Strategic Initiatives
11063 stories
·
45 followers

Chinese exporters ‘wash’ products in third countries to avoid Trump tariffs // Asian neighbours wary of becoming staging posts for trade actually destined for US

1 Share
  • Chinese exporters are using third countries to avoid US tariffs on their goods.
  • Social media is filled with ads offering "place-of-origin washing."
  • Countries bordering China are wary of becoming staging posts for goods destined for the US.
  • Businesses are shipping goods to countries like Malaysia to obtain new certificates of origin.
  • US partners are concerned about the risks of altered origins and false values.

Chinese exporters are stepping up efforts to avoid tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump by shipping their goods via third countries to conceal their true origin.

Chinese social media platforms are awash with adverts offering “place-of-origin washing”, while an inflow of goods from China has raised alarm in neighbouring countries wary of becoming staging posts for trade actually destined for the US.

The growing use of the tactic underlines exporters’ fears that new tariffs of up to 145 per cent imposed by Trump on Chinese goods will deprive them of access to one of their most important markets.

“The tariff is too high,” said Sarah Ou, a salesperson at Baitai Lighting, an exporter based in the southern Chinese city of Zhongshan. “[But] we can sell the goods to neighbouring countries, and then the neighbouring countries sell them on to the United States, and it will reduce.”

US trade laws require goods to undergo “substantial transformation” in a country, usually including processing or manufacturing that adds significant value, to qualify as originating there for tariff purposes.

But adverts on social media platforms such as Xiaohongshu offer to help exporters ship goods to countries such as Malaysia, where they will be issued with a new certificate of origin and then sent to the US.

“The US has imposed tariffs on Chinese products? Transit through Malaysia to ‘transform’ into Southeast Asian goods!” said one advert posted this week on Xiaohongshu by an account under the name of “Ruby — Third Country Transshipment”.

“The US has set limits on Chinese wooden flooring and tableware? ‘Wash the origin’ in Malaysia for smooth customs clearance!” it added. A person contacted through the details supplied in the advert declined to comment further.

This furniture maker in Binzhou city in east China’s Shandong province has 70% of its orders from the US © FeatureChina/AP

South Korea’s customs agency said last month it had found foreign products worth Won29.5bn ($21mn) with falsified countries of origin in the first quarter of this year, most of them coming from China and almost all destined for the US.

“We are seeing a sharp increase in recent cases where our country is used as a bypass for products to avoid different tariffs and restrictions because of the US government’s trade policy changes,” the agency said in a statement. “We have found numerous cases where the origins of Chinese products were falsified as Korean.”

Vietnam’s industry and trade ministry last month called on local trade associations, exporters and manufacturers to strengthen checks on origins of raw materials and input goods and to prevent the issuing of counterfeit certificates.

Thailand’s foreign trade department also last month unveiled measures to tighten origin checks on products bound for the US in order to prevent tariff evasion.

Ou of Baitai said that, like many Chinese manufacturers, the company shipped goods as “free on board”, under which buyers took liability for products once they left their departure port, reducing the legal risk for the exporter.

“Customers only need to find ports in Guangzhou or Shenzhen, and as long as [the goods] go there, we have completed our mission . . . [after that] It’s none of our business,” she said.

Salespeople at two logistics companies said they could ship goods to Port Klang in Malaysia, from where they would move items into local containers and change their tags and packaging. The companies had connections with factories in Malaysia that could help issue certificates of origin, said the salespeople, who declined to be named.

“The US must know of it,” said one. “It cannot get too crazy so we are controlling the amount [of orders we take].”

“They [Malaysian customs] are not very strict,” the other salesperson said.

China’s foreign and commerce ministries, and the Malaysian government, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A consultant who advises companies on cross-border trade said origin-washing was one of the two main methods being employed to avoid Trump’s new levies. The other was mixing high cost items with cheaper goods, so exporters could falsely claim a lower overall cost of shipments, the consultant said. 

The owner of a consumer goods manufacturer based in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan said two domestic industry associations had introduced it to intermediaries who offered “grey area” tariff workarounds.

