Saturday, January 13, 2024

 

Scientists discover the first new antibiotics in over 60 years using AI

Scientists discover the first new antibiotics in over 60 years using AI
By Oceane Duboust

A new class of antibiotics for drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria which was discovered using more transparent deep learning models.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is proving to be a game-changer when it comes to medicine with the technology now helping scientists to unlock the first new antibiotics in 60 years.

The discovery of a new compound that can kill a drug-resistant bacterium that kills thousands worldwide every year could prove to be a turning point in the fight against antibiotic resistance.

"The insight here was that we could see what was being learned by the models to make their predictions that certain molecules would make for good antibiotics," James Collins, professor of Medical Engineering and Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the study’s authors, said in a statement.

"Our work provides a framework that is time-efficient, resource-efficient, and mechanistically insightful, from a chemical-structure standpoint, in ways that we haven’t had to date".

The results were published in Nature and co-authored by a team of 21 researchers.

Study aimed to 'open the black box'

The team behind the project used a deep-learning model to predict the activity and toxicity of the new compound.

Deep learning involves the use of artificial neural networks to automatically learn and represent features from data without explicit programming.

It is increasingly being applied in drug discovery to accelerate the identification of potential drug candidates, predict their properties, and optimise the drug development process.

In this case, researchers focused on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Infections with MRSA can range from mild skin infections to more severe and potentially life-threatening conditions such as pneumonia and bloodstream infections.

Almost 150,000 MRSA infections occur every year in the European Union while almost 35,000 people die annually in the bloc from antimicrobial-resistant infections, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

The MIT team of researchers trained an extensively enlarged deep learning model using expanded datasets.

To create the training data, approximately 39,000 compounds were evaluated for their antibiotic activity against MRSA. Subsequently, both the resulting data and details regarding the chemical structures of the compounds were input into the model.

"What we set out to do in this study was to open the black box. These models consist of very large numbers of calculations that mimic neural connections, and no one really knows what's going on underneath the hood," said Felix Wong, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard and one of the study’s lead authors.

Discovering a new compound

To refine the selection of potential drugs, the researchers employed three additional deep-learning models. These models were trained to assess the toxicity of compounds on three distinct types of human cells.

By integrating these toxicity predictions with the previously determined antimicrobial activity, the researchers pinpointed compounds capable of effectively combating microbes with minimal harm to the human body.

Using this set of models, approximately 12 million commercially available compounds were screened.

The models identified compounds from five different classes, categorised based on specific chemical substructures within the molecules, that exhibited predicted activity against MRSA.

Subsequently, the researchers acquired around 280 of these compounds and conducted tests against MRSA in a laboratory setting. This approach led them to identify two promising antibiotic candidates from the same class.

In experiments involving two mouse models - one for MRSA skin infection and another for MRSA systemic infection - each of these compounds reduced the MRSA population by a factor of 10.

 

Red Sea trade route still months away from safety, says Maersk boss

This photo released by the Houthi Media Center shows Houthi escort the cargo ship Galaxy Leader on Sunday, Nov. 19, 2023.
By Indrabati Lahiri

Trade in the Red Sea has significantly reduced ever since the start of the Houthi conflict and could still be several months away from returning to normal levels.

Global maritime trade has been facing a major setback from the increasing attacks on the Red Sea, halving the number of containers shipped in the area in December and leaving a serious impact on global trade in recent months

The Red Sea conflict, mainly driven by the Iran-backed Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting at Israel’s actions in Gaza, is continuing to heat up, with several more attacks on commercial ships from various countries.

A number of shipping companies, such as Maersk, MSC and Hapag-Lloyd have temporarily halted sending their shipping containers through the conflict zone, requiring vessels to take long and costly detours around South Africa. 

Vincent Clerc CEO of Danish shipping giant Maersk told the Financial Times the disruptions could last for months, and could even further inflame global inflation. 

"It's unclear to us if we are talking about re-establishing safe passage into the Red Sea in a matter of days, weeks or months…It could potentially have quite significant consequences on global growth," said Clerc. 

Supermarket chains such as Tesco, have already issued warnings that the Red Sea conflict could cause price increases for certain items.

