Contemporary challenges for the Malaysian left

By Jeyakumar Devaraj

Published 17 July, 2026

[Editor’s note: Socialist Party of Malaysia activist Kirisna Veni Singham will be speaking at Ecosocialism 2026, September 11-13, Magan-djin/Brisbane, Australia. For more information on the conference visit ecosocialism.org.au.]

First published at Tricontinental.

To understand the current situation in Malaysia we need a brief overview of the history and political and economic development of the country. The Portuguese first came to Southeast Asia in the early 16th century. They, and the Dutch who came about 130 years later, had mercantile interests — they wanted to control the trade routes so that they could acquire the commodities that were in demand in the European market. Hence, they wanted control of the shipping routes and main ports, but were not interested in controlling the hinterland.

The industrial revolution in Europe created a hunger for raw materials such as tin, coffee, sugar, and rubber. The colonial powers needed control over the land in South East Asia to be able to mine, and to open plantations. They also needed cheap labour for the production of these commodities. The local population was not too inclined to slave in difficult conditions for low wages.1 Also, the British thought it best to not disrupt the indigenous Malay population, but instead relied on labour from India and China to develop the colonial economy. This led to a massive influx of Indians and Chinese to the Malayan peninsula starting in the mid-19th century.

Malaya, being colonised by the most ‘virile’ industrial power of that time, experienced the fastest development of mines, plantations, roads, railways, and ports, compared to Indonesia, Indochina, and the Philippines. This resulted in massive demographic changes — at Independence in 1957, the immigrant population of Chinese and Indians was actually slightly more than half the total population of Malaya. The class character of Malayan society had changed dramatically in the colonial period. Prior to 1800, the vast majority of the population were peasants and fishermen engaged in a subsistence economy. The colonial economy generated a large working class in the plantations, tin mines and the railways, and this in turn sparked off a network of supporting economic activities — market gardening, import of food and other basic necessities, retail trade, local production of some consumer products, transport, etc.2

In the meantime, the native Malay population was shielded from the colonial economy, and their lifestyle and economic activities did not change much. The British were outwardly ‘respectful’ of the Sultans of the various States and provided handsomely for them, as this helped sustain the myth that the British were benevolent ‘advisors’ to the native rulers. Land was plentiful in Malaya, so the British had no cause to deprive the Malay peasants of their land. But they enacted a law that forbade the Malay farmers from converting their rice fields to plantations of rubber or other commodities for export.3 Rice was the staple grain for the Malays as well as the immigrant Chinese and Indians. The British needed a sufficient supply of inexpensive rice for immigrant labour.

The only strata within the indigenous community which resented British rule were the Malay chieftains and lesser royalties whose sources of income — levies on the produce of the peasants, contributions for the use of rivers, etc. — were compromised when the British took over the administration of land in Malaya. There were, therefore, a series of revolts by these chieftains in the late 19th century, but they were not able to get the support of the peasants (whose way of life had not been much affected by the colonial economy) or the Sultans who were well looked after by the British.4

The Malayan Communist Party and the independence struggle

The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) was founded in 1930 in Singapore. The MCP retreated into the jungle in early 1942 and resisted the Japanese occupation of Malaya as the Malayan People Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA). The MPAJA was largely ethnic Chinese as the Japanese had a pronounced anti-Chinese bias. The MCP was recognised by the British post-World War II, with its leader Chin Peng receiving the Order of the British Empire in London. The MCP opened offices in several towns in post-World War II Malaya and continued organising the population.

Independence was in the air in Asia, spurred by vibrant independence movements in China, India and in Indonesia by the end of World War II. Though many of the Malay and Indian nationalists had been on the opposite side during the Japanese occupation, the MCP managed to set up a broad-based coalition called the All Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA).5 It comprised the trade union movement, the MPAJA, the Malayan Democratic Union (a party set up by urban English educated Malayans), the Malayan Indian Congress, some Chinese business interests, and others. The AMCJA formed a pact with PUTERA, a coalition of Malay nationalists comprising the Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya, Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), and the Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS).

The AMCJA-PUTERA coalition had a series of discussions that resulted in the ‘Peoples Constitution’ detailing how the nation would be governed post-Independence. However, the British rebuffed the efforts of this coalition to initiate negotiations for independence. The AMCJA-PUTERA coalition called for a Hartal that was carried out on 20 October 1947. All activity in Malaya was stopped for a day — a nationwide strike where even businesses did not open.

The British struck back. API was banned in July 1947 and several of its leaders including the charismatic Ahmad Boestamam was detained and imprisoned. The British then passed legislation to control the militant trade union movement. Unions had to limit themselves to specific sectors of the economy. The then-existing General Labour Unions had to reorganise themselves into smaller sector-based unions and register with the Registrar of Trade Union (RTU). The RTU however refused to recognise many of the re-organised unions. When they attempted to continue to organise the workers, these unions were deemed illegal criminal organisations and their leaders detained. Strikes were met with brutal repression with instances of workers being killed by the authorities.

On 17 June 1948, a unit of the MCP assassinated three British planters in Sg Siput Perak. The British declared the Emergency, arrested thousands of activists and outlawed the MCP, which took to the jungles. In the initial period, MCP units were able to prevail, over-running small rural police stations and even briefly taking over the administration of a rural town, Gua Musang. The British High Commissioner of Malaya, Sir Henry Gurney of Malaya was assassinated on 6 October 1951.

The British countered with the Brigg’s Plan in 1950 to deny food supplies to the communist forces. All the Chinese farmers scattered in the peri-urban regions were forced to move into 540 security camps, with barbed wire fencing all around, and a single-entry point guarded by the military or police. The farmers were allowed to tend to their crops during the day but were under curfew from dusk to dawn. Plantation workers were not permitted to buy rice. The management of estates gave each family a daily ration of cooked rice depending on the size of the family. The indigenous community, the Orang Asli, too was similarly confined in security camps.

The communist insurgency, deprived of food, was not able to sustain larger units. A decision was taken in 1952 to retreat to the Malayan-Thai border.6 The British also had a propaganda blitz where they painted the MCP as Chinese dominated and injurious to the long-term welfare of the Malay population.

Meanwhile the British set up Legislative Councils with representatives from the elites of Malayan society — the Malay aristocracy and non-Malay business leaders. They recognised United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) that was set up by Malay aristocrats and elites in colonial civil service. A national election was called in 1955 in which the Alliance Party, a coalition led by UMNO, won 51 out of the 52 seats contested. It had campaigned on the pledges of Amnesty for the MCP and Independence within two years. The leader of UMNO, Tunku Abdul Rahman was designated as the Chief Minister of Malaya.

The MCP responded to the 1955 election pledges by indicating that it was interested in Amnesty. The MCP could see by then that winning the armed struggle would be near impossible. They wanted access to the people and the electoral space. A talk was held between Alliance leaders and the MCP in Baling, Kedah in December 1955. The MCP were prepared to lay down arms and even dissolve the MCP. They wanted the right to return to Malaya and participate in the political process.6 The Tunku insisted on surrender, detention, and rehabilitation. An agreement could not be reached. The MCP leaders felt that Tunku had to take a strong stand to impress the British so as to win independence. They hoped that negotiations would resume after independence, but the MCP had to wait 30 long years for that. In August 1957, the British granted independence to Malaya helmed by the Alliance government.