“Basically I only ship to a Chinese port and they take it from there,” the owner said, adding that the intermediaries had offered to arrange the workaround for just Rmb5 ($0.70) per kilogramme shipped.

Recommended

“These agencies said small- and medium-sized enterprises like us can weather the tariff hit better because there’s always grey areas,” she said. “I hope it’s true. The US is a big market — I don’t want to lose it.”

The proliferation of efforts to avoid tariffs has caused concern among US business partners. One senior executive at a top 10 independent seller on Amazon said they had observed instances where shipments’ origins had been altered, risking confiscation by US customs authorities.

The executive said they were reluctant to accept offers of assistance from their Chinese suppliers, such as having them act as the “importer of record” into the US and paying tariffs based on the cost of manufacturing rather than the retailer’s higher cost of purchase.

The executive said they worried that a supplier might report a false value. “You’re putting a lot of trust in a Chinese supplier,” they said.

Read the whole story
bogorad
4 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Trump calls for $163bn in cuts to ‘woke’ and ‘wasteful’ federal spending // Budget blueprint proposes slashing environmental and aid programmes, while boosting support for defence

1 Share
  • Donald Trump has proposed a budget with $163bn in cuts to federal spending, targeting programs deemed "woke" or "wasteful".
  • The plan involves a 22.6% reduction in non-defense spending, the lowest since 2017, while increasing the defense budget.
  • Key areas for cuts include foreign aid, healthcare, education, and environmental programs.
  • The budget aims to cut funding for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and agencies like the National Institutes of Health.
  • Democrats have criticized the budget, with Chuck Schumer calling it "heartless" and a "betrayal of working people."

Donald Trump has called for $163bn in cuts to federal spending in a sweeping budget proposal that guts programmes his administration deems “woke”, “wasteful” or “weaponised against ordinary working Americans”.

In a budget blueprint submitted to Congress on Friday, the US president pressed for non-defence spending to be slashed by 22.6 per cent to the lowest level since 2017 alongside a sharp increase in the defence budget.

Trump’s plan would slash billions of dollars previously spent on foreign aid, healthcare, education and the environment, codifying many of the cuts being implemented by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Russ Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, said current expenditure was “contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organisations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life”.

Trump’s budget wishlist comes as he intensifies his assault on the administrative state. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, and Doge are leading the radical effort to shrink the size of the federal government.

The proposal outlines the president’s priorities for so-called discretionary spending, the portion of the federal budget set by appropriations bills in Congress each year. It does not include longer-term ‘mandatory’ spending such as Social Security, Medicare, and interest paid on the federal debt.

Foreign aid would be hit particularly hard under Trump’s proposal, with a $49bn cut in spending and the shuttering of USAID, which Doge has reduced to a skeleton operation.

The budget takes aim at what the administration dubbed the “globalist climate agenda”, cutting grants for renewable energy and electric vehicles.

It also slashes spending on the education department, which Trump has vowed to close. The plan takes an axe to funding for agencies including the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Internal Revenue Service, all of which he said have been “weaponised”.

Recommended

Contrasting the spending cuts, the plan calls for an increase in government outlay on the military and border security as part of Trump’s pledge to clamp down on illegal immigration. The defence budget would rise 13 per cent, while homeland security would be allocated another 65 per cent.

Chuck Schumer, the leading Senate Democrat, described the budget as “heartless” and said his party would fight efforts by Republican lawmakers to embed it in legislation.

“As [Trump] guts healthcare, slashes education, and hollows out programmes families rely on — he’s bankrolling tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations,” Schumer wrote on X. “It’s not just fiscally irresponsible, it’s a betrayal of working people from a morally bankrupt president.”