Maersk, which carries one-fifth of the global maritime freight, had an attempt at restarting trips after a US-led military coalition tried to create a safe passage in the region but was forced to divert its ships again after a further attack at the end of December.

US and UK retaliate against Houthi attacks

Recently, the UK and US launched air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, targeting more than a dozen sites so far, including missile and drone facilities. 

Oil prices reacted sharply o these strikes, with European benchmark Brent crude oil jumping more than 3% on Friday afternoon, surpassing $80 per barrel on ICE Futures Europe. West Texas Intermediate crude also rose more than 3% to more than $75 per barrel.

According to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak: "The United Kingdom will always stand up for freedom of navigation and the free flow of trade. We have therefore taken limited, necessary and proportionate action in self-defence."

US President Joe Biden highlighted: "These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes."

Global trade significantly disrupted by Red Sea attacks

A new report by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy outlined that global trade in the Red Sea fell almost 1.3% between November and December, due to the Houthi attacks. The number of containers usually travelling in the area dropped by nearly 70%.

This has led to significant increases in transportation time and freight costs between East Asia and Europe, as several containers need to find alternative routes, often as far as going around the African continent.

Several countries have also taken hits to their imports and exports, with Germany seeing a 1.9% drop in exports and a 1.8% fall in imports. The European Union saw a 2% slide in exports and a 3.1% reduction in imports. The US saw a 1.5% decrease in exports and a 1% slip in imports, although the country is somewhat less dependent on the Suez Canal and Red Sea than the EU.

China, on the other hand, no doubt stepping into the vacuum, saw a 1.3% rise in exports and a 3.1% jump in imports. However, this could also be due to an annual cyclical trend before the Chinese Lunar New Year.

 

Winter of discontent in Slovakia: Why the new government is already under scrutiny

By Julian GOMEZ

Opposition parties, NGOs, legal experts, journalists and activists have strongly criticised PM Robert Fico and his plans to scrap Slovakia's special prosecutor's office, which is currently handling several cases involving Fico's own party.

It has taken just a few weeks for the new government in Slovakia to attract an eclectic movement of discontent, gathering not only opposition parties, but also NGOs, legal experts, journalists and different activists from civil society.

Our reporter Julián López went to the very heart of the protests to try to understand exactly what is happening.

Protests against Prime Minister Robert Fico and his plans to scrap the Special Prosecutor's Office have lately gained momentum in Bratislava and other Slovak cities.

The Office deals with high-level corruption and organised crime. It is currently handling several cases involving Mr Fico's own party.

Even the European Commission has raised concerns about the move.

"We are here to show our support and solidarity for democracy and the rule of law. Because basically he (the Prime Minister) is corrupting the judicial system here", one protester said. 

"From the outside we are like the beautiful democratic land in Eastern Europe, but if you look inside, it is polluted with crime and oligarchs. That's why I think it is the black hope of Europe," another added.

Robert Fico became Prime Minister for the fourth time last Autumn leading a coalition of left-wing populists and ultranationalists. Critics say his campaign was rife with pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine, anti-American and anti-immigration rhetoric.

Is Fico's return to power a real threat to democracy in Slovakia?

Slovakia is currently ranked 50th out of 180 countries in the Global Corruption Index -its best position in 10 years, said experts at Zastavme Korupciu -and NGO engaged in the fight against corruption. 

But, Xénia Makarová, an analyst and Zastavme Korupciu spokesperson, added that there is not much to be proud of: "Public corruption in Slovakia happens precisely in the areas that our Foundation focuses on, namely public procurement, conflict of interest of politicians when they put their own interests before the public interest, and corruption."

The Prime Minister has labelled NGOs as "foreign agents, thieves and liars," and the government has proposed rerouting their public funding to pensioners instead. Some of the organisations don't know if and for how long they will be able to continue operating.

Some Slovak journalists also accuse the Prime Minister of calling them "prostitutes, snakes and mad." Euronews tried to reach out to the government, but they repeatedly rejected all our interview requests.

The new government has also sent mixed messages about the war in Ukraine. Prime Minister Fico first said that no more weapons would be sent. He has since tempered that approach, but the some 150,000 Ukrainians living in Slovakia are worried. We met some of them at Mareena NGO, where they learn Slovak to better integrate. 

