President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January has ushered in a blitz of hardline immigration measures. In his first days back in office, Trump issued 10 executive orders on immigration, reviving many of his first-term policies and adding new ones. He declared a national emergency at the southern border to unlock funds for extending the border wall and even authorized military involvement in enforcement. Thousands of US troops (about 10,000 service members) have since been deployed along the frontier. 

The administration also suspended refugee admissions and abruptly ended humanitarian parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans, leaving more than 500,000 would-be migrants in legal limbo inside the United States. At the same time, asylum processing at the US–Mexico border has effectively been shut down. A reinstated “Remain in Mexico” rule now forces most asylum seekers to await US immigration hearings on Mexican soil, adding to already dire conditions in border camps.

Trump has vowed to ramp up interior enforcement as well, seeking to triple deportations to about one million per year, far above previous records. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been given an unprecedented mandate, with reports of daily arrest quotas to accelerate removals. As of June 10, reports indicate that agents now face a formal 3,000-arrests-per-day  quota, triple last year’s target. Agents have also been unleashed at sensitive locations like schools and churches that were previously off-limits. This aggressive approach has spread fear through immigrant communities and triggered a flurry of legal challenges. 

Within weeks, federal judges blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented migrants – calling it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil rights groups have filed dozens of lawsuits against various crackdowns. On 13 June, the Supreme Court sided with the White House for the ninth time this term, letting Trump revoke several humanitarian programs while litigation plays out. Despite the court orders and growing civilian outcry, the White House has pressed on, insisting its hardline stance is necessary to restore “law and order” in immigration.

These tactics have driven unauthorized border crossings down to their lowest level in years — March 2025 saw a 95% drop in apprehensions compared to a year earlier — but have overwhelmed Mexico’s shelters and courts with stranded migrants. Major human rights organizations, including ACLU, Human Rights First, and Amnesty International, have since raised grave concerns about due process violations and the treatment of vulnerable people; particularly children and asylum seekers with medical needs. These groups have organized legal clinics at border camps, launched lawsuits, and staged protests in cities like Washington, D.C., and El Paso. The aggressive enforcement of these strict policies has sparked mounting backlash from civil society and international observers, warning that the United States risks trading security for fundamental human rights.

High-profile raids and draconian enforcement in early June ignited public backlash in Los Angeles, as the city has become spotlighted in the national debate over Trump’s immigration clampdown. On June 6, ICE launched a major sweep downtown, arresting 44 people outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building. Protests by Mexican-American and immigrant communities erupted almost immediately, with demonstrators waving Mexican flags, throwing concrete, and even setting Waymo self-driving cars ablaze. Riot police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades.

Over the next four nights the protests swelled, resulting in over 100 arrests and the declaration of a tactical alert that flooded the streets with armored vehicles and federal agents. President Trump, calling the protesters “insurrectionists,” deployed the California National Guard and  ordered 700 active-duty Marines from Twentynine Palms to join the deployment. Up to 4,700 National Guard troops were deployed to quell protests amid the immigration raids. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the Marines and National Guard will remain in Los Angeles for at least 60 days, with an estimated cost of $134 million, confined to protecting federal buildings and personnel rather than making direct arrests. Late on 12 June, the 9th Circuit issued a district-court ruling on troop control, keeping the National Guard under federal command, for now.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass denounced the military presence as “illegal,” “un-American,” and a dangerous federal overreach. California has already filed a lawsuit against the federal government, with Newsom calling the deployment a “trampling of state sovereignty.” While protests have since cooled slightly, solidarity marches and smaller clashes have erupted in at least nine other US cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Austin. Critics warn that this domestic use of military force, the first in Los Angeles since 1992, sets a chilling precedent for civil liberties and signals an alarming expansion of executive power. 

The fallout has rippled across the border as well. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly condemned the violence in Los Angeles, calling for US authorities to respect due process for detained migrants. Mexico’s foreign minister confirmed that at least 42 Mexican nationals were swept into detention during the Los Angeles operations, with some already deported. In Mexico City, small solidarity protests have gathered outside the US Embassy, underscoring the deepening alarm south of the border over Washington’s actions.