The economic development of post-independence Malaysia

Malaya was primarily a producer of primary commodities during independence (1957). Rubber was its biggest export, and tin was the second largest. The plantation companies have since diversified to oil palm — now 5.6 million ha out of the 8.4 million hectares of agricultural land in Malaysia is dedicated to oil palm cultivation, while rubber is grown on 1 million ha of mainly smallholder farms. In the 1980s, the government managed to acquire a majority of shares in the plantation companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and currently more than 60% of plantation land is held by government-linked companies.

In the 1970s, the Chief Minister of Penang then, Dr. Lim Chong Eu, pioneered special economic zones catering for multinational electronic companies looking for lower costs of production. Many multinational corporations opened factories in Penang and a network of supporting factories have evolved over the years. Electronic components are now the largest export commodity of Malaysia, dwarfing oil palm. Employment in the manufacturing sector now accounts for about 18% of total employment, but wages are at about the minimum wage level, and around 30% of all workers in manufacturing are foreign workers. Much of our manufacturing is linked to global chains.

Post-independence, large petroleum deposits were discovered in Malaysia. The government enacted the Petroleum Development Act in 1974 which vested ownership of all petroleum discovered in Malaysia in Petronas, a company fully owned by the Ministry of Finance. Any foreign oil company which discovers petroleum in Malaysia has to negotiate an income sharing agreement with Petronas. Petronas has been contributing between 20 to 40% of the federal revenue for the past 30 years.

On the social front, the following significant steps have been taken:

• Rice farmers (around 200,000) and traditional fishermen (80,000), predominantly ethnic Malay, receive subsidies of various sorts. But they still constitute one of the poorest sectors of Malaysian society.
• 110,000 rural families have been allocated ten acres of land each under the Federal Land Development Authority land schemes. Slightly less than a half a million ha of land has been utilised for this scheme. Oil palm is the main crop.
• The Employment Provident Fund (EPF), that was set up in the late colonial period has now grown to cover about twelve million members (out of a labour force of sixteen million) and has total assets of RM 1.2 trillion (Malaysia’s GDP in 2025 is RM 1.875 trillion).
• The Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) was set up in 1971 pursuant to a 1969 Act of Parliament and currently covers about nine million workers. It compensates workers for workplace injuries, and provides a life-long pension if a worker becomes disabled for any reason. SOCSO recently initiated schemes to cover gig riders and housewives.
• The government has set up a network of hospitals and clinics such that 95% of the population is within three km of a health care facility. Childhood immunisation is at 99% of the eligible population. Life expectancy increased from 66.5 years at independence to 75 years currently. Mortality under five is now 7.8 per 1000 live births.
• Schooling is free up to the secondary level — thirteen years in total.

Malaysia’s GDP has increased 24-fold, in real terms, between 1970 and 2020. The population’s access to modern conveniences — refrigerators, cars, washing machines, gas cookers, televisions, handphones, etc. — has increased tremendously. However:

• Wages are about 1/8th of the wages in Europe for work of a similar nature.
• Household debt is about 200% of total household income. The ratio is higher for the lower decile of the population.
• Many working people work more than 48 hours per week to try and make ends meet.
• 21% of children under-five in Malaysia are stunted.7
• House prices are exorbitant, and housing loans are a major component of household debt.
• Old age poverty is a sad reality in Malaysia. 75% of the retirees aged 65 and above do not have any savings to draw upon.
• While highly subsidised health care is available for all, the public health care system is underfunded, receiving only 2.4% of the GDP. Waiting lists are long, and so, many families take out private insurance so that they can go to private hospitals if there are delays in the public health care system.
• 50% of the rice consumed in Malaysia is currently imported. As wheat cannot be grown in Malaysia, we are totally dependent on wheat imports. Malaysia is a highly food insecure country!

In addition, since the 1990s, Malaysia has entered a number of Free Trade Agreements which threaten the economic sovereignty of the country and seriously impair the ability of the Malaysian government to manage the national economy. For example:

• The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement has tied us to a zero-tariff policy for over 98% of goods vis-à-vis ASEAN countries. This constrains us from raising our minimum wage by a larger quantum as then, cheaper manufactured goods from ASEAN would devastate our manufacturing sector. And our food producers are subject to dumping of excess produce from the neighbouring ASEAN countries.
• The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements grant foreign investors numerous rights including the right to enter any economic sector that is open to local businesses, freedom from any requirements to enhance local technical capacity or use local inputs, and freedom from any form of capital controls.
• The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions exist in several of these FTAs.8

Malaysians are living better in material terms, but are under severe economic stress as incomes are generally low, and the cost of living is high. There is a high level of insecurity and uncertainty and therefore stress. This needn’t be so. Our analysis (Table 1) shows that too large a portion of national income accrues to the owners of capital!

Table 1: The share of national income accrued to various social groups in Malaysia.

Social Strata	Share of National Income
16 Million Working People	29%
Government	16%
Owners of Capital & Top Managers (0.3 million individuals)	55%

The parliamentary left

The radical Malay nationalists who were detained in 1947 were released in 1955 before the national elections. Some among them, including Boestaman, set up the Parti Rakyat (Peoples Party) while others entered the Parti Buruh (Labour Party). These two parties contested the general elections of 1959 as the Socialist Front and won eight seats in the 104-member parliament. They also did well in the Municipal elections winning a majority of seats in the Penang City Council and the position of Mayor.

The Alliance government abolished Local Council Elections and used the Internal Security Act (ISA) to detain more than a thousand Socialist Front leaders and activists in the 1960s, seriously impeding the expansion of the Front.9 Issues involving language and the nature of Malaysia also divided the Chinese and the Malay members of the Socialist Front. The Chinese members, largely in the Parti Buruh, wanted equality for all nationalities in Malaysia, with three official languages. The Malays, largely in the Parti Rakyat, wanted Malaysia to be recognised as part of the Nusantara Melayu (the Malay homeland); while the languages and religions of the immigrant communities would be respected, Malay language and culture should be the bedrock upon which the Malaysian nation should be based. These issues led to the break-up of the Socialist Front in 1966.

The Parti Buruh, weakened by the detention of many of their leaders and disillusioned with the electoral process, decided not to contest the 1969 elections. A significant number of them went underground and linked up with the MCP. The Parti Buruh was then de-registered. The Parti Rakyat won two state assembly seats in Pahang in 1969, but the two elected members spent their terms under detention under the ISA. These were the last election victories of the Parti Rakyat.

Ethnic imbalances in Malaysia

For reasons that have been elucidated in the section on the colonial period, the Malay community was economically disadvantaged during independence. As they had remained outside the modern economy, the academic achievement of Malays and their representation in the professions was far below their population ratio.