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Britain to ban consumers borrowing to buy cryptocurrencies // UK financial regulator sets out proposals to regulate much of the digital asset market

1 Share
  • The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) plans to ban retail investors from borrowing money to invest in cryptocurrencies.
  • The FCA intends to expand its regulatory oversight of the crypto market, including trading platforms and lending services.
  • The new rules will mandate stricter regulations for crypto services offered to retail investors compared to professional investors.
  • Key concerns addressed by the FCA include market manipulation, lack of transparency, and unreliable trading systems.
  • The FCA aims to balance consumer protection with encouraging growth in the crypto sector, despite acknowledging the high-risk nature of most crypto assets.

The UK financial watchdog plans to ban retail investors borrowing money to invest in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin as it seeks to bring much of the fast-growing digital assets market under regulatory supervision for the first time.

The restrictions on lending for crypto purchases are part of a sweeping set of rules outlined by the Financial Conduct Authority on Friday, a few days after the government presented its plans to legislate for the digital asset market.

“Crypto is an area of potential growth for the UK but it has to be done right,” David Geale, FCA executive director of payments and digital finance, told the Financial Times. “To do that we have to provide an appropriate level of protection.”

Dismissing claims by some crypto asset companies that the FCA is hostile to their industry, Geale said: “I would in some ways compare this to any other high-risk investments, which if anything often have less protections . . . We are open for business.”

The FCA proposals aim to bring much of the crypto market under its regulatory remit, including trading platforms, intermediaries, crypto asset lenders and borrowers, and decentralised finance systems. The plans apply a much tougher set of rules to crypto services provided to retail investors than to those dealing only with professional, or sophisticated investors.

“We started from a position of wanting to develop something that is safe and is competitive,” Geale said. “If we can get the regulatory regime right it actually becomes attractive for firms. That is what we are trying to achieve.” 

FCA executive director David Geale says consumers need an ‘appropriate level’ of protection on cryptocurrencies © Charlie Bibby/FT

The FCA said it planned to restrict firms from lending to consumers to fund their crypto purchases — including via credit cards — due to the regulator’s concern about “unsustainable debt, particularly if the value of their crypto asset drops and they were relying on its value to repay”. 

The proportion of people in the UK funding crypto purchases by borrowing has more than doubled from 6 per cent in 2022 to 14 per cent last year, according to a recent YouGov survey.

The FCA also said it planned to block retail investors from accessing specialist crypto lenders and borrowers such as Celsius Network, which collapsed in 2022 amid a wider crisis in the sector. 

The regulator listed a number of concerns about the market for trading crypto assets including market manipulation, conflicts of interest, settlement failures, a lack of transparency, illiquidity and unreliable trading systems.

To tackle some of these, the FCA will require crypto trading platforms to treat all trades equally, to separate their own proprietary trading activities from those done for retail investors and to provide transparency on pricing and execution of trades.

It will ban trading platforms from paying intermediaries for order flow and require all companies offering crypto trading to UK consumers to operate through an authorised legal entity in the country. 

Consumers who park their crypto assets with “staking services” in exchange for a return will have to be reimbursed for any losses caused by third-party actions.

Decentralised finance systems, which have no centralised operation and run purely on lines of computer code, will be exempt from the new FCA regulations unless they have a “clear controlling person”.

While warning “the majority of crypto assets will remain high risk — speculative investments and consumers should be prepared to lose all their money if they buy them”, the FCA said its aim was “encouraging growth as far as reasonably possible”.

Crypto companies have grown frustrated with the FCA over the high level of rejections in the regulator’s registration scheme for compliance with its anti-money laundering rules.

The regulator rejected 86 per cent of such applications in the 12 months to April 2024, but in the latest fiscal year that proportion fell to 75 per cent.

Crypto executives supported the FCA’s focus on consumer protection.

“As such an internationally influential regulator, as soon as the FCA starts to regulate the crypto market they are giving it a massive stamp of approval — so I understand their caution,” said Joey Garcia, head of public affairs at Xapo Bank, a Gibraltar-based crypto custodian.

Riccardo Tordera-Ricchi, director of policy and government relations at the Payment Association, a trade body, said: “The government says it is open for business, but in practical terms it will be difficult for the FCA to implement this — they don’t have an easy job.”