"I'm a little worried about how far down the list of priorities the topic of Ukrainians and Ukrainian inclusion and integration has gone and will be in the coming years," the NGO's director and co-founder Michaela Pobudová admitted.

Slovakia will soon return to the polls, as Presidential elections have been set for 23 March.

US Attack on Yemen Exposes the Lie of Supposed “Rules-Based International Order”


Antony Blinken’s lofty rhetoric about “rules” and “rights” is emptier than ever after Biden’s illegal attack on Yemen.
PublishedJanuary 13, 2024
A Yemeni man inspects a house that was destroyed in an airstrike carried out during the Yemen war by the Saudi-led coalition's warplanes, on February 5, 2021, in Sana'a, Yemen.
MOHAMMED HAMOUD / GETTY IMAGES


Have you heard the one about the U.S. government wanting a “rules-based international order”?

It’s a grimly laughable premise, but the nation’s major media outlets routinely take such claims seriously and credulously. Overall, the default assumption is that top officials in Washington are reluctant to go to war, and do so only as a last resort.

That framing was in evidence when the New York Times published this sentence at the top of the front page: “The United States and a handful of its allies on Thursday carried out military strikes against more than a dozen targets in Yemen controlled by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia, U.S. officials said, in an expansion of the war in the Middle East that the Biden administration had sought to avoid for three months.”

So, from the outset, the coverage portrayed the U.S.-led attack as a reluctant action — taken after exploring all peaceful options had failed — rather than an aggressive act in violation of international law.

On Thursday, President Biden issued a statement that sounded righteous enough, saying that “these strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea.” He did not mention that the Houthi attacks have come in response to Israel’s murderous siege of Gaza. In the words of CNN, they “could be intended to inflict economic pain on Israel’s allies in the hope they will pressure it to cease its bombardment of the enclave.”

In fact, as Common Dreams reported, Houthi forces “began launching missiles and drones toward Israel and attacking shipping traffic in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s Gaza onslaught.” And as Trita Parsi at the Quincy Institute pointed out, “the Houthis have declared that they will stop” attacking ships in the Red Sea “if Israel stops” its mass killing in Gaza.

But that would require genuine diplomacy — not the kind of solution that appeals to President Biden or Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The duo has been enmeshed for decades, with lofty rhetoric masking the tacit precept that might makes right. (The same approach was implicit all the way back to 2002, when then-Sen. Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings that promoted support for the impending U.S. invasion of Iraq. Blinken was the committee’s chief of staff.)

Now, in charge of the State Department, Blinken is fond of touting the need for a “rules-based international order.” During a 2022 speech in Washington, he proclaimed the necessity “to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict, to uphold the rights of all people.” Two months ago, he declared that the G7 nations were united in support of “a rules-based international order.”

But for more than three months now, Blinken has provided a continuous stream of facile rhetoric to support the ongoing methodical killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Days ago, behind a podium at the U.S. embassy in Israel, he defended that country’s actions in the face of abundant evidence of genocidal warfare, claiming that “the charge of genocide is meritless.”

The Houthis are avowedly in solidarity with Palestinian people, while the U.S. government continues to provide massive arms supplies to the Israeli military as it massacres civilians and systematically destroys Gaza. Blinken is so immersed in Orwellian messaging that, several weeks into the Gaza slaughter, he tweeted that the U.S. and its G7 partners “stand united in our condemnation of Russia’s war in Ukraine, in support of Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law, and in maintaining a rules-based international order.”

There’s nothing unusual about extreme doublethink being foisted on the public by the people running U.S. foreign policy. What they perpetrate is a good fit for the description of doublethink in George Orwell’s “1984”: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it …”

After news broke about the attack on Yemen, a number of Democrats and Republicans in the House quickly spoke up against Biden’s end-run around Congress, which flagrantly violated the Constitution by effectively going to war on the president’s say-so. Some of the comments were laudably clear, but perhaps none more so than a statement by then-candidate Joe Biden in January of 2020: “A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”

Like that disposable platitude, all the Orwellian nonsense coming from the top of the U.S. government about seeking a “rules-based international order” is nothing more than a brazen PR scam.

