Shir Torem/Reuters

A man looks at pictures and memorabilia related to fallen Israeli soldiers, hostages, and people killed in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, at a public square in Tel Aviv, Israel, Jan. 16, 2025.

After 15 months of war and suffering, Israelis and Palestinians holding out for a ceasefire and hostage deal appear to be getting a pause, but not yet peace.

A deal that was announced with great fanfare late Wednesday, and set to be implemented starting Sunday, provides for a six-week ceasefire and the release of some Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for scores of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

The agreement calls for fresh negotiations for second and third phases that would follow the initial ceasefire and lead to an end of hostilities.

But even as a sense of relief swept through Israel and Gaza, it was accompanied by trepidation and wariness over the possibility that the war might resume and the hostages might not return.

The deal’s fragility was tested almost immediately. In the 16 hours after the Wednesday announcements by Qatar and the United States that a deal had been reached, Israeli airstrikes killed 81 people in Gaza, according to local authorities.

On Thursday morning, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed an Israeli Cabinet vote to ratify the deal, accusing Hamas of backtracking on some of its commitments “in an effort to extort last-minute concessions.” Hamas issued a statement reasserting its commitment.

Observers say at its core, the initial deal fails to address a fundamental issue that will overshadow talks on subsequent phases: Israel’s unfulfilled war aim of defeating and uprooting Hamas, which continues to rule in Gaza. In Israel, the agreement is viewed primarily as a hostage release deal. Hamas sees it as providing for a permanent ceasefire.

Beginning of the end?

If the deal’s announcement did not mark the end of the war, it did signal a potential beginning of the end. The war has claimed more than 46,000 lives in Gaza after 1,200 people were killed in Israel and 250 taken hostage on Oct. 7, 2023. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers have been killed in the fighting.

In the deal’s initial phase, a 42-day ceasefire, Hamas would gradually release 33 hostages – women, children, men over age 50, and those who are ill – in return for the release of some 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Israel would withdraw from population centers in Gaza. At the same time, a “surge” in humanitarian aid of 600 trucks a day would enter the coastal strip.

Israelis and Palestinians both expressed the hope that once hostages are returned and Gazans displaced by the war begin to return to their homes, the agreement will become difficult to reverse.

Abdel Kareem Hana/AP

Palestinians celebrate the announcement of a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip, Jan. 15, 2025.

But both for the Israeli families of hostages and for Palestinians in Gaza, the multiphase deal brings painful memories of a November 2023 agreement that barely lasted eight days before it collapsed.

In Israel, Herut Nimrodi, whose soldier son Tamir would not be included in the first group of released hostages, says that while joyful over the return of some hostages, she was weighed down with fear for her son.

“We are very worried because we know Hamas, and we know that we might not get to the next stage,” says Ms. Nimrodi.

“We are very afraid that this first phase is where it will all stop, and we won’t have our children back home,” she says. “They stopped it last time.”

Hamas has refused to disclose which remaining hostages are alive or dead.

In Gaza, many Palestinians, facing intensified Israeli airstrikes leading up to the agreement’s implementation Sunday, anxiously looked forward to returning to their damaged homes after months of living in temporary shelters.

In Deir al-Balah, Lina Ata, a displaced aid worker, wants to return home to Gaza City as soon as she is allowed, even if it means navigating checkpoints.

“I’ve told my family I will join them immediately, even if it means going on foot. ... I am eager for next Sunday to come,” she says.

Yet Suad Ghoula, a nurse who is also displaced in Deir al-Balah, is more subdued in her response.

“Once I heard the news and announcement of a ceasefire, I didn’t comment,” she says. “I have been disappointed many times; I am afraid of having new hope, only to be disappointed again.”

Enduring disagreements

The ceasefire agreement, almost identical to a May 2024 blueprint proposed by the U.S., leaves unanswered questions for each thorny issue it attempts to address. The deal, a copy of which was obtained by the Monitor, calls for new negotiations by the 16th day of the ceasefire, over a more contentious second phase.

Reuters

Trucks loaded with aid wait to cross into the Gaza Strip following the announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, in El Arish, Egypt, Jan. 16, 2025.

This second phase entails a full cessation of hostilities; the start of a “complete withdrawal” of Israeli forces from Gaza; the return of the remaining 65 Israeli hostages, mainly military-aged men held by Hamas; and the release of hundreds more Palestinian prisoners.

Talks would then pivot to a third phase, during which Hamas would return the remains of deceased hostages, and the reconstruction of Gaza, a massive undertaking, would be launched.

Yet few figures in Israeli politics have expressed support for a full withdrawal from Gaza. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated they have no near-term plans to leave Gaza while Hamas retains a fighting force and an ability to fire rockets at Israel.