Companies have until June 13 to respond to the FCA’s proposals.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

A Giant Crack Appears in Tim Cook’s Walled Garden

1 Comment
A stunning rebuke from a federal judge is the latest blow to Apple’s business model.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
http://archive.today/HKulY
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

A Giant Crack Appears in Tim Cook’s Walled Garden - WSJ

1 Share

In a career full of rosy superlatives, the public rebuke of Tim Cook this week was a stunner.

Cook chose poorly. 

So much attention these days is on how Cook developed the China supply chain to help churn out hundreds of millions of iPhones a year. But his real legacy may lie in his ability to squeeze more and more profits out of the digital ecosystem built on top of the hardware.

This is the garden that is key to Apple’s growth. At its center sits the App Store. It collects as much as 30% of in-app purchases made in third-party apps.

Now that legacy is at risk—perhaps an even greater threat to the company’s business than the trade war.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 had ordered Apple to stop prohibiting developers from linking out of their apps to provide an alternative way to pay for digital content. She essentially left it to Apple to figure out how—a small crack in the Walled Garden that would grow larger over time. 

After running through the appeals process, Apple early last year finally allowed the so-called steering of customers, but with caveats. Developers who linked out didn’t have to pay 30% to Apple. But they had to pay a 27% commission on purchases made outside of the App Store by users clicking on those newly allowed links. 

Those links also came with a bunch of rules seemingly aimed at making it unlikely that users would, in fact, go through with the purchases.  

To Gonzalez Rogers, those decisions by Apple violated her original injunction. Not only that, but she also said Wednesday that one of Cook’s vice presidents had lied on the witness stand and the company didn’t even try to amend the record. And she referred Apple’s violation of her order to the Justice Department to investigate whether the company should be charged with criminal contempt. 

“Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote in her 80-page order. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What lies ahead for Apple following the court’s ruling? Join the conversation below.

Speaking on Apple’s quarterly earnings call late Thursday, Cook briefly addressed the matter. “We’ve complied with the court’s order, and we’re going to appeal,” he said. And Apple has vigorously defended its practices throughout the years of litigation.

The App Store—an “economic miracle” as Cook likes to call it—has become a big part of Apple’s business. It has created billions in so-called services revenue while helping spawn entire new ways of doing business from Uber to Instagram. 

Back in 2017, after a period in which iPhone sales failed to excite, Cook set the goal of doubling the services revenue to $50 billion by 2020. Much of this would come from the high-margin App Store commission.

In Apple’s most recent fiscal year, that services revenue was almost $100 billion, about 25% of the company’s total sales. 

How much Apple should reap from app sales is a central question in a global campaign by rivals and regulators accusing the tech giant of using anticompetitive business practices to help fuel its outsized results.

Companies, such as Epic Games and Spotify, have long complained that Apple was using its power over the App Economy to take an unfair cut. Spotify long ago stopped accepting new paying subscribers through its popular iPhone app. A key part of Spotify’s complaints had revolved around the anti-steering rule. 

In 2020, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney wanted to blow it all up and filed lawsuits against Apple and Google over the control of their stores. He imagined a world in which a court would order Apple to allow third-party app stores and alternative payment systems within the app. 

The anti-steering provision wasn’t at the heart of the original fight. During the 16-day bench trial in the spring of 2021, Cook defended the rule. He suggested Best Buy wouldn’t hang a sign in its stores to advertise buying iPhones elsewhere. 

“If the effort goes in to transacting with the customer, it seems like it ought to happen within the app,” Cook testified. 

Still, Cook faced sharp questions from the judge. Ultimately, she ruled mostly in Apple’s favor—except on the anti-steering matter. “The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote in September 2021. 

It would take time to fully appreciate how influential that decision would be. 

The finding of fault with the anti-steering provision by a U.S. judge gave geopolitical cover to European officials who passed hallmark tech legislation. It would also become grist in two European regulatory actions and a sweeping U.S. Justice Department antitrust case against Apple.