This was recognised by the Malaysian leaders at that time, and a special provision (Article 153) was included in the Federal Constitution empowering the Constitutional Monarch to grant special quotas for Malays in educational institutions and permits for businesses. Many special residential schools and junior colleges were set up to enable the Malay population to catch up academically. Many scholarships and business permits have been awarded. Intake into government jobs such as clerical staff, teachers, and nurses have witnessed a very high proportion of Malays resulting in our 1.6 million civil service now being more than 85% bumiputera.10

This affirmative action premised on ethnicity — termed the New Economic Policy (NEP) — has seen the creation of a large Malay middle class and has stabilised Malaysian society considerably. But, as the Table 2 shows, there is still a significant imbalance — the Malay community hasn’t reached their population ratio in some key professions.

Table 2: Bumiputera participation in selected professions

Profession	1973	2014	2023
Engineer	13.5%	32%
Medical doctor	7.6%	46%
Veterinary doctor	30.8%	42%
Dentist	8.4%		52.8%
Accountant	17.9%		32.3%
Lawyer	20.3%		38.9%

The Malay community constitutes about 60% of the population of Malaysia. The indigenous populations of Sabah and Sarawak make up another about 10% of the population. They are collectively termed bumiputera (sons of the soil) in some government documents. The Chinese community makes up 23% of the Malaysian population while the Indians constitute 7%, and the Orang Asli are around 200 thousand strong. The figures in the Table 2 attest to the fact that even 60 years post-independence, the bumiputera are lagging behind in several occupations.

The bumiputera communities are still over-represented in agriculture which is a low-income sector. Even in the formal sector, the available data indicates that they are earning much less than non-Malay workers as their median EPF savings were significantly lower than the non-Malay population (as Table 3 shows). Also, they did not have other financial assets to rely on during the Covid-19 lockdown and had to withdraw a large portion of their already meagre retirement funds.

Table 3: Median EPF savings (in Malaysian Ringgit) before and after the Covid-19 lockdowns, by ethnic group.

Race	Savings (April 2020)	Savings (December 2022)	Decline
Bumiputera	15,541	4,937	-10,604
Malay	16,938	5,529	-11,409
Othe Bumiputera	10,591	3,302	-7,289
Chinese	45,756	45,162	-594
Indian	25,724	14,929	-10,795

Class differentiation of the Malay community and the Reformasi movement

Malay society has undergone a massive change in the past 65 years. Now, the majority of them are wage-earners in urban areas. The feudal ties that bonded them to their rural villages have been weakened. They are part of the urban working class and are struggling financially because of low wages and high cost of living.

UMNO, the party that led the nation to independence and that oversaw the implementation of the ethnic based affirmative action favouring the Malays has also transformed from a grassroots-based party of school teachers, journalists, and religious leaders into a party of businessmen, contractors, and corporate bosses. Much of the financial allocations meant for the Malay poor is now captured by this stratum of Malay business people.

The financial crisis of 1997-1998 led to a severe crisis within the UMNO elite. There were too many crony capitalists who needed funds, and there was disagreement on who to save, whether to accept IMF loans, etc. The then Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, sacked his deputy Anwar Ibrahim citing sexual impropriety. This sparked the Reformasi movement. Ibrahim campaigned on the issue of governance, corruption, and the fattened Malay elite who had hijacked funds meant for uplifting the Malay poor. He utilised his Islamic credentials to strengthen his criticism. A significant part of the Malay urban population joined the movement.

Ibrahim was imprisoned in 1999.11 Mohamad stepped down as Prime Minister in 2003. In 2009, Najib Bin Razak became the Prime Minister. Then, the 1MDB scandal erupted in 2016. This reignited the Reformasi movement. The corruption associated with the UMNO elite had become common knowledge by then. The mighty UMNO party began losing ground and the Pakatan Harapan, Ibrahim’s coalition, formed the government in 2018.12

The current status of the Malaysian left

The Parti Sosialis Malaysia (Socialist Party of Malaysia or PSM) is currently the most visible and active left party in Malaysia. However, because of our origins as student activist groups working among plantation workers (largely Indian), currently about 60% of PSM members are Indian. The PSM began working with non-Indian ethnic groups in the late 1990s and our Chinese and Malay membership is increasing gradually. We need many more cadres of all ethnic groups.

Apart from the PSM, there are several other left parties in Malaysia:

1. The veterans of the MCP and the Parti Buruh. These veterans outnumber the PSM. The former members of the MCP who were allowed back into Malaysia after the Haatyai Peace Accord of 1989 have formed the Kawan Karib (Close Friends) and the 21st Century associations. They have regular dinners and social gatherings. But they are not politically active apart from publishing several memoirs and biographies that detail their role in the struggle for independence. Some among them support our fund-raising dinners.
2. The Parti Rakyat. It is a shadow of its former self. It still puts up a few candidates at each general election, but does little in the intervening periods except for the occasional press statements. The PSM is trying to persuade them to join us in forming a progressive third force coalition.
3. The Socialist Alternative. The Socialist Alternative is a small group that is affiliated with the Committee for a Workers’ International. They come out with periodic analyses of the current situation. Their analyses are good, but lacking in concrete ideas of how to move forward given the current reality. They still practice ‘entryism’ which makes it difficult to include them in joint activities. In any case, they believe that the PSM is leading the working class astray with our reformist policies and participation in elections.
4. Left-leaning individuals in media, NGOs, academia, and civil society. There are quite a large number of such individuals. They are supportive of our campaigns and other activities. The PSM is keen to get them onboard as there is a lot of work to do.

Challenges facing the left in Malaysia

The left in Malaya/Malaysia has been beaten down twice in the past 80 years. The British managed to neutralise the armed insurrection of 1948. By 1952, the MCP was effectively excluded from Malayan society. The Alliance government used the ISA to detain hundreds of Socialist Front leaders and union activists in the 1960s, and crippled the parliamentary left. History, they say, is written by the victor. The left has been vilified by official propaganda for the past 80 years, both in the print media as well as in the text books.

As a result, the public perception of the left is rather negative. Many Malaysians feel that the left is innately authoritarian, anti-democratic, and violent. The armed insurgency of the MCP, the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union from 1930 onwards, the genocidal regime of the Khmer Rouge, and Western propaganda have all contributed to this fairly entrenched view.

Religion has a great influence over the Malaysian population. About 80% of Malays surveyed a few years ago said that Islam was the most important component of their identity, only then ethnicity, and nationality. Some Malays fear that joining the PSM would make them too ‘secular’ and impair their ‘Aqidah’. Conservative religiosity isn’t confined to Muslims. In the recent by-elections for the state seat of Ayer Kuning (on 26 April 2025), our candidate Bawani was attacked by opponents for being an atheist.13

The PSM has responded to these two perceptions and fears by arguing that:

1. We believe in democratizing society — at the workplace through unionisation, at community level through the formation of community level councils, and by re-instituting local government elections.
2. We contest elections, we organise campaigns as permitted by the laws of the country.14
3. We have been involved in so many community struggles for the past 30 years. There hasn’t been an instance where we initiated any violence.

As for the perception that the left is against religion and faith, we state that we are not anti-religion. There is no requirement to renounce religion in order to become a PSM member. The PSM believes that religion is a personal matter and there should be no compulsion on anyone to follow or leave any particular religion. There are people of all faiths in the PSM. There are also atheists and agnostics. It is their right to not believe. We also point out that socialism, which is based on solidarity with all, including the poor and the marginalized, is much more in line with the principles of religions than capitalism.