The vast quantity of official smoke-blowing now underway cannot hide the reality that the U.S. government is the most powerful and dangerous outlaw nation in the world.


NORMAN SOLOMON is the national director of RootsAction and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His lastest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in the summer of 2023 by The New Press.
Palestine Has Exposed How Our Governments Work for Their Own Interests, Not Ours

We cannot rely on political bodies whose material interests are at odds with revolution.

By William C. Anderson ,
PRISM
January 13, 2024
Pro-Palestine protesters gather and block the entrance of the New Jersey-bound Holland Tunnel in lower Manhattan demanding Palestinian liberation and a permanent ceasefire on January 8, 2024, in New York City.
MICHAEL NIGRO / PACIFIC PRESS / LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES


Support justice-driven, accurate and transparent news — make a quick donation to Truthout today!

This story was originally published by Prism.

“What happened to the Palestinian nation is a shame to all of us.” – Nawal El Saadawi

The Israeli occupation of Palestine has unfolded into an escalated genocide capturing the world’s attention. Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza and repression in the West Bank has led millions to ask, “Why won’t anyone stop this?”

People make societies work, but yielding power to political bodies and institutions for the maintenance of those societies gives rise to a paradox: placing responsibility for revolution and even liberation in the hands of authorities whose interests are diametrically opposed to those goals. Instead, they have the ability to hold us back and distort an international predicament. The problem is that this world, which has been shaped by colonialism and violent dispossession, is not serving us. Palestine shows us why in many ways. So, dissecting U.S. interests and global capitalism and situating solidarity across borders can provide some clarity regarding how we shape a world much different from the one we currently inhabit.

The commercial and political power that allows the U.S. to assert its dominance is fortified by the modern formation of what we know as the “nation-state.” This international order augments itself through monopolies on violence, trade, and movement. After two world wars, an earth that was once organized into traditional empires saw the birth of many new independent nations. National territorial states and the aspirational hopes of sovereignty represented the best intentions of masses of people rising up against colonialism, genocide, and imperialism. Populations around the world rested their dreams for better lives in representation facilitated through statehood. The problems of treating this arrangement of political organization as quintessential for liberation movements are now laid bare.

In many people’s ideal world, the occupation of Palestine would be stopped by a conglomerate of liberated states that oppose Western dominance. It would be disrupted by pan-Arab solidarity against Zionist settler-colonial dominance. People would rise up at the helm of their states, or at least be represented by sincere leaders to push us toward a free Palestine. Global capitalism complicates and prevents this.

Countries are not able to easily intervene on behalf of Palestinian people because of ties negotiated through industry, corporations, and strategic alliances — and that’s if their administrations genuinely want to risk doing so in the first place. So, while we may see millions of people mobilizing around the globe to express their heartfelt allegiance to Palestine, governments often do not reflect the public’s will. Similarly, when we vote politicians into office in the U.S., it is no guarantee they will represent our interests or even acknowledge them. It’s a microcosm of what we see playing out globally.


Ilhan Omar Leads Global Call by Over 400 Parliamentarians for Gaza Ceasefire
The statement was signed by a group of lawmakers hailing from every continent.
By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUTJanuary 12, 2024


Appeals to U.S. representatives will ring hollow when they’re bought and paid for by lobbyists who have commitments to Israel. We must ask ourselves what we’re actually appealing to. Do our demands maintain and reiterate this world, or do they make steps toward undoing the colonial trappings we’ve been told can serve us? Anything less than a total transformation may not be enough, but the rapid politicization happening with younger generations, boycotts, and mass demonstrations tell us something significant is shifting.

These actions represent the power of people. However, radical organizers and politics should be brave enough to deal with the possibility that the number of people we thought cared about liberation and mutual aid might be much smaller than we imagine. There are times like these when we see astounding numbers of people ready to take action, only to have the channels they take action through minimize their possible impact.

If we need a recent reference point, we don’t have to look much further than the George Floyd uprisings of 2020. At a moment’s notice, abolition and calls to “defund the police” were swept into an election cycle and became “issues” on the ballot. When it was all said and done, protests died down, and the police got more funding under the auspices of COVID-19 relief and a newly elected democratic administration. The moment we begin trying to funnel this into politicians, political bodies, and the state, momentum can quickly die.