The first phase calls for a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Netzarim corridor, an Israeli military zone cutting off Gaza City and northern Gaza from the rest of the strip. Mr. Netanyahu has vowed a continued Israeli presence in the corridor, where Israel has built military bases.

To the south, Israel is due to completely evacuate its forces from the Philadelphi corridor running along Gaza’s border with Egypt by Day 50. Mr. Netanyahu insists Israel maintain control over the corridor to seal off the strip, while Hamas demands full Israeli withdrawal.

Also in the first six weeks, Palestinians would be allowed to return to their homes in Gaza City and the north through checkpoints, though it remains unclear who will be controlling these checkpoints.

Among other lingering disputes is who would operate the vital Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza.

The path forward

In unveiling the deal late Wednesday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Al Thani said the ceasefire will be supported by a “mechanism” in place involving Egypt, the U.S., and Qatar to address violations and tackle hurdles as they arise, to prevent its unraveling.

But opposition to the deal persists.

Ohad Zwigenberg/AP

Religious nationalist activists who say they represent families of Israelis killed during the war in Gaza block a road to protest the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Jerusalem, Jan. 16, 2025.

Israel’s Religious Zionism party, led by far-right provocateur and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, threatened to quit the government unless Mr. Netanyahu provided “guarantees that the war will continue” after conclusion of the first phase. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, issued his own threat.

Small protests erupted in Jerusalem Thursday, with dozens of right-leaning demonstrators and parents of fallen soldiers holding up placards reading, “Yes to victory, no to surrender.”

“My assumption is the war is over,” said the Haaretz daily’s military correspondent Amos Harel in a briefing with reporters, noting likely pressure from the incoming Trump administration. “We have not completed victory against Hamas,” he added. “That promise was made and never fulfilled.”

If the ceasefire is to lead to lasting peace, the question of postwar governance in Gaza is crucial. The Palestinian Authority, which insists on being the sole governing entity in Gaza, is rejecting an Egyptian attempt to establish a governing committee under the PA’s auspices with Hamas’ approval.

If Hamas continues to govern Gaza, “The real fear is that all of this fighting was just another round,” says Shira Efron, a senior analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, a think tank.

“That is why if we don’t seriously spend the next 42 days identifying options for a transitional authority in Gaza that is the Palestinian Authority supported by Arab and international players, we may well find ourselves with a very adverse outcome,” she adds.

“This situation is unlike anything we’ve experienced; I fear we might face another war soon,” says Ms. Ata, the Gaza aid worker, “while we search for loved ones and relatives.”

Dina Kraft contributed reporting from Arles, France.

President Joe Biden’s legacy, in the short term at least, is likely to be marked by a sense of failure.

His first few years in office saw persistent inflation, with many Americans struggling to afford groceries, gas, and rent. Under his watch, record streams of migrants flooded across the U.S.-Mexico border. As he heads out the door, a new CNN poll finds that just 36% of Americans approve of how he has handled the presidency, matching his previous low.

Perhaps most painful, Mr. Biden’s 50-plus years in public life are ending with an outcome he sought mightily to avoid: the return of Donald Trump.

Even a late-breaking ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas is unlikely to be seen as a clear win for Mr. Biden, with Mr. Trump being given as much or more credit for the achievement. To many observers, it’s raising unmistakable parallels to another one-term president whose time in office was widely seen as unsuccessful: Jimmy Carter.

“Not a lot of one-term presidents are considered candidates for Mount Rushmore,” says Matthew Dickinson, a political scientist at Middlebury College in Vermont.

Yet Professor Dickinson and other presidential scholars don’t rule out the possibility that public estimation of Mr. Biden’s term could well improve over time. Biden defenders argue he deserves and will ultimately get credit for getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control and enacting a massive economic relief program. During his first two years in office, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Biden passed major programs that are expected to deliver tangible results in coming years – including investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.

Even now, the U.S. economy is outperforming much of the world, with unemployment at 4.1% and inflation at 2.9%. Some Democrats complain that their party had a messaging problem, not a policy problem, as President Biden reduced his interviews and public appearances and struggled to communicate effectively.

In his final days in office, Mr. Biden has used both his presidential power and his bully pulpit. He’s issued a raft of executive orders, and put out a 61-page memo touting his accomplishments. Wednesday night, he delivered a farewell address to the nation that was both hopeful and ominous.

Mandel Ngan/Reuters

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Vice President Kamala Harris, and first lady Jill Biden (from left to right) hold hands as they listen to President Joe Biden deliver his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Jan. 15, 2025.