There are quite a number of people who believe the left does not have the capacity to manage a modern economy. Unfortunately, there is some truth in the general perception that parties left of the social-democrats are idealistic and out of touch with current reality. Too many in the left have not given sufficient thought about our programme for the first five years after taking power should be. We need to move from critiquing capitalism and imperialism to explain, in layman terms, how we will transform the current reality into something that is better for all the citizens. We need a realistic transitional programme that the ordinary person can understand, and identify with. It cannot be just an article of faith!

In the Malaysian context we need to have positions on the following issues (among others):

• Our stance on foreign capital already invested in Malaysia? At present our economy is export oriented and we need market access. The value of Malaysia’s exports is equal to 75% of GDP. Disengaging too abruptly from the global system would result in high unemployment rates and economic misery.
• Are we thinking of working towards a planned economy like there was in the USSR, or of a well-regulated market economy that allocates resources through a system of prices set by supply/demand mechanics (as has developed in China)?
• What is the role of small and medium sized firms in the economy we are envisaging? Many of them are owned by Malaysian Chinese. Would we want to develop a strategic partnership with them to enhance Malaysia’s industrial and technological self-reliance?
• How would we reduce the tendency of the leaders of our movement being over-influenced or even bought over by business interests?
• Would we want to put up tariffs to protect domestic manufacturing industries which are obliged to implement the higher wages we would legislate? If so, how would we disentangle ourselves from international trade and investment agreements that Malaysia has signed on to? These agreements tie us to a low or zero-tariff regime.
• Or would we keep wages relatively low, so that our industries remain competitive, but increase the social wage (subsidised health care, public transport, free tertiary education, residences for rent, etc.)? Or would we implement a negative income tax that would level up the income of all working Malaysians to a basic minimum?
• How would we handle the fiscal deficit and the RM 1.2 trillion debt that the government has accumulated?15 Debt repayment is now RM 56 billion or 17% of total government revenue. Would we increase corporate taxes unilaterally or would we try to do this in conjunction with ASEAN and other countries?
• Could we use the modality of debt financing? If so, to what extent?

These are some of the issues that we need a clear understanding of if the left intends to take over the management of a modern economy that is closely integrated into the global capitalist economy. The PSM is working on several of these issues in our Policy Research Bureau, but there are many issues that we still do not know enough about.

There is thus a basis for the comment, ‘you people are good activists who speak up for the marginalized. Stay as an NGO and continue the good work’. In other words, they do not trust us to manage the economy and fear that we would crash it by causing capital flight, unemployment, and social unrest. We need to address these fears by clarifying our own understanding of these issues, and achieving a consensus about the pace of progress towards socialism.

Apart from all the negative perceptions of the left in the Malaysian public, the left faces a very ethnically polarised society. After the demolition of the left at the end of the 1960s, all the main political parties — both in government and opposition — were ethnic or religious based. Fifty years of ethnicised politicking has created a highly polarised society. The Malay population (60% of total population) are still the poorer compared to the Chinese (23% of the total). The Malays are anxious that the affirmative action they have enjoyed would be withdrawn. They fear becoming ‘second class citizens’ in their own country.

The Chinese business class’s grouse is that they are creating wealth for the nation, but are being unfairly treated. Communities of Chinese farmers who have been tilling state land since before independence keep getting evicted with scant compensation whenever nearby urban centres need houses or industrial sites. The Chinese fear that their vernacular schools will be closed, and that Islamic dress codes and other restrictions will be enforced on them.

The indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak — the Kadazan, Murut, Sulu, Bajau, Iban, Bidayu, Kenyah, Kayan, Penan, and several others (10% of the total Malaysian population) — feel that they are being neglected by the government, and that their land rights are being trampled upon. The Indians (7% of total population), are resentful that they are left out of most affirmative action programmes and denied government jobs, though there are many Indians who are in need. They also are afraid that some of the 500+ Tamil primary schools in the country will be closed down. Hindu Temple demolitions are another sore point.

The PSM is trying to impress on the people that:

1. The grievances and fears of all the communities are valid and have to be dealt with in a spirit of solidarity. The Malaysian Constitution presents well-balanced formulae for handling most of the outstanding issues. However, certain issues are exaggerated and played up by politicians vying for power.
2. The working people of all ethnicities need to be united to demand a fairer share of the economy.
3. The main political parties which play up and exaggerate ethnic conflicts are actually traitors to the working people, for they divert attention from the crucial issue — 55% of the wealth created by our collective effort is going to 3% of the population leaving 97% of the population with only 29% of the wealth.

Apart from the above challenges, repression by the authorities is a persistent danger. This was consistently used to cripple left movements in the past.16 The likelihood of this being used against us is high if we succeed in rallying more people to our side and appear as a threat to the status quo.

Undoubtedly, the Left in Malaysia faces several tough challenges. However, the PSM believes that we have the ideas that can take this nation forward. And we are working hard to build a movement that will bring a progressive coalition of political parties and people movements to power.

Jeyakumar Devaraj is Chairperson of Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)

• 1

  The annual mortality rates for immigrant labour in some estates were as high as 10% for certain years due to malnutrition, malaria, other infections, and snake bites.

• 2

  Kevin Henison and Jim Glassman, ‘Class in Southeast Asia’, in Class, Economy and Politics in South East Asia (University of Philippines and Journal of Contemporary Asia, 2024).

• 3

  Rice Land Enactment (1917).

• 4

  Dato Maharaja Lela assassinated James W. W. Birch, the British Resident of Perak in November 1875, launching the Perak War against the British. He was executed by the British in 1877. There are several other noblemen e.g. Mat Kilau and Dato Bahaman, who also rebelled and resisted British colonial rule.

• 5

  The Japanese encouraged Indian nationalists to set up the Indian National Army under Subash Chandra Bose. This army fought alongside the Japanese in the Burmese – Indian border.

• 6

  Chin Peng, Alias Ching Peng: My Side of History (Media Masters Pte, 2003).

• 7

  UNICEF.

• 8

  ISDS provisions provide for foreign investors to by-pass national courts and refer disputes with the host government to a private Tribunal in Hong Kong, Europe or in the US.

• 9

  The ISA empowered the Minister of Home Affairs to detain persons suspected of being a threat to the security of the Nation for a period of two years, without the requirement to charge the persons in Court. The period of detention could be extended for another two years if the Minister deemed it necessary. Individuals have been held for up to 20 years under this Act. This Act was repealed in 2013.

• 10

  Bumiputera means ‘son of the soil’. It refers to ethnic Malays who make up about 60% of the population of Malaysia and indigenous Sabahan and Sarawakians who make up another 10% of the population of the country.

• 11

  On sodomy charges. These were reversed in 2004 and Ibrahim was released.

• 12

  Results of the General Elections in Malaysia. The Barisan Nasional is the coalition led by UMNO. Should be noted that some coalition members left after 2018 and others left in 2022. The total number of seats in the Malaysian Lower House is 222.