The ruling classes of the world rely on the watering down of our movements as a means of controlling dispersed communities and subjugating oppressed people. The compulsion to create emissaries to fulfill a mandate undermines us at every turn. It leaves us projecting our dreams for a better world onto people, places, and things we shouldn’t. It leads to us placing our hopes in anything that can give us a modicum of disempowered inspiration. We must always remember that true power lies in our collective force and self-determined resistance.

The new year begins with tens of thousands killed by the occupation State of Israel, thousands more unaccounted for under rubble, and 1.9 million displaced and starved. The U.S.-backed siege of Gaza and settler raids in the West Bank will certainly come into play during the upcoming election. Political establishments will use the plight of Palestinian people to sway voters. Scores of elections are set to take place across the globe that have the potential to transform the geopolitical landscape in ways never seen before. Half of the world’s population will be headed to the polls. What’s at stake is not just pivotal in terms of the Israeli occupation, but in the ongoing genocides in Sudan, Tigray, Congo, and elsewhere.

The insurmountable barrier we’re facing is that we the people do not represent ourselves and our interests directly. We shouldn’t have to “pressure” elected officials or governments, ever. This world system we’re enabling and legitimizing here in the U.S. extends its reach through partnerships with other states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. What would we all be able to accomplish without regimes like this getting in our way at home and abroad?

The acclaimed Gazan photojournalist Motaz Azaiza may have said it best, “Don’t call yourself a free person if you can’t make changes. If you can’t stop a genocide that is still ongoing.” This is an indictment that should push radicals in the U.S. to consider what it means to respond beyond predictable and controllable methods. Overturning this world system requires a new kind of creative thinking. The final story has not been written yet. There is still time to change the assumed conclusions.

Prism is an independent and nonprofit newsroom led by journalists of color. We report from the ground up and at the intersections of injustice.

Thank you for reading Truthout today. Your interest in bold journalism, outside the mainstream, means the world to us. Just briefly, we must ask for your help.

Truthout is funded almost entirely by its readers – you won’t see advertisements on the side of our website or funding from big corporations. Instead, what you read is powered by readers like you.

As we look to this coming year, we ask that you pledge a donation of any size once monthly to Truthout. Anything you can give ensures that we can continue publishing at this critical time, and you can cancel or change your gift at any time. (Or, you can donate just one time today. No matter what, every single cent makes a difference.)

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


WILLIAM C. ANDERSON is a freelance writer. His work has been published by the Guardian, Truthout, MTV and Pitchfork, among others. He’s co-author of As Black as Resistance (AK Press 2018).
BREAKING NEWS
US climate envoy Kerry stepping down to help Biden campaign, say reports


Democratic presidential candidate former US Vice president Joe Biden (left) campaigns with former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on December 6, 2019 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. US climate envoy John Kerry, a key player in the Biden administration’s push to tackle climate change, will step down to work on the president’s reelection bid, media reported. — AFP pic

Sunday, 14 Jan 2024 

WASHINGTON, Jan 14 — US climate envoy John Kerry, a key player in the Biden administration’s push to tackle climate change, will step down to work on the president’s reelection bid, media reported yesterday.

The former secretary of state and senator has spent the last three years liaising with other countries to up commitments on climate change, including at the most recent COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai.


Kerry, 80, intends to help Joe Biden’s campaign by publicising the president’s work in combatting global warming, according to multiple US media outlets citing officials familiar with the situation.

Kerry informed Biden of his intentions to leave on Wednesday, and his staff learned of the decision on Saturday, those officials said.
ADVERTISEMENT


Apart from leading the US delegation at three UN climate summits, Kerry worked effectively with China despite complicated diplomatic relations. Together, the countries are the world’s two largest polluters, accounting for 41 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.


In a rare display of unity, the United States and China helped carry the COP28 December climate summit in Dubai, where negotiators sealed a historic although watered-down agreement to begin to transition away from oil, gas and coal.

Kerry had welcomed his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua a month earlier in California, where the two countries agreed on outlines of climate action that partly served as a basis for the nearly 200-nation Dubai deal.