Mr. Biden warned specifically of a growing concentration of riches in the United States, a veiled swipe at Mr. Trump and some of his most prominent supporters.

“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,” the president said in his speech. The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has become a key Trump ally, and the next two wealthiest, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, have also curried favor with the incoming president.

Over the long haul, the larger meaning of Mr. Biden’s one term remains fluid. Will it be seen as a brief interregnum that effectively stretched out Mr. Trump’s era of influence by four years? Or by denying Mr. Trump a second consecutive term in 2020, did Mr. Biden accomplish something more significant?

Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, argues that beating Mr. Trump in 2020 could turn out to be a key Biden legacy.

“It may very well be that an uninterrupted reign of a Trump presidency for eight years would have been markedly more disruptive than two separate intervals of a Trump presidency,” Professor Riley says.

Mr. Biden came to the presidency as the embodiment of the political establishment, an avatar of “normality.” He had served 36 years in the Senate and eight years as vice president before reaching the Oval Office. He also had a history as a centrist dealmaker, skills he honed in the Senate.

“He was nominated because he was going to move the Democratic Party back to the center, but he didn’t necessarily govern that way,” Professor Dickinson says. “I think that hurt him.”

Instead, Mr. Biden tacked left – leading to a “big government” ethos and legislation that added trillions to the national debt.

Of course, Mr. Trump was also a big spender, and the national debt rose even more during his first term than Mr. Biden’s. Whether Mr. Trump’s second-term plans to boost government efficiency and slash the federal workforce come to anything remain to be seen. For now, cutting or eliminating programs dear to Democrats is high on the list.

Mr. Biden’s decision to run for a second term, after strongly suggesting he wouldn’t, is another key part of his legacy. By the time the octogenarian dropped out of the race last July, after a disastrous debate performance, there was no time for a proper primary. Vice President Kamala Harris, as the emergency fill-in, narrowly lost the popular vote, and lost the Electoral College by a wider margin.

It may well be that no Democrat running on Mr. Biden’s record could have beaten Mr. Trump. Still, Mr. Biden will get credit in the history books for elevating the first woman to the vice presidency. After the Supreme Court’s historic overturning of the nationwide right to abortion in 2022, Ms. Harris became the administration’s most prominent voice on reproductive rights.

“She was a far more effective messenger on that than he was,” says Jennifer Lawless, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Mr. Biden is also credited with assembling a diverse Cabinet, and putting the first Black female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

A persistent challenge throughout the Biden term was the legal and personal troubles of his son. The only surviving child from Mr. Biden’s late first wife, Hunter Biden occupied a unique place in his father’s presidency, as a source of perpetual concern. When President Biden announced last month the unconditional pardon of his son, going back 11 years, he broke a repeated promise that he would not do that. The president’s regular oaths of “my word as a Biden” may now ring a bit hollow.

His son’s pardon also shined a light on the larger issue of alleged Justice Department weaponization. The two federal cases against Mr. Trump – now dismissed – helped fuel passions around his 2024 reelection, and could in turn spur efforts by the incoming Trump Justice Department to prosecute Biden allies.

Ultimately, the policy dimension of Mr. Biden’s one term will be his most durable legacy. In foreign affairs, the disastrous final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 may be the most memorable episode – a blow to Mr. Biden’s public approval from which he never recovered. His shoring up of international alliances and diehard support for Ukraine and Israel, amid brutal wars, underscored Mr. Biden’s identity as a globalist.

Wednesday’s announcement of an Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage deal brought back memories of President Carter, and the Iranian hostage crisis that helped make him a one-termer. Mr. Carter’s memorial service in Washington was just last week, making the parallel even sharper.

Mr. Carter is now remembered fondly by many for his decades-long post-presidency, marked by good works, rather than the missteps of his time in the White House. Of course, Mr. Carter was just 56 when he left office. 

But historians point to other presidents whose public image improved, sometimes dramatically, years after they left office. The once deeply unpopular Harry Truman is now lauded for desegregating the military and supporting the creation of NATO.

Lyndon Johnson, who dropped his reelection bid amid growing protests over the Vietnam War, is now best known for signing major civil rights legislation and implementing his Great Society agenda, including creation of Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Biden made no secret of his desire to pass sweeping programs like the Great Society or Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. But ultimately he had to trim back his Build Back Better agenda, which aimed for tax reforms, plus broad investment in infrastructure, environment, and healthcare. Some elements were implemented separately.

In his farewell address, Mr. Biden suggested history will be kind to his record.

“You know, it will take time to feel the full impact of all we’ve done together,” he said. “But the seeds are planted, and they’ll grow, and they’ll bloom for decades to come.”