  Year   Seats won by the Barisan Nasional

  2004                198

  2008                140

  2013                132

  2018                79

  2022                30

• 13

  We only obtained 6.3% of the votes cast, as we had anticipated. But we achieved our targets – exposure in the mainstream media as well as several dozen videos about our analyses and work in social media.

• 14

  The PSM organises campaigns highlighting major issues affecting the people. Our last campaign was for universal old age pension to address old age poverty. An 18-month long campaign. We are just beginning a campaign to defend and improve the public health care system which is chronically underfunded and under assault.

• 15

  Malaysian GDP was RM 1875 billion at the end of 2024.

• 16

  Six senior members of the PSM were arrested under the Emergency Ordinance in 2011 and investigated for ‘attempting to rekindle the armed struggle’. The Emergency Ordinance allows detention without trial for an indeterminate period, just like the ISA. The PSM conducted a vigorous campaign and managed to release us after a month.

Washington’s Two Rogue Allies in the Middle East Face Off

by Ted Galen Carpenter | Jul 16, 2026 | 

Allies and clients have frequently entangled their great power patrons in needless geopolitical crises and sometimes even bloody wars.  The tragic events leading to World War I in 1914 are a classic example.  Serbia helped drag Czarist Russia into that bloody maelstrom and Austria-Hungary did the same to Wilhelmine Germany.  Similar dangers exist today in the international system.

Two of Washington’s current most odious and dangerous “loose cannon” allies are Israel and Turkey.  U.S. administrations have funded and armed both countries for decades and routinely excused outrageous acts that their clients have committed.  Even worse from the standpoint of America’s best interests and purported values, the respective governments have increasingly competitive political and strategic objectives.  Such growing animosity could bring them to blows, with the United States being caught in the middle of their feud.

Israel arguably has become the single most brutal and disruptive player in the Middle East.  Tel Aviv has pursued its aggressive agenda against multiple Islamic targets.  Over the past several years, Israel’s top priority has been to attack opponents in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, and the negative effects on regional and even global stability are devastating.

Brutal actions that Israeli security forces have taken against Palestinian fighters and civilians in Gaza have led to plausible allegations of outright genocide.  Credible estimates from a variety of international sources indicate that more than 70,000 Palestinian civilians, including more than 20,000 children, have perished at the hands of those security forces since Oct. 7, 2023.  An additional 44,000 children have been injured.  Moreover, Tel Aviv’s fighters have apparently targeted journalists for assassination in an effort to cover up their responsibility for such atrocities.

The war in Gaza is not the only case in which Tel Aviv’s actions should be a shameful embarrassment to U.S. officials.  Israeli strikes on Iran’s air defenses in the spring of 2025 helped pressure the Trump administration to launch B-2 bomber assaults on Tehran’s nuclear installations.  More recently, Tel Aviv’s actions, including missile strikes against Iran and assassinating Iranian leaders, triggered a wider U.S.-led war against Iran.

In addition to its direct acts of aggression against Iran, Tel Aviv expanded and intensified its coercive military presence in Lebanon.  The latest measures amount to a de facto Israeli annexation of Lebanese territory south of the Zahrani River.

Israel and Turkey have been notorious violators of both international law and human rights for decades.  Their current actions are not a new phenomenon.

An especially blatant instance of territorial aggression was Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus and subsequent seizure of more than one-third of the island in 1974.  Indeed, Turkey, a NATO member, has committed blatant acts of aggression against three neighbors, Cyprus, Iraq, and Syria, to secure illicit territorial gains over the decades.  Ankara also has received toleration and excuse-making from the United States that is similar to what Israel has enjoyed for such chronic misconduct.

However, the mounting tensions between Tel Aviv and Ankara may soon compel Washington to make some tough choices about which ally should have priority. The clash of regional strategic objectives between Turkey and Israel has been rising since the overthrow of longtime Syrian ruler Bashar al Assad in December 2024. Ankara and Tel Aviv have maneuvered to control the successor regime of Ahmad al-Shaara.  Writing in the May 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs, Middle East scholars David Makovsky and Simone Sandmehr noted that Israel and Turkey had taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria by establishing presences there—”and have already begun to butt heads.”

The authors contended that “Turkey has emerged as the dominant military power in Syria.” However, they pointed out, “Israel also wants more influence in Syria and does not trust that Ankara won’t exploit the power vacuum to support a new wave of Islamic militants under Ankara’s control.” Makovsky and Sandmehr concluded that “Israeli leaders viewed Assad’s ouster as a strategic windfall and are racing to take advantage of his removal by establishing buffer zones and informal spheres of influence in southern Syria.”

The power struggle between Ankara and Tel Aviv has intensified in the period since  the Makovsky-Sandmehr article appeared.  Israel has boosted its military presence in southern Syria, and Turkey effectively eliminated the autonomous Kurdish stronghold in northern Syria—with Washington’s tacit approval.  Overall relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv have grown increasingly tense and acrimonious.

One of the most important challenges for any great power is to never let the actions of a nonessential ally or client undermine the great power’s own best interests. The United States has violated that rule repeatedly with respect to both Israel and Turkey.  Tel Aviv’s maneuvers to draw the United States into a war with Iran have created disastrous results for the American people.  Even from the narrow standpoint of the Trump administration’s global foreign policy, that conflict has been damaging.  Among the negative effects, Washington’s expenditure of weapons puts a severe drain on the U.S. arsenal.  Replenishing the weapons that Israel itself has used exacerbates the problem.  Various NATO allies, and another U.S. client, Ukraine, are increasingly vocal in their worries and complaints about lack of missiles.

Discontented American taxpayers could legitimately respond that their country should not be involved in the Ukraine war or any of the other armed conflicts.  However, absent an unlikely radical change in Washington’s grand strategy toward greater realism and restraint, those soaring costs will continue to be an unpleasant reality.

Matters are likely to become even worse if Israel and Turkey wage war.  Washington would then face the prospect of two foreign clients that U.S. leaders consider important assets creating a massive disruption in an already volatile, extremely dangerous region.  Trump administration policymakers need to take immediate steps to avoid that nightmare.  The United States must not risk suffering a fate similar to that of Czarist Russia or Wilhelmine Germany.

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He is also a contributing editor to National Security Journal and The American Conservative. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,600 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

'Chainsaw-wielding': Insiders reveal secret DOGE team lurks behind Trump duds

Kathleen Culliton
July 19, 2026 

RAW STORY



Elon Musk displays a chainsaw given to him by President of Argentina Javier Milei during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 20, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Elon Musk's notorious Department of Government Efficiency is alive and well and hiding inside a Trump administration outfit producing some of his bigger duds, according to a new Washington Post report.

DOGE allies have remained within the National Design Studio, the outfit designed by the White House to pump out government websites and "brand initiatives," inside sources told the Post.

"Two people close to DOGE, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said the design outfit, led by Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, serves as the spiritual successor to its work," the Post reported Saturday.

"With about 100 people and weekly meetings focused on efforts such as TrumpRx and the design of the new food pyramid, they represent an evolution of the DOGE mission, but a significant culling of its mandate."

The National Design Studio's mandate mirrors that of DOGE, which promised tech upgrades that would provide better services at lower costs, the Post notes.