News of Kerry’s stepping down comes one day after Xie retired on health grounds.

One of Biden’s first moves in office after his inauguration on January 20, 2021 was to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, which former president Donald Trump had exited.

Under the 2015 UN deal countries committed to limiting the Earth’s warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and preferably to the safer 1.5C threshold.

That said, the year of 2023 was the hottest on record, with the increase in Earth’s surface temperature nearly crossing the critical 1.5C threshold, according to EU climate monitors.

Kerry, himself a onetime Democratic presidential nominee, will step down sometime in the coming months, according to Axios, which first reported the news.

The White House and Kerry’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP.



US climate envoy John Kerry to leave Biden administration

By REUTERS
JANUARY 13, 2024 

US climate envoy John Kerry will leave the administration later this winter, and plans to help President Joe Biden's election campaign, Axios reported on Saturday.

Kerry, a US former secretary of state, informed his staff earlier on Saturday after speaking with Biden earlier this week, a spokesman for Kerry told Reuters.

Axios first reported on Saturday that Kerry, 80, will leave the administration later this winter, and plans to help Biden's campaign.

Kerry was instrumental is helping to broker the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, as well as the UAE Consensus that calls for the transition away from fossil fuels reached in December at COP28 in Dubai.

US climate envoy John Kerry to leave Biden administration


John Kerry, the US special envoy on climate, is stepping down from the Biden administration in the coming weeks, sources said.

Mr Kerry, a long-serving senator and secretary of state, was brought in shortly after Joe Biden’s election win in 2020 to take on the new role created specifically to fight climate change on behalf of the administration on the global stage.

Mr Kerry’s departure plans were first reported on Saturday by Axios.

He was one of the leading drafters of the 2015 Paris climate accords and came into the role with significant experience abroad, as secretary of state during the Obama administration and from nearly three decades as a member of the US senate foreign relations committee.

Mr Biden’s decision to seek Mr Kerry for the post was seen as a signal the incoming American leader would make good on his campaign pledge to battle climate change in a more forceful and visible manner than in previous administrations.

“The climate crisis is a universal threat to humankind and we all have a responsibility to deal with it as rapidly as we can,” Mr Kerry said in a visit to Beijing last summer, when he met Chinese vice president Han Zheng on climate matters.

Trump falsely claims ‘no terrorist attacks’ and ‘no wars’ during his presidency

The Fact Checker
January 13, 2024 


“We had no terrorist attacks at all during my four years.”

— Former president Donald Trumpduring a Fox News town hall, Jan. 10

“I had no wars. I’m the only president in 72 years, I didn’t have any wars.”

— Trump, also during the town hall



Trump’s town hall featured many of the same false claims he makes on a daily basis, but there were two new ones that are worth of fact-checking. We suspect that, if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee, he will feature these falsehoods on a regular basis. They slip nicely into his narrative that President Biden has unleashed chaos around the globe.

No terrorist attacks

Trump made this comment in the context of touting the travel ban he imposed, after several court challenges and rewrites, on Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. (Chad was on the list but was removed in 2018 after the White House said the country had improved security measures.)

“They call it the Trump travel ban,” he told the Fox audience. “They tried to make a big deal. The Supreme Court very intelligently approved it. Without that, we would’ve had blowups.”

The travel ban essentially halted the issuance of immigrant visas to the affected countries and restricted certain types of nonimmigrant visas, such as for tourism and business, though the protocol varied from country to country.

But Trump is wrong when he claims there were no terrorist attacks during his presidency. Laying aside domestic terrorism by right- or left-wing groups, the authoritative Global Terrorism Database maintained by the University of Maryland shows two major incidents tied to Islamist militants that resulted in fatalities.