Dmitri Lovetsky/AP/File

Traditional Russian wooden dolls depict Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, two leaders with whom Donald Trump hopes to negotiate deals.

The words are nowhere to be found on the presidential seal of office that Donald Trump will reclaim next Monday afternoon.

But they capture his view of his greatest political asset, helping explain his highly personal approach to wielding power and influence on the world stage.

Donald J. Trump: dealmaker in chief.

And although his return to the White House is already unsettling U.S. allies, Mr. Trump’s top dealmaking priorities may lie elsewhere.

He is drawn by the allure of orchestrating diplomatic breakthroughs with key rivals like China, Russia, and Iran, as well as resolving the deadly conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

That will be a very tall order. Success seems elusive and, in the end, unlikely.

But not necessarily impossible.

Mr. Trump’s dealmaking playbook, honed during his years as a property developer, is clear: begin from a position of strength; deploy a mixture of carrot and stick, bluster and charm; wear down negotiators on the other side; and ultimately seal the arrangement you’d hoped for.

He will feel he’s starting with a strong hand. He has an unchallenged hold on the Republican Party, control of Congress, and no need to worry about running for reelection.

And it looks as though he will reenter the Oval Office with some momentum. Mr. Trump’s Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, helped ease this week’s Israel-Hamas deal over the line.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File

U.S. President Donald Trump (left) and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands in Helsinki July 16, 2018.

The broad outlines of other potential deals exist, though they are beset by major obstacles.

When it comes to the conflict that he has boasted he’d end in a single day, the Ukraine war, even Kyiv and its staunchest allies recognize that there is no early prospect of expelling Russia’s army by force. A possible tradeoff: some form of continued Russian control of eastern Ukraine, but an end to the fighting and a credible political, financial, and security partnership with the West for Kyiv.

Mr. Trump’s own Ukraine representative has suggested that the new U.S. administration might offer both carrot and stick to Russian President Vladimir Putin: either peace talks, along with sanctions relief for his strained economy, or reinvigorated U.S. military support for Kyiv.

In the Mideast, there is also a blueprint for breakthrough.

Mr. Trump could build on his main first-term accomplishment, the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. The goal now would be to expand the accords to include the most influential Arab and Muslim nation, Saudi Arabia.

That would be a juicy carrot for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The price? Riyadh’s condition for such a deal would be Israel’s readiness to keep the prospect of a two-state peace with Palestinians alive.

Sebastian Scheiner/AP/File

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands at The Israel Museum in Jerusalem, May 23, 2017.

And Iran? Tehran has been weakened by international sanctions and Israeli military strikes. Iran’s ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, has been toppled. Its proxy army in Lebanon, Hezbollah, is reeling. The trade-off could involve a relaxation of the “maximum-pressure” sanctions that Mr. Trump imposed last time around, and an end to any idea of regime change in Tehran. In return, Iran would abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps the most enticing deal for Mr. Trump would involve America’s chief rival, China.

Could Beijing could be persuaded to reduce superpower tensions, especially over Taiwan, and to address long-standing U.S. trade concerns, in return for a reduction in the tariffs imposed during Mr. Trump’s first term and the sheathing of his threat to hike them further?

Whether any of these breakthroughs will happen, however, is less clear.

Mr. Trump’s desire to deliver them as dealmaker in chief is not in doubt. Ex-colleagues, notably former national security adviser John Bolton, have described how even when tensions with China and Iran were at their worst during his first term, Mr. Trump would come back to the idea of holding face-to-face talks with their leaders and achieving a dramatic rapprochement.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Then-U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping shake hands ahead of their bilateral meeting during the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019.

There may also be a further, personal motivation, to judge by his own frequent remarks on the subject: to equal the achievement of past U.S. presidents such as Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter by securing a Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet he returns to office at a time when the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have transformed the geopolitical landscape. The prospects of breakthroughs with China, Russia, and Iran are doubly complicated by the fact that all three countries are increasingly aligned in trying to minimize America’s influence in the world.

And there’s another hurdle Mr. Trump will have to clear.

In Mr. Bolton’s memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” he describes the frustration of trying to get Mr. Trump to appreciate the details and complexity of the trade-offs required to secure diplomatic deals, especially when his former boss was not prepared to entertain the notion that he might fail.

A salutary lesson from Mr. Trump’s first term involved his dramatic opening to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, offering to remove U.S. economic sanctions in return for an end to Pyongyang’s nuclear arms program.

The two men held a pair of high-profile summits, but Mr. Kim would agree to only partial denuclearization. The talks failed.

Mr. Kim is now providing arms – and troops – for Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Sarah Matusek/The Christian Science Monitor

The African Community Center convenes an annual Thanksgiving meal for refugees and other immigrants at the Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Metropolis Cathedral of Denver, in Colorado, Nov. 25, 2024.

The United States just spent a year resettling more refugees than it has in three decades. The next president may soon reverse that work.

The U.S. admitted just over 100,000 refugees last fiscal year, less than 1% of refugees identified by the United Nations worldwide. Yet those arrivals are still more than the U.S. has resettled annually since 1994.

Under President Joe Biden, the State Department rebuilt the refugee program after it was dramatically downsized by the pandemic and cuts during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term. As he returns to office, Mr. Trump has signaled a plan to suspend refugee resettlement. He’s mentioned it on social media, and raised it on the campaign trail.

“On Day 1 of the Trump presidency, I will restore the travel ban, suspend refugee admissions, stop the resettlement, and keep the terrorists the hell out of our country,” Mr. Trump told a Minnesota crowd last summer.

In response, resettlement agencies are preparing for reprisal, including seeking alternative funding streams and brainstorming ways to bolster public support. Among those in preparation mode is Maggie Mitchell Salem, executive director at Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services (IRIS) in Connecticut.

“In some ways, we’re better prepared now than we were in 2017,” says Ms. Mitchell Salem. “Now we know to very much take the incoming administration at its word.”

“Realities of 2025”

Modern refugee resettlement is a bipartisan creation of Congress by way of the Refugee Act of 1980. Refugees are fleeing identity-based persecution, or fear of persecution. Unlike asylum-seekers, who may apply for asylum once they reach the U.S., refugees are approved for protection here before they arrive.

As such, refugees are considered the most heavily vetted immigrants to enter the U.S. Yet Mr. Trump and other conservatives have continued to raise security concerns.

At the start of his first term, Mr. Trump temporarily suspended refugee resettlement, calling for a review of refugee processing to guard against security threats.

Later, Mr. Trump brought refugee admissions caps to historic lows, and signed an executive order requiring local jurisdictions to opt in to accepting refugees.

Charles Krupa/AP/File

Alsi Yussuf, a refugee from Somalia, carries freshly picked tomatoes while harvesting vegetables for a community share program, Aug. 19, 2024, in Dunbarton, New Hampshire.

Mr. Trump also issued a “travel ban,” which critics said targeted countries with large Muslim populations. (After a tangle of litigation, a version of the policy was upheld in court.) Anticipating a new travel ban that may be issued as soon as Jan. 20, several colleges are urging international students to return to campus before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

If confirmed as secretary of state, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, would oversee refugee issues. Senator Rubio co-signed a letter to President Joe Biden last year with concerns that a reported plan to admit refugees from Gaza posed “a national security risk.”

A spokesperson for the senator declined an interview request.

While Mr. Trump has talked about curbing certain legal paths into the U.S., he has mostly focused on halting illegal immigration. Border Patrol encounters, a proxy for illegal border crossings, spiked to record highs under the current White House. Conservatives have also decried the Biden administration’s expanded use of short-term immigration pathways like parole and temporary protected status.

“What happens is when you abuse the entire system, the way the Biden-Harris administration has done, is that you reduce the tolerance of the American public” for programs like refugee resettlement, says Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The country’s refugee and asylum policy, created during the Cold War, is also due for review, he says. “We need to look at it in light of the realities of 2025 – not 1980.”

For some refugees, the reality of 2025 means a hit to their hopes for family members to join them in the U.S.

Refugees weigh in

At a community gathering in Denver late last year, volunteers piled turkey atop paper plates. For many refugees convened at the church, it was likely their first Thanksgiving meal in the United States.

A brother and sister in their 20s from Afghanistan sat together in a sea of tables. He said that he wants to become a doctor. She says that she’d like to own a business.

The pair worries, though, about their three siblings left behind, who they hope can join them here.

“It’s really bringing a lot of stress and anxiety to our family, because we are all worried about what’s going to happen next,” the brother says in his language, Dari.

The next president deciding that refugees and immigrants are no longer welcome wouldn’t make sense, he adds. “We can bring a lot of variety of jobs and different kinds of ideas to this country.”

Waiting in limbo

As of November, a resettlement processing center in Bangladesh run by the International Rescue Committee had refugees waiting in limbo.

“We have clients there that have been security checked, that have all their paperwork done, but that now have to wonder, will they ever be able to come?” says Hans Van de Weerd, senior vice president of asylum and integration.

The future of a program called Welcome Corps, that allows for private sponsorship of refugees by everyday Americans, is also unclear. More than 100,000 people applied to sponsor refugees through the Biden administration initiative.

Welcome Corps sponsor Jaime Polk applied to unite an Afghan family of refugees with their relatives, who she had previously helped resettle in Connecticut.

“We’re patiently waiting,” says Ms. Polk. “Obviously, we are quite anxious.” She says the Afghan family still abroad has been displaced in Pakistan.

If the Welcome Corps ends under the next president, Americans’ willingness to help doesn’t have to go to waste, says Mr. Van de Weerd. He suggests reworking the program to support the refugees already here.

Financial pressures

Resettlement agencies are preparing for potential funding cuts – at a moment when their caseloads have swelled. Local affiliates typically receive federal funding allocated per refugee served.

Inspiritus, a nonprofit active in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, welcomed the arrival of 1,300 refugees and special immigrant visa holders over the past fiscal year. The agency is still serving many of those people through integration services such as career development and after-school programing.

“We anticipate that funding for those other services is going to be also reduced, but yet we still have a lot of people that need our services,” says Aimee Zangandou, executive director of refugee and immigrant services. That’s why she and others in the sector are seeking out more private grants.

What exactly will happen with refugee arrivals – on Mr. Trump’s Day 1 and beyond – remains unclear. The president-elect’s transition team did not directly respond to requests for clarification.

At IRIS in Connecticut, Ms. Mitchell Salem says she wants to better explain her agency’s work to the public by deepening community engagement and has been arranging town halls. She says it’s important to explain why refugees help the economy – especially as populations age and states need help filling jobs.

“We’re losing the public information battle … we’ve left people behind on pocketbook concerns,” she says. “And this election, I think, was about a lot of pocketbook concerns.”

At the Thanksgiving dinner in Denver, Ron Buzard, managing director at the African Community Center, which convenes this annual event, says he’s working on contingency plans with community partners.

“We’re all concerned,” says Mr. Buzard. Refugee resettlement isn’t just “the right thing to do, but an obligation of countries like ours.”

Two years ago, America sat at a daunting crossroads.

Former President Donald Trump faced four separate criminal indictments. The United States was not only polarized over those indictments, but also staring down an uncertain future. America had never prosecuted a former president. How would that play out?

America may never know. Three of the cases against Mr. Trump never went to trial, and the one that did ended with a conviction but no punishment for the president-elect.

It has undoubtedly been the best possible outcome for Mr. Trump, who maintained his innocence in every case. But has the country been saved from a potentially democracy-fracturing legal battle? Or has it turned down a more troubling path where presidential accountability may be all but extinct?

The last time the country sat at such a crossroads, after the Watergate scandal in 1972, the president, Richard Nixon, also avoided criminal prosecution. But that scandal triggered a push for transparency and political reform in Washington, says Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University.

Today, however, “We’re in an era where that just doesn’t trigger the same kind of political response,” he says. “The presidency seems in many ways more isolated, more protected, and more able to do whatever it wants.”

AP/File

President Gerald Ford reads a proclamation in the White House Sept. 8, 1974, granting former president Richard Nixon "a full, free and absolute pardon" for all "offenses against the United States" during the period of his presidency.

“Ugly passions” avoided again?

There have historically been two methods for holding U.S. presidents accountable: political and legal. Political accountability comes through elections and impeachment. Legal accountability comes through the courts. Mr. Trump survived two impeachment votes while in office, and he has pointed to his reelection as proof that the American people don’t think he should be held accountable for his alleged crimes.

As he maintained his innocence throughout two years of legal battles, Mr. Trump also repeatedly blasted the prosecutions as unjust and politically motivated “lawfare.”

“It’s a horrible thing for this country,” he said in June 2023, referring to the multiple criminal indictments against him.

Democrats, he charged, are “using the same corrupt [Department of Justice] and the same corrupt FBI, and the attorney general and the local district attorneys to interfere” in his political ambitions.

Prosecutions of former presidents have been rare in U.S. history, but when they have loomed, so have fears that they could break the country beyond repair. Most famously, after Watergate, President Gerald Ford pardoned Mr. Nixon, in part to spare the country a bitter and divisive trial.

“Ugly passions would again be aroused, our people would again be polarized in their opinions, and the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged,” said President Ford when he issued the pardon.

The Nixon pardon was unpopular at the time, but as the years went on, it came to be viewed more positively as a necessary step to help the country move on. A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are immune from civil cases. But it left the question of criminal immunity unanswered.

Mr. Trump faced criminal charges in two federal cases and two state cases. At the federal level, Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, charged the former president in Washington, D.C., with conspiracy and obstruction in a case related to his attempts to stay in power after his 2020 election defeat. Mr. Smith also charged Mr. Trump in Florida with unlawfully retaining classified documents.

Fani Willis, a state prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, similarly charged Mr. Trump in a case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results there. Meanwhile, a state prosecutor in Manhattan charged – and convicted – the president-elect on business fraud charges related to hush money payments.

The other three prosecutions never came close to trial. Even in the Manhattan case, where a jury convicted Mr. Trump of 34 felonies, he successfully delayed his sentencing twice. While he was finally sentenced last week, the judge gave him no punishment, citing the proximity of his upcoming presidential term.

In short, through political popularity and zealous legal defense, Mr. Trump has largely avoided accountability for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result and other alleged crimes.

Alex Slitz/Reuters/File

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis attends a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, March 1, 2024, in Atlanta.

Unique defendant, unique benefits

Being a unique defendant helped. In addition to having skilled lawyers, Mr. Trump had a status as a former and potentially future president, which came to his aid numerous times as he fought the cases against him.

During Mr. Trump’s trial in Manhattan, Judge Juan Merchan found him in contempt of court 10 times for violating a gag order. While many defendants would have received a short jail sentence in that situation, experts say, the judge held back. “Mr. Trump ... the last thing I want to do is put you in jail,” Judge Merchan said at the time. “You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well.”

In the Florida case, a complex federal prosecution that required extensive pretrial discovery, the presiding judge gave Mr. Trump an early win when she ruled that a special master was needed to oversee the classified documents at issue. Such a step was necessary because Mr. Trump’s “former position as president” meant he faced “reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude” from an ordinary defendant, the judge wrote.

An appeals court overturned that order. But the Florida judge, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, later dismissed the case on the grounds that Mr. Smith had been unlawfully appointed.

But the failure of the Florida case was not the most seismic decision to come out of this American legal saga. Instead, the defining precedent from the Trump cases will be how difficult they made it for former presidents to be criminally prosecuted in the future.

“One of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies for democracy and the rule of law that came out of these was [the ruling in] Trump v. United States,” says Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore Law School.

In that case, which emerged from the Washington prosecution of Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that former presidents have criminal immunity for “official acts” performed while in office.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts voiced concerns about “enfeebling” the presidency by leaving it vulnerable to “routine” criminal prosecutions. A former president “must” have criminal immunity, he added, unless the government can prove the prosecution “would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”

In practice, future prosecution of an ex-president would require that the charges relate to acts the court determines to be outside of the president’s official duties.

A new era

The executive branch is the nimblest and fastest-moving branch of American government. So wanting to protect it from potentially frivolous lawsuits has some merit. But critics worry that as a result of the recent Trump-related decisions, the presidency may now have too much protection.

Routine criminal prosecutions of former presidents “wasn’t a problem in the first 240 years of our history,” says Professor Wehle. The Supreme Court “seemed to be really worried about rogue prosecutors, much more worried about rogue prosecutors than rogue presidents,” she adds.

Now, she continues, it’s “virtually impossible” to criminally prosecute a former president in the U.S.

Some argue that’s not a bad thing. Prosecuting a former president is one of the toughest stress tests a democracy can face. Shouldn’t the bar for engaging in that be high?

“There are fear factors that are totally legitimate,” says Laura Thornton, a senior director at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. “No one wants short-term conflict. But the long-term degradation of democracy is worse.”

As it now stands, the U.S. has avoided the short-term conflict of Mr. Trump facing further criminal trials. After Mr. Trump’s reelection, Mr. Smith dropped the federal cases against the president-elect, citing a Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Last month, the Georgia case collapsed after a state appeals court dismissed Ms. Willis due to a conflict of interest related to her hiring of an assistant for the case.

But while stressful, the test of a presidential prosecution can also reveal strengths that a democracy may not have known it had.

“Why are we so afraid?” Ms. Thornton asks. “In a way, it’s an admission of weakness in our system, but also of weakness in ourselves.”

Ms. Thornton, who has spent decades advising burgeoning democracies worldwide, has seen firsthand that nations can come out the other side of such turbulent times stronger and better.

“Strong democracies can get through this OK,” she says. “The sky does not fall.”

How often do you feel lonely?

The Pew Research Center posed that question to over 6,000 U.S. adults. Its new survey found that 1 in 6 adults feels socially isolated all or most of the time. It’s another marker of the “loneliness epidemic,” a term coined by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. What surprised Pew researchers was who feels loneliness most acutely.

One might imagine that older Americans are more isolated than young people and thus more forlorn. Turns out, older generations feel least lonely. The difference may come down to how members of different generations engage with others. People under 30 years old are far more likely to communicate with friends via texting or social media, according to the “Men, Women, and Social Connections” study. The opposite is true for those over 65, who also said they tend to feel more optimistic all or most of the time.

“Men and women aren’t really that different,” says Kim Parker, director of social trends research at Pew. “If there is a major fault line, it’s more along age than it is along gender.”

SOURCE:

Pew Research Center

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Technology has made it easier than ever to communicate with others. We can work from home. Get meals and groceries dropped off at the door. Multitask by playing video games with someone halfway across the world while posting emojis on social media. But it’s at the expense of in-person interaction.

“People start to lose social skills,” says Mike Veny, a renowned corporate wellness specialist who focuses on mental health. “It just makes it harder for even extroverts to develop real relationships.”

The Pew survey found that both women and men turn to their spouse or partner, if they have one, for emotional support. But women have more extensive social networks. When faced with loneliness, women are more likely to reach out to their mothers, a friend, another family member, or even a mental health professional than men are.

SOURCE:

Pew Research Center

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

There’s a real benefit to men spending social time with other men, says Ms. Parker. But there are ongoing debates about men’s groups. Are they hotbeds of “toxic masculinity”? Or valuable bulwarks for those who feel adrift? As a follow-up to its 2024 report “How Americans See Men and Masculinity,” Pew’s new survey explores perceptions of men’s groups. Attitudes differ according to political party identification. Republican males are most likely to view men’s groups as having a positive impact on society.

SOURCE:

Pew Research Center

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

So what can one do to counter loneliness? Friendship experts say that people need to be intentional about setting aside time for in-person socializing. Relationships are built on trust, says Mr. Veny. That means making appointments and then keeping that commitment.

Ask yourself which values, interests, or needs aren’t being met, says Glenda Shaw, author of “Better You, Better Friends: A Whole New Approach to Friendship.” Look for groups that share those values. For example, volunteer at an animal shelter or enroll in a night class on creative writing. See whom you meet.

“The emphasis is about working together on a project rather than ‘Do I like them?’” says Ms. Shaw. “You have something in common on which to build. ... At the end of the project, you say, ‘Hey, why don’t you come over for dinner?’”

Also, if you notice someone who seems lonely, extend an invitation. It could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

AP Photo/Siddiqullah Alizai

A young tailor works in the Afghan Women Business Hub in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 2, 2024. Under Taliban rule, women and girls face harsh restrictions affecting employment, education, and freedom of movement.

The Taliban have imposed 127 restrictions on women since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, according to a running tally by the United States Institute of Peace. Public stoning of women is allowed. Their voices may not be heard in public.

That hard-line approach to governing may be getting harder to maintain. New overtures from neighboring countries offer the Taliban a potential break from international isolation (no country has recognized the group’s government). But in a region learning to embrace equality for women, engagement has conditions.

Earlier Thursday, Taliban representatives met with Qatari officials in Doha seeking more opportunities for Afghan migrant workers. The meeting was co-chaired by Sheikha Najwa bint Abdulrahman Al Thani. As the host country’s deputy minister of labor, she has been a strong advocate of empowering women in the workforce.

India signaled an even bigger opening when its foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, met with his Taliban counterpart in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, last week in the highest-level talks between the two sides in three years. For India, Afghanistan represents potential trade and security benefits as it competes with China for regional dominance and seeks to isolate Pakistan.

But in a sign of the potential risks for India in legitimizing the Taliban, the talks included softer issues such as cricket, visas for health care and education, and humanitarian aid for Afghan refugees.

“Some engagement with the international community might pressurise the government to improve its behaviour,” Jayant Prasad, former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, told the BBC. The Taliban “know that will only happen after internal reforms” such as restoring rights to education and careers for women and girls.

The most important shift, however, may be coming from within the Taliban themselves. Amid worsening economic conditions, rifts are widening between the old guard and a younger generation. In one sign that the group sees a need to accommodate more voices, it issued a directive Thursday that no official could hold more than one government job at a time.

The Taliban are “feeling the pressure from the Afghan people, who are asking for services and jobs amid a collapsing economy and limited international assistance,” wrote Lakshmi Venugopal Menon, then a doctoral student at Qatar University, in Al Jazeera last September. Yet atttempts by moderates to “seek engagement, more aid and investment are being undermined by [hard-liners] doubling down on policies like education bans on girls and women.”

A report released Thursday offered a rare insight into efforts by Afghan women to persist in seeking equality amid such harsh measures. “Women-led organizations [have] found new platforms for communication and outreach ... to actively participate in advocacy, establishing themselves as credible sources of support for women and girls,” stated the Women and Children Legal Research Foundation, a Kabul-based organization.

They are being heard. The regional shifts opening a path for the Taliban out of isolation include a recognition that equality is an essential condition of shared security and economic prosperity. As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has noted, “We cannot achieve success if 50 per cent of our population being women are locked at home.”