Meanwhile, matters had been proceeding in Gonzalez Rogers court in northern California. Epic in 2024 challenged the new rules Apple had put in place around steering in response to the judge’s earlier order.

That led Gonzalez Rogers to question how Apple had come to its decision on addressing the steering issue—and ultimately her decision this week.

Anyone who listened through rounds of hearings heard that Apple insiders weren’t happy with the judge’s perceived meddling. Testimony and records showed that Cook and Apple didn’t want to give any ground. 

Cook was even warned against the new fee—which was similar to how Apple had addressed regulators’ demands in the Netherlands and South Korea—amid concerns the U.S. judge would object, evidence showed. But Apple beancounters estimated that allowing developers to simply link out for an alternative payment method could cost Apple billions of dollars. 

“It’s our F—ING STORE,” an Apple PR director texted a colleague during a hearing. (The communications person testified that she couldn’t recall sending the message.)  The text eventually became evidence itself, something the judge used as an example of how “Apple’s ‘entitlement’ perspective and mantra persisted beyond the Injunction.” 

Now, all those efforts to keep the Walled Garden strong may, in fact, have weakened it— cutting into Apple’s profits and upending Cook’s masterplan.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

How Snopes Buried the Truth About Ilhan Omar's Father // fact checkers covered up his high-ranking role in a genocidal regime, helping democrats avoid a scandal that could have taken down the squad

1 Share

Subscribe to The Industry

For most of the past decade, the misinformation complex — a decentralized, ideologically aligned network of fact-checking sites, media outlets, NGOs, government agencies and social media companies — ruled our information ecosystem. Today, the archives of this ancien régime are being opened. What they show is how, with shockingly little effort, the misinformation complex could shut down investigations into even the most clear-cut claims that threatened the Democratic party’s great narratives.

This was precisely the case with one of the most prominent progressive politicians in the US today, Ilhan Omar. In 2018, Omar rode a wave of identity politics into high office as representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district. The media was not just jubilant but triumphant. Along with the nascent Squad, this Trump-taunting black female politician and former refugee became an instant icon of the new color-bound progressive politics.

But there was a catch: Omar herself would not be shoved into this cardboard cutout of a squeaky clean, infinitely tolerant diversity figure. In her very first weeks in office, she made a series of comments about Israel that fell well within the discourse of antisemitic speech as the Democratic Party itself had long since defined it. Then, far more damagingly, allegations that Omar had married her own brother to secure his visa to the US exploded in the conservative media.

There was, however, another claim that was overshadowed by allegations of (to coin a term) fratrimony. This was that Omar’s father had been a “terrorist” or had served the Somali government in a capacity that could have made his entry into the United States illegal. While it didn’t have the tabloid qualities of brother-marriage, if corroborated the story could have been just as damaging.

To be clear, the following does not show, or attempt to show, that Ilhan Omar bears responsibility for decisions made by her father when she was a child. But what it does show is how the fact-checking industry was able to quash a burgeoning political crisis with just two articles and one threadbare source, and, in doing so, protect Democratic party interests in ways that not even the best, and most expensive, political crisis management agency could even dream of.

On July 25, 2019, Snopes published its assessment of the claim, “Is Rep. Omar’s Father a ‘Somalian War Criminal’ Living ‘Illegally’ in U.S.?” Under a big red triangle featuring an “X” and the text “Mostly False,” the site broke down its finding under three headings. Under the heading “What’s True,” Snopes stated, “Ilhan Omar’s father is living [sic] the U.S. legally. The family was cleared to enter the country in 1995 and successfully secured asylum status.” Under “What’s False,” Snopes found, “Omar’s father is not in the U.S. illegally.” And marked “What’s undetermined” the site ruled, “Omar’s father was responsible for, or even credibly accused of, any wrongdoing in Somalia.”

In the first sentence of its fact-check, Snopes reported the various “firsts” Omar had achieved: one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, first to “don a religious headscarf,” first Somali-American and naturalized citizen from Africa in Congress. The site then noted that these many “milestones,” however, had been accompanied by “conspiracy theories and racial or religious-themed hoaxes targeting Omar.”