  • Dec. 6, 2019: “A member of the Saudi Air Force, identified as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, opened fire on a classroom in the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Four people, including the assailant, were killed and eight others were injured in the attack. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the incident. Alshamrani posted criticism of U.S. wars and quoted Osama bin Laden on social media hours before the attack.”
  • Dec. 17, 2017: “An assailant driving a Home Depot rental truck entered a bike path in an attempt to run over civilians on the West Side Highway in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States. Following the initial attack, the assailant exited the vehicle and was shot by a police officer after displaying imitation firearms. At least eight people, including two citizens from the United States, five Argentinian tourists, and one Belgian tourist, were killed and 13 other people, including the assailant, were injured in the attack. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed that the assailant, identified as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, was ‘one of the caliphate soldiers;’ however, sources doubted the veracity of this claim. Authorities also recovered a note from the vehicle in which Saipov pledged allegiance to ISIL.”

Both of these incidents garnered enormous attention, and Trump himself commented on the cases at the time. He even called the Saipov case a “terrorist attack” in his 2018 State of the Union address.

“In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration,” Trump said. “In the age of terrorism, these programs present risks we can no longer afford.”

The other case listed in the database that Trump referenced in his address (the 2019 incident had not yet happened) was this one, though it did not result in fatalities:

  • Dec. 11, 2017: “A suicide bomber detonated explosives [a pipe bomb] at Port Authority Bus Terminal between Seventh and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States. In addition to the assailant, three civilians were injured in the blast. Akayed Ullah, a jihadi-inspired extremist, claimed responsibility for the incident and stated ‘They’ve been bombing in my country and I wanted to do damage here,’ and ‘I did it for the Islamic State.’ In April 2021, Ullah was sentenced to life plus 30 years.”

Ullah, who came to the United States from Bangladesh in 2011, had obtained a green card as the child of a sibling of a U.S. citizen. Saipov, from Uzbekistan, arrived in the United States in 2010 through the diversity visa lottery.

The database also lists four other incidents attributed to jihadi-inspired extremists, though no one was killed except, in two cases, the assailant.

A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

No wars

Trump said he was the first president in 72 years not to have any wars, which takes us back to 1948, when Harry S. Truman was elected in his own right after stepping up to finish Franklin D. Roosevelt’s final term months before the end of World War II. This is a more broad-based claim than a statement Trump made in his farewell address as president — that he had started no new wars.

The spokesman did not respond to a question seeking clarification, but neither claim is true.

Jimmy Carter, president from 1977 to 1981, not only never formally declared war or sought authorization to use force from Congress during his presidency, but military records show not a single soldier died in hostile action during his presidency. Eight military personnel died during the 1980 Iranian hostage rescue mission, but the military deems those as non-hostile deaths. (A helicopter collided with an aircraft.) A marine and an army soldier were also killed when a mob burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.

At least 65 active duty troops died in hostile action in Trump’s presidency, the records show, as he ramped up commitments in Iraq and Syria to fight the ISIS terrorist group while also launching airstrikes on Syria as punishment for a chemical weapons attack. (During the town hall, Trump bragged, “We beat ISIS, knocked them out.”) Trump also escalated hostilities with Iran, including the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Trump said at the time the strike was carried out in accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of 2001.

Trump might argue that he inherited those conflicts, but it is debatable whether one should count Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria as a “new war” or an extension of the conflict in Iraq started under George W. Bush. (The ISIS terror group emerged in the aftermath of that war.) Obama did not deploy any U.S. troops to Libya when NATO began a campaign in Libya aimed at saving civilians in Benghazi threatened by Libyan government forces. Still, 1,436 troops died in hostile action in Obama’s first term as wars continued in Iraq and Afghanistan; 161 troops died in hostile action during his second term.

Only 58 troops died in hostile action during Ronald Reagan’s two terms, including 17 as a result of the brief 1983 invasion of Grenada. But 241 people were killed when suicide bombers struck U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Bill Clinton established a no-fly zone in Bosnia, deployed troops to restore the president of Haiti and bombed targets in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But only one death from hostile action is recorded by the military during his eight-year presidency. Eighteen troops died in Somalia supporting a United Nations peacekeeping mission (the Black Hawk Down incident); his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, had sent the troops for humanitarian reasons.

The Pinocchio Test

Trump often has a poor memory and a tenuous grasp on history, as these examples yet again show. There were jihadi-inspired terrorist attacks in the United States during his presidency, as he himself noted at the time. It’s also false to claim that he’s the first president since 1948 not to have had any wars on his watch. Jimmy Carter earns that honor.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter