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote earlier this week that he visited the center in December 2018 and "it was horrifying."

"The cruelty and abuse of Trump's family detention policy is a lasting stain on our nation," Merkley wrote on social media. "I'm calling on the admin to reverse this decision—in no world should this facility reopen."

Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director of the Detention Watch Network, said Thursday that "it is enraging to see the Trump administration reinstate family detention, a policy of jailing immigrant parents with their children—including babies."

"Detention is harmful and traumatic for everyone, but especially children," said Ghandehari. "Families should be able to navigate their immigration cases in community with support services provided and facilitated by local community-based groups—never Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an enforcement agency that is plagued by egregiously poor conditions and a culture of violence."

"Taking away a child's freedom and deliberately putting them in these conditions is unconscionable, as is denying a parent their most fundamental role of providing their child with a loving and nurturing environment," Ghandehari added. "Family detention, like all immigration detention, is inhumane, unjust, and unnecessary. Everyone, certainly children and their parents, deserves to freely and safely move for opportunity and stability."