Snopes reported that the claim that Omar’s father was a Somali war criminal who had come to the US illegally originated from a rightwing blog called Gateway Pundit, which Snopes called a “junk news site.” Gateway Pundit had reported less than a week prior, on July 16, 2019, that Omar’s father, Nur Omar Mohamed, was “connected to the former dictator in Somalia, Said Barre.” The site compared Omar with another Somali in a similar situation, former Somali National Army colonel, Yusuf Abdi Ali, who was found to have committed human rights abuses by a U.S. civil jury in May 2019 and was eventually deported in 2024 for similar crimes during the same time period.

Gateway Pundit wrote that Omar’s father “and other Somalians [sic] like Yusuf Abdi Ali, who killed thousands for Barre, escaped to the West and were not vetted properly before entering the country.”

Snopes misconstrued this claim. In its fact check it wrote, “Instead of providing proof [that Omar’s father was a war criminal], Gateway Pundit simply dropped the name of a different and unrelated Somali man, Yusuf Abdi Ali, into the mix, conflating Mohamed and Ali without making any substantive connection between the two men.” Gateway Pundit, however, never claimed there was a connection between the two men. This is clear from the text. Nevertheless, Snopes fell back on racism to make its main point, writing that the alleged connection between the two men — a connection made not by Gateway Pundit but by the Snopes writer — was rooted in racism.

The mistake made by Snopes of assuming Gateway Pundit said something it didn’t is, in itself, a trivial issue of editorial errata. The real problem is that in its somewhat strident — and, on the face of it, unfounded — allegation of racism, Snopes made a far more substantive accusation: that claims about Nur Omar Mohamed’s possible ties to the Barre regime were “based quite literally on nothing but race.”

But other than commonality of being from Somalia, neither Omar nor her father has any known connection to Ali. The claim that Nur Omar Mohamed was “connected” to Siad Barre or that he committed war crimes in Somalia seems to be a leap made by Gateway Pundit based quite literally on nothing but race — the assumption that two people of the same ethnicity are automatically linked to each other.

In other words, in its fact check, Snopes committed a serious (and quite ironic) error. By falsely alleging that Gateway Pundit had “conflated” the two men, Snopes actually conflated two separate issues: the claim that these men were associated and the separate claim that Nur Omar Mohamed was “connected” to the Barre regime. Doing so allowed the Snopes writer, through a little bit of logical sleight of hand, to claim that because the first claim was racist, so was the second.

But the most serious error in the fact check was still to come. To support its claim about Omar’s father, Snopes cited a local Minneapolis news site called City Pages, which had reported that Omar’s father had worked in Somalia “training teachers,” offering no more detail or substantiation than those two words. About a week later, Politifact ran a similar debunking article, with its “Truth-O-Meter” pointing to false. That article, citing the same City Pages report, also claimed that Omar’s father trained teachers.

Snopes did not respond to request for comment. Politifact also did not respond to request for comment.

Over the subsequent years (right up till today), the issue of whether Omar had married her brother in a bid to secure him a US visa would crop up again and again — and with it, allegations that her father had entered the US illegally, namely by covering up his affiliation with the genocidal Barre regime, which ruled Somalia until the civil war in 1991.

Each time the issue arose, the Snopes and Politifact fact-checks were relied on as proof that the claim had been debunked. This continued into 2021, when Reuters issued its own fact check about Omar, which referenced the Snopes article. When Omar’s father died of COVID complications in 2020, the claim about his job as a teacher (or “teacher trainer”) was repeated by the New York Times, Time magazine, The Cut, Buzzfeed, Chicago Tribune and others.

The notion that claims that Omar’s father was a “teacher trainer” who had come to the country legally had been glazed into hardened fact. But as the media was repeating the claim about the recently deceased man, another outlet — this one very different from the mainstream media dominated by elite progressives — told a completely different story.

Weeks after the death of Omar’s father, Sahan Journal, a non-profit news organization that covers minority communities in Minnesota, ran an obituary of Omar’s father. Founded by award-winning journalist Mukhtar M. Ibrahim, a former reporter for the Star Tribune and Minnesota Public Radio, Sahan Journal has received national recognition for its reporting and has collaborated with major outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

While long and detailed, the obituary’s very first sentence made an astonishing claim: “Nur Omar Mohamed was an esteemed senior officer in the Somali National Army well before the country plunged into anarchy following the fall of the Siad Barre regime in the early 1990s.” In case there were any doubts about his identity, the slug of the Sahan obituary states, “Best known in the U.S. as Ilhan Omar’s father, Nur was a prominent Somali military officer who encouraged his children to succeed.” (The Somali National Army was the primary military force of the Barre regime during its rule from 1969 and 1991.)

A Kenyan news outlet, The East African, citing another Kenyan paper, Nation, made the same claim, writing, “Omar’s father had served as a colonel in Barre’s army but he had to flee with his family via Kenya before settling in the US in 1995.” A then-Twitter account that identifies itself as belonging to Omar Shamarke, the former prime minster of Somalia, tweeted days after Nur’s death, “May Allah have mercy on Colonel Nur. May Allah grant patience and faith to his family, relatives, and the Somali National Army, of which he was a longtime member. I especially extend my condolences to his daughter, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and all the children he left behind.” (Translation: ChatGPT.)

According to the Sahan Journal obituary, after training in the Soviet Union, Nur returned to Somalia where “he began his climb in the military hierarchy, eventually becoming a colonel. During the 1977-1978 Somali-Ethiopian war, he led a regiment.” A fellow colonel who served with him recalled in the obit that “Nur played a significant role in the war… He was one of the officers who were recognized for their work.” Omar’s Wikipedia article similarly states that her father “served with distinction in the 1977-78 Ogaden War between Somalia and Ethiopia, and also worked as a teacher trainer.”

Left: New York Times (2018) // Right: Sahan Journal (2020)

For Americans today, Siad Barre is an unfamiliar figure. But from the late 1960s until his fall in 1991 (when Omar’s family fled the country), Barre led a ferocious revolutionary regime characterized by Marxist-Leninist principles. But because Somalia lacked a history of economic class structure, internecine clan dynamics were substituted in its place. This led to one of the Barre regime’s many crimes, the slaughter of up to 200,000 members of the Isaaq clan, which is sometimes described as genocide. It was for this reason that high-ranking officials, particularly from the military, were generally barred from seeking asylum in the United States under provisions prohibiting individuals implicated in human rights abuses, persecution, or material support for a repressive regime.

(Cases like that of Yusuf Abdi Ali, the former Somali Army colonel discussed above who was deported last year, illustrate this policy in action.)

This was a bombshell — but one that fell in a proverbial forest. Neither Snopes nor Politifact updated their fact-checks about Nur Omar Mohamed. No news organization went back to re-report the story or examine the claims they had previously made. In the parallel universe of the mainstream media, Nur is (and likely will forever remain) a “teacher trainer.”

Ilhan Omar’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

That may have been for good reason. Like the story of her possible brother-marriage, outrage over Omar’s allegedly antisemitic tweets obscured a far bigger issue: Omar’s deep ties to the Somali government. According to journalist David Steinberg, in 2016 Omar, then newly elected to the Minnesota state assembly, flew from Nairobi to Mogadishu with a Somali politician named Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. Weeks later, Mohamed (known as Faramajoo, or “Cheese”) — a US citizen then on the payroll of the New York Department of Transportation — was elected president of the country in what the New York Times called “one of the most fraudulent political events in Somalia’s history.” Weeks later, a beaming Omar was filmed on a stage at a party celebrating the win where she stood behind a podium with Faramajoo’s face on it wearing a pin with his likeness.

According to Steinberg, before Omar spoke, her first husband (whom she would divorce in 2012 and remarry shortly after the party for Faramajoo, where she spoke) gave his own speech in which he praised the Somali politician who would become President Faramajoo’s prime minister. Two days later, Omar’s brother-in-law became permanent secretary to the prime minister.