As Washington clamps down, Mexico is contending with a surge of migrants and deepening humanitarian strain. Daily asylum applications have tripled to around 1,000, overwhelming Mexico’s already fragile refugee agency and border shelters. UNHCR data show Mexico recorded 16,100 new asylum claims by early March 2025, after already receiving more than 78,900 asylum applications in 2024, following a record-breaking 140,000 claims in 2023. Many of these migrants were en route to the US and became stranded amidst Trump’s crackdown, while others were deported and now fear returning to their home countries.

This influx comes after the  Trump administration’s January decision to freeze approximately $2 billion in humanitarian aid for Mexico and Central America for 90 days. These cuts to vital USAID funding have forced many shelters and legal aid centers in Mexico to scale back or shut down altogether just as demand is skyrocketing. The aid freeze also slashed funding for Mexico’s own refugee agency, which had relied on U.N. contributions underwritten by US dollars. “This is worse than anything I’ve ever seen,” said Gretchen Kuhner, a veteran migrant advocate and director of the Institute for Women in Migration, referring to the collision of new US border policies and the sudden withdrawal of support.

Canada has upheld its record-high immigration targets by welcoming nearly 500,000 new permanent residents in 2025. However, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who took office in March, is moving to tighten the country’s borders in response to US pressure and shifting domestic sentiment. In early June, Carney’s government introduced the Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), proposing sweeping changes that critics warn could dramatically reshape Canada’s humanitarian image. Bill C-2 is now being considered by the House public-safety committee, with first witness testimony pencilled in for late June.

The bill would bar asylum claims from migrants who have been in Canada for over a year or who entered the country irregularly, being applied retroactively to those who have arrived since mid-2020. It also expands the Coast Guard’s authority to interdict and search along waterways, permits mail inspections, and grants sweeping new powers to cancel or suspend immigration documents “in the national interest.” Supporters, including Carney and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, argue these measures are vital to “combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering,” all safeguarding Canada’s borders in an era of heightened migration flows.

However, the Strong Borders Act has faced immediate backlash. Critics, including MP Jenny Kwan, the Migrant Rights Network, and refugee advocates, say the bill mimics Trump-era US tactics and risks violating Canada’s international obligations to protect refugees. 

“It’s an alarming shift,” Kwan said, describing the bill as a “massive rollback of rights” that can erode Canada’s long-standing humanitarian commitments.

The US factor looms large. President Trump has repeatedly accused Canada of failing to stop the movement of illicit fentanyl and irregular migration across the northern frontier. In February, Trump threatened and implemented short-lived tariffs on certain Canadian exports, rattling Ottawa and adding impetus for Carney’s government to show it can police its own borders more strictly. 

“There are items in the bill that have been irritants for the US, so we’re addressing some of those issues,” Anandasangaree acknowledged, even as he insisted the bill is about Canadian security first.

The Strong Borders Act has already sparked protests and is mounting legal challenges in Ottawa and in major cities like Montreal and Toronto. Critics argue that Canada, long seen as a beacon of openness, is at risk of abandoning that tradition in the name of security. For Carney’s government, the challenge remains how to reassure a skeptical public that the system is both secure and fair without sacrificing the country’s humanitarian identity.

Across North America, the current wave of immigration crackdowns has revealed a continent both divided and united, 

In the United States, President Trump’s militarized enforcement has fueled fears of creeping authoritarianism and abandonment of civil liberties. Critics see echoes of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, once used to target immigrant communities, and warn of the dangers of unchecked executive power in an era of deep political polarization.

Meanwhile, Mexico is absorbing the brunt of these shifting dynamics. The nation’s already strained asylum system faces record-level migrant claims, while Washington’s aid freeze has left shelters and legal aid groups teetering. Despite these challenges, President Claudia Sheinbaum has tried to chart a course that balances cooperation with the United States against Mexico’s own humanitarian obligations.

Legal challenges against the Liberal Party’s proposed Strong Borders Act have ignited protests from Vancouver to Montreal, highlighting the country’s internal struggle to balance openness with control.From the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles to the steps of Parliament in