But just this week TrumpRX was subjected to a scathing takedown as analysts revealed it had failed in its promise to lower costs by offering fewer than 12% of the more than 800 brand-name drugs made by participating pharmaceutical companies.

"Most of these companies are doing this for a small number of products and in a limited setting," Dr. Ben Rome, a health policy researcher, told NPR. "They're not engaging to do this on a large scale."

And, late last year, experts warned the National Design Studio was creating government websites that could leave gaping security holes despite their sleek appearance.

“The sites coming out of the National Design Studio might look slick at first glance — if not to everyone’s taste — but if the office’s early projects are a tell, pushing this aesthetic at a large scale could risk breaking federal disability laws and compromising the security of Americans’ personal data,” experts told NOTUS in December.

The Washington Post also reports the scaled down DOGE hasn't been able to meet its own deadlines on the redesign of the federal retirement online portal.

"Although the young technologists had hoped to be done with the project in a few months, it took them longer than expected," the Post reported.

Their work represents "a far cry from Musk’s chainsaw-wielding approach" with Gebbia pitching President Donald Trump on “design" and "aesthetics," according to the report.

Outside the studio, DOGE also maintains a presence.

"There 'are still an exceptional number that remain today and are more quietly operating behind the scenes,' said one staffer at the Transportation Department, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution," the Post reported.

"At the General Services Administration, Thomas Shedd, a former Tesla engineer who at one point led Technology Transformation Services, has not left, even though he no longer appears to have any official job at the agency and is listed as a special government employee, according to a GSA employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter."

'Old and horrible-looking': Trump fixates on windmills as Iran fatalities mount

Alexander Willis
July 19, 2026 

RAW STORY

Two days after at least two U.S. service members were killed as the United States and Iran edge closer to war, President Donald Trump took to social media to criticize "old and horrible looking" windmills in the United Kingdom.

"Word is that the UK is going to move the old and horrible looking windmills, which loom over and destroy the City of Aberdeen," Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

"That will be a big day for the Country, and will be very much appreciated by everybody."

Trump’s social media post marks his second on Truth Social since the killing of at least two U.S. service members in Jordan, who were killed by Iranian strikes on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base on Friday.

A third U.S. service member stationed at the base is reported missing.

Trump has commented on the fatal attack only once since Friday, calling the soldiers’ deaths “a very sad thing” during a phone call with NewsNation’s Hannah Brandt on Saturday.

Atlantic columnist Tom Nichols on Sunday penned an editorial condemning this brief response.

"Two more deaths are not, as Trump calls them, merely a “very sad thing," he wrote. "But the president has not seen fit, in all this time, to give one address to the American people or to Congress about why he plunged the United States into war, the global economy into chaos, and young Americans into danger."

The president spent Saturday partly at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, a club that has a $125,000 member initiation fee to join.

Later today, Trump is slated to appear at the World Cup final.

'Full-fledged disaster': Trump's new sanction demand fuels rage and conspiracy rhetoric

Kathleen Culliton
July 19, 2026 

RAW STORY

Donald Trump speaks in Des Moines, Iowa. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

President Donald Trump's Sunday morning demand that Republicans "add Iran to the Russian Sanctions Bill" after two U.S. service members were killed in Jordan has fueled outrage and the spread of conspiracy theories online.

Trump's Truth Social comment on the fatal war in Iran referenced death only in his reliance on the name of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

"Republicans should add Iran to the Russian Sanctions Bill," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "That’s what Lindsey wanted to do."

This comment appears to be a correction of one Trump made earlier in the week — saying Graham would have wanted the Senate to pass the Clarity Act — that reportedly made one ally "wince."

“The most obvious and logical way [to honor Graham] would be the sanctions bill, because it’s his bill,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Politico. “You’re not making anything up."

The bi-partisan bill would slap sanctions on buyers of Russian oil and gas, according to Politico, in a report describing Graham as a "one of the chamber’s fiercest Russia hawks."

"The problem is, the sanctions bill still faces serious doubts among some Republicans," Politico reported. "Graham at multiple points over the past year believed he had talked Trump into backing the measure, only for it to be put on ice as Trump tried to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin."

On Sunday, Trump's oft-reported praise of Putin spurred Garry Kasparov, an anti-authoritarian activist, to suggest the Truth Social post foreshadowed a new change to the legislation.

"Soon, Trump will be saying that Graham really only wanted Iran to be on the sanctions bill and not Russia at all, and that in fact, in private, he thought Putin was a strong leader they could work with," Kasparov wrote.

Meidas Touch editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski called out Trump for having lifted the sanctions in June.

"Seems like only yesterday the Trump Admin was lifting sanctions on Iran and declaring victory," he wrote.

Activist podcaster Amy Siskind responded by citing recent Wall Street Journal reporting that Iran pocketed up to $6 billion from oil shipments after those sanctions were lifted.

"Now Iran is is using that money to target and kill US troops, likely with the help of intelligence from China and Russia," Siskind wrote. "What a full-fledged disaster of foreign policy!"

But conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer celebrated Trump's comment and used it as an excuse to recirculate her baseless theory that Graham's "sudden death" had been orchestrated by Russian and Iranian operatives — despite his office confirming cardiovascular disease was the root cause.

"President Trump just called for Republicans to add Iran to the Russian sanctions bill," Loomer wrote. "Great idea. And then the DOJ needs to arrest every single American Woke Reich influencer who is colluding with Russia and Iran and attending their state sponsored propaganda tours. Their assets should be frozen."

 

Partido Lakas ng Masa (The Philippines): Condemn the renewed US war of aggression against Iran

By Partido Lakas ng Masa

Published 18 July, 2026

First published at Ang Masa Para sa Sosyalismo. 

No to the Philippines being drawn into the U.S. war agenda against the interests of the Filipino people.

We strongly condemn the United States and Israel for once again undermining efforts toward a ceasefire and negotiated settlement with Iran. Their renewed military attacks constitute an illegal and immoral war of aggression that further destabilises an already volatile situation, and pushes the Middle East closer to a wider and more destructive conflict.

The latest escalation follows the collapse of negotiations over the implementation of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), particularly disputes over the management of the Strait of Hormuz. Beneath this lies a deeper strategic struggle over control of one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Tehran has long viewed Washington’s objective as weakening Iran’s strategic leverage over the Strait and consolidating an alternative shipping corridor through Omani waters and beyond Iran’s influence.

Trump’s rhetoric also shifted recently, declaration that the ceasefire was over, calling the Iranians “scum” and threatening to resume bombing to “finish the job.” Tehran also viewed the US-brokered Lebanese-Israeli agreement — which linked Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament — as a violation of the terms of the MOU.

It was clear that the U.S. was preparing another round of war.

Rather than resolving the conflict, renewed military escalation will only deepen regional and global instability. Global oil markets remain fragile, and further disruption to energy supplies threatens to increase fuel prices, inflation, transport costs, food prices, and the overall cost of living worldwide. At a time when millions are already struggling with economic hardship, reckless US military intervention risks triggering a wider global economic and political crisis.

Countries such as the Philippines, which host US military troops, bases, and facilities, are placed at even greater risk. As Washington diverts military resources to West Asia while expanding its military build-up in the Asia-Pacific, the Philippines is increasingly being drawn into the US global war agenda — endless wars instead of peace.

This undermines national sovereignty and increases the danger that the Filipino people will be dragged into conflicts that threaten their interests.

The United States must immediately end its war of aggression against Iran, and return to genuine diplomacy and negotiations.

Governments internationally must act urgently to prevent further escalation and uphold peace based on respect for national sovereignty, the peaceful and political settlement of disputes, and the fundamental rights of all peoples.

PLM likewise demands that the Marcos Jr. administration pursue a genuinely independent foreign policy rather than subordinating Philippine interests to US strategic military objectives. The expanding US military presence and activities in the Philippines threaten national sovereignty, undermine regional peace, and expose the Filipino people to the dangers of an escalating confrontation among major powers.

Lasting peace cannot be achieved through bombs, sanctions, and military intimidation, but through justice, mutual respect and self-determination.

July 14, 2026

Trump’s ‘All Stick, No Carrot’ Iran Policy Has No Exit

by Greg Pence | Jul 16, 2026 | 

The ceasefire was supposed to mark the beginning of the end of a crisis. Instead, it quickly became a symbol of strategic failure. With renewed clashes in the Strait of Hormuz, fresh U.S. strikes on Iranian military targets, and Tehran’s retaliation, the last hopes that the Donald Trump administration could manage the Iran crisis through negotiations have collapsed. What remains today is not a clear path toward an agreement, but a return to the familiar instruments that have defined U.S. policy for years: economic pressure, military threats, and the use of hard power.

This time, however, there is one crucial difference. The Trump administration is no longer simply pursuing a policy of maximum pressure; it has entered a phase that can best be described as “all stick, no carrot.” The problem is not that Washington lacks coercive tools. The problem is that the incentives meant to transform pressure into a political settlement have lost their credibility.

Before the ceasefire collapsed, Trump’s strategy rested on a dual equation: raising the cost of Iranian resistance while simultaneously offering the prospect of economic benefits in exchange for an agreement. The White House hoped that a combination of military pressure, sanctions, promises of easing economic restrictions, higher Iranian oil exports, and renewed investment would convince Tehran that a deal was preferable to continued confrontation. In other words, the stick was supposed to bring Iran to the negotiating table, while the carrot was supposed to keep it there.

The collapse of the ceasefire, however, weakened the second half of that equation. When a process intended to reduce tensions once again ends in military exchanges, the credibility of any future political promise inevitably declines. From Tehran’s perspective, the central question is no longer simply how much pressure Washington can exert, but whether any future agreement can be trusted. If a diplomatic process cannot prevent a rapid return to confrontation, why should the next agreement be any different?

As a result, what remains available to the Trump administration today is largely the punitive side of the equation: sanctions, threats, and military strikes. But this raises a fundamental question: why does the White House believe that instruments which previously failed to compel Iran to accept American demands will now produce a different outcome?

This is precisely where Trump’s policy encounters its central contradiction. Pressure is effective only when it not only raises costs but also offers a viable exit. The history of diplomacy shows that even the harshest pressure campaigns have succeeded only when the targeted state believed that changing its behavior would bring tangible benefits. Threats without the possibility of compromise gradually cease to be instruments of negotiation and become instruments of punishment.

The Trump administration now finds itself trapped by this missing link. The greater the pressure, the more difficult it becomes to create the political space necessary for an agreement. And as the prospects for an agreement diminish, the White House feels compelled to intensify pressure further in order to demonstrate the success of its policy. The result is a cycle in which every new step demands another, without necessarily bringing Washington any closer to its stated objectives.

This is the “all stick, no carrot” trap. The problem is not a shortage of power, but an inability to convert power into a durable political outcome. The United States still possesses the capacity to impose economic and military pressure, but possessing tools is not the same as possessing a strategy. Bombing can send signals, sanctions can impose costs, and military threats can create temporary deterrence, but none of them alone can resolve a complex political crisis.

Supporters of this approach may argue that greater pressure will eventually force Iran to retreat. Yet this argument faces an uncomfortable question: what has changed this time? If economic pressure, political isolation, and military threats failed to produce Washington’s desired agreement in previous rounds, why should the same instruments succeed now without a credible political offer?

This is precisely where the Trump administration lacks a convincing answer. If the objective is an agreement, agreements do not emerge without incentives. If the objective is to change Iran’s behavior, Washington must explain what new factor has altered the equation. And if the objective is merely to increase costs, then this is no longer a strategy for ending the crisis, but one for managing it indefinitely.

The consequences extend far beyond Iran and the United States. Continued cycles of attack and retaliation increase the risk of a wider conflict in the Persian Gulf, threaten global energy security, and leave Washington’s allies more concerned with crisis management than with building a sustainable regional order. Each new round of escalation consumes additional political capital and resources without providing any guarantee of a lasting outcome.

The paradox of Trump’s policy is that, in seeking to demonstrate strength, it may ultimately leave him with fewer options than before. Retreating from pressure can easily be portrayed as political defeat, yet continuing along the same path offers no assurance of success. The longer the crisis persists, the more obvious the gap becomes between America’s instruments and its declared objectives.

Ultimately, the central weakness of Trump’s Iran policy is not that its stick is too small. It is that it assumes the stick alone can accomplish what only a combination of pressure and diplomacy can achieve. The Trump administration promised to secure a better agreement through American power, yet with the collapse of the ceasefire, the bargaining element has disappeared from the equation, leaving only pressure behind.

Successful foreign policy is measured not only by its ability to inflict costs, but also by its ability to end crises. Trump may impose additional sanctions, strike more targets, and raise the costs for Tehran, but until he can answer a simple question — what comes after more pressure? — his Iran policy will remain little more than a strategy of attrition.

The return to an “all stick, no carrot” approach is not evidence of a new strategy. It is evidence of a strategic deadlock in which Washington can still apply pressure, but no longer possesses a credible path for turning pressure into political success.

Greg Pence is an international studies graduate of University of San Francisco and my articles have been published on websites like Middle East Monitor.

‘Couldn’t care less’: Trump finally weighs in on deadly Iran war flare up

Alexander Willis
July 19, 2026 

RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump views North Portico renovations as he returns to the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 11, 2026. REUTERS/Aaron Schwartz

President Donald Trump finally weighed in Saturday on the deadly U.S.-Iran flare-up that has killed at least two U.S. service members, telling a NewsNation reporter he "couldn't care less" about reports that Iran walked away from the tentative ceasefire.

"I couldn't care less," Trump told NewsNation's Hannah Brandt by phone when asked about Iranian officials suspending the memorandum of understanding, Brandt wrote in a post on X.

Brandt also asked Trump to comment on the two U.S. service members who were killed at the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan on Friday from retaliatory strikes from Iran. A third U.S. service member remains missing, U.S. Central Command announced on Saturday.

“Very sad, it’s a very sad thing,” Trump said of the two killed U.S. service members, according to Brandt. “We hate to see it happen. It’s in service to our country.”

Trump, who on Saturday was spotted at his golf club in New Jersey, reiterated to Brandt during their call that it was still vital that the United States “never [allow] Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

The Iranian strike on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base prompted the United States to launch a new wave of strikes on Iran Saturday, the eighth such wave of strikes since negotiations between the United States and Iran broke down last weekend.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also weighed in on the deaths of the two U.S. service members on Saturday, writing in a social media post on X that “their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve.”

Aside from his remarks to Brandt, Trump did not issue any public statements on Saturday in the wake of the deaths of the two U.S. service members, sparking outrage after reports suggested he spent Saturday at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, a club that has a $125,000 member initiation fee to join.

'Due to Trump’s illegal war': U.S. service members' deaths met with despair and rage

Kathleen Culliton
July 18, 2026 

RAW STORY


A satellite image shows smoke billowing near an oil facility in Ahmadi Governorate, Kuwait, July 18, 2026. European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. MANDATORY CREDIT.

News that two service members had been killed by direct Iranian fire rocked the nation on Saturday.

U.S. Central Command announced the two service member's death, a third's disappearance and four medical evacuations one day after a base was attacked in Jordon.

"Out of respect for the families, CENTCOM will withhold additional information, including the identities of the fallen warriors, until 24 hours after the next of kin have been notified," the statement read.

Sixteen U.S. service members have been killed and more than 430 wounded since the war began, the Associated Press reported.

"The battle over the Strait of Hormuz has intensified in a conflict increasingly focused on control of the essential waterway that previously carried a fifth of the world’s crude oil," the Associated Press reported.

"The strikes threaten civilians and infrastructure, including desalination plants for drinking water, while the global economy again is on alert."

Americans responded to the news with words of outrage and despair.

"Really awful, dark, foreboding developments in the Middle East over the last 24 hours," wrote MS NOW analyst Sam Stein. "Hard to see how you deescalate from here."

Political strategist Mike Nellis condemned President Donald Trump for mounting an attack on Iran without approval from Congress.

"I will ask again: for what?" Nellis wrote. "Trump has no plan, no clear mission, and he’s getting our sons and daughters killed for his own vanity."

Nellis later added, "I’ll tell you what: if Barack Obama had launched an illegal war, 16 U.S. service members were dead, and another was missing in action, the MAGA media machine would be frothing at the mouth. Right now? Quiet as a church mouse. F---ing cowards."

Political podcaster Shaykh Sulaiman said simply, "Due to Trump’s illegal war."

'Distinctly sour mood': US Voters say they despise MAGA candidates more than socialists

Tom Boggioni
July 17, 2026 
RAW STORY

Supporters wearing 'MAGA' caps gather ahead of a campaign rally featuring Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S., November 4, 2024. REUTERS/Emily Elconin

Republican candidates may want to dial back bragging about being card-carrying members of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement, a new survey of American voters suggests.

A stunning CNBC survey released Friday revealed that economic turmoil has rendered the MAGA brand more politically poisonous then the label of socialism.

"Half of all voters say they are unlikely to support a democratic socialist candidate, with 32% saying they would support one," CNBC reported. "An endorsement by the president is somewhat worse, with 52% saying they would not support such a candidate. Worst of all are self-described MAGA candidates, which the survey found 57% of the public said they would be unlikely to support."

This could present a fundamental problem for Trump's movement heading into the midterms, experts said.

“More voters expect things to get worse by a 41/29% margin, leaving the electorate in a distinctly sour mood heading into the midterm election cycle,″ Micah Roberts, partner at Republican pollsters Public Opinion Strategies, told CNBC.

Despite favorable economic indicators—a booming stock market and declining inflation—the public remains deeply pessimistic about economic conditions, the survey found.

Consumer anxiety about everyday costs has reached pandemic-era levels, creating a disconnect between headline numbers and lived experience. Add to that the unpopularity of Trump's war which has trickled down to some of his congressional supporters.

The polling numbers reveal a Trump endorsement makes 52 percent of voters less likely to support a candidate, compared to just 29 percent who say it helps.

The comes close to how radioactive the MAGA label has become, with an alarming 57 percent of voters saying identifying as a self-described MAGA candidate would make them less likely to vote for them. Only 27 percent said it would help their prospects.

Devastating humiliation served to Trump as TV networks snub speech — for these shows

Nicole Charky-Chami
July 16, 2026 

RAW STORY


President Donald Trump waves aboard Marine One in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on July 15, 2026. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

President Donald Trump was served a heaping helping of humiliation ahead of his primetime address Thursday night, with several major broadcast networks snubbing the planned remarks in favor of a nature documentary and game show.

"NBC and ABC will not carry Trump on their respective networks but will carry on their digital feeds, NBC News Now and ABC News Live. Expect CBS to do the same," Wall Street Journal reporter Joe Flint reported on X, hours before the speech was to begin at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

It wasn't immediately known if CNN would also snub the address, Flint explained.

"But cable news can dip in and out and has a lot more freedom than a broadcast network that in theory needs to let affiliates know what's up and the producers of whatever show is airing etc etc," he posted.

The move comes as several networks were quiet about whether they would air the president's speech to the nation, which is expected to focus on elections, including his ongoing baseless fraud claims about the 2020 election. The time slot across networks continued to display "their standard scheduled content," with no indication that coverage would be interrupted for the presidential address.

NBC News, according to TV Insider, is scheduled to feature its series "The Americas," a nature documentary narrated by legendary actor Tom Hanks. This week's episode was set to focus on the Gulf Coast and its swamps and wetlands that are home to black bears and alligators.

The network said it planned to broadcast a special report following the address, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

ABC plans to air the Elizabeth Banks-hosted game show "Press Your Luck" during that hour, TV Insider reported.

Raging Trump smacked with 'brutal' response after demanding networks lose licenses

Nicole Charky-Chami
July 17, 2026 

RAW STORY


President Donald Trump speaks about election security during an address to the nation from the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 16, 2026. SAUL LOEB/Pool via REUTERS

A top FCC official pushed back Friday on President Donald Trump's demand that the agency revoke the broadcast licenses of ABC and NBC after the networks refused to air his primetime address, according to reports.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, made her position known in a post on X.

"It is ridiculous to call for broadcasters to lose their license simply for making the same editorial decisions they've made under presidents of both parties, especially when the remarks were still available to anyone who wanted to watch them online," Gomez wrote.

"The FCC has no authority to punish a station for refusing to air a blatantly political speech," she added. "This is a naked attempt to bully broadcasters, and the FCC should have no part in it."

Trump used his speech to advocate for his SAVE America Act ahead of the midterms, push claims about China's interference in U.S. elections and attack ABC and NBC for not airing his speech, Deadline reported.

In the past, networks have opted not to show addresses from other former presidents, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Media and political experts responded to Gomez's comments.

"Brutal response," Scott MacFarlane, chief Washington correspondent for MeidasTouch, wrote on X.

"The networks didn't carry two Jimmy Carter addresses," Wall Street Journal media reporter Joe Flint wrote on X.

"A lot of people don't understand the First Amendment, or editorial independence, and for the record the speech was available to anyone who wanted to watch or listen to it," Robert Lang, WBAL NewsRadio reporter and anchor, wrote on X.