Omar’s network of relationships with a government as corrupt as Somalia’s would have been problematic enough for a first-term congresswoman freshly appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Still, that could be put aside — American politicians frequently meet and campaign with foreign leaders as part of their job. But a tie between Omar’s father and the Barre — a tie that could have violated multiple provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act concerning members of regimes responsible for the persecution of minorities and also concerning membership in communist parties — would constitute a wholly different matter.

No journalist who cited the Snopes piece, which leaned on the City Pages article that made a passing reference to Nur’s “teacher training” credentials as its sole source for the claim, ever bothered to corroborate the claim. The problem is that the single source they relied on was not entirely reliable.

In 2017, an education technology company called Nexus Solutions sued City Pages for a series of articles written by Cory Zurowski, the reporter who wrote the original story about Ilhan Omar later referenced by Snopes and Politifact, a suit that Nexus settled with City Pages later that year. The suit alleged that Zurowski had made a number of false statements and misstated amounts of money related to a contract between Nexus and a Minnesota school district.

“These false statements were made in spite of the fact that the terms of these contracts and the payment amounts are public record and were accessible for fact-checking by City Pages,” a Nexus press release stated, the Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported at the time. According to the report, before bringing suit Nexus had asked City Pages to correct the false statements and retract the relevant articles, which the paper had refused to do.

What’s noteworthy in this context is that the Pioneer Press reported this two years before Snopes relied on the reporting by the same journalist, in the same outlet. This is not to imply that a single mistake should invalidate the reporter’s other work. However, for Snopes and Politifact to rely solely on this single un-sourced fact (that Omar’s father was a “teacher trainer”) reported by a journalist who had fairly recently been the subject of a lawsuit concerning the accuracy of his reporting and unwillingness to address clear-cut factual claims is troubling.

But this isn’t the only major credibility issue involved in this chain of events. In 2021, less than two years after the Snopes report about Ilhan’s father, BuzzFeed News reported that the company’s co-founder and CEO had plagiarized no less than 60 news articles between 2015 and 2019, copy-and-pasting text into Snopes articles to improve the site’s SEO.

This, of course, is an ethical and legal breach. But it also raised serious questions about the editorial procedures in place at Snopes, which the Times described as the “premier” fact-checking site. Snopes’ legitimacy as a fact-checking organization is rooted in the idea that the editorial procedures it employed were sufficiently stringent, and managed by enough strong oversight, to be able to accurately and consistently confirm facts and debunk falsehoods on topics that its writers generally lack domain expertise in. But if such safeguards were in place, it’s hard to understand how such a practice, carried out by the company’s CEO, could have persisted over a period of years.

If this had been about a city council official or a private citizen, there would be little to say. But, then again, it’s unlikely that the media, with the help of the fact-checking industry, would have pounced on it the way it did. Either way, this was not a passing issue. Rather, the question of her father’s career cuts to the very core of Omar’s story — whether she’s a refugee who fled violence in Africa to bring a message of multicultural enlightenment to America, or the child of a war criminal who used his powerful connections to cheat the system — and then grew up to do the very same thing as her father.

It’s this that explains the media’s inability to investigate relatively clear-cut claims about Nur Omar Mohamed. By mixing in verifiable claims about him with somewhat murkier claims about Omar’s possible marriage to her brother, along with outright false claims about her being arrested “23 times,” the media — with the willing help of the fact-checking industry — was able to create what I call an information stew, a mix of fact and fiction, ludicrous allegations and truth, that serves to obscure an undesirable reality.

And all of it was fired by the work of glorified blogs that, amid the Democrats’ declaration of an “epidemic of fake news,” had anointed themselves fact-checkers. That the entire endeavor was premised on the notion that this flimsy epistemological jury-rig could not be corrupted or, worse, could not itself become an instrument of corruption is truly beyond belief.

—Ashley Rindsberg

bogorad
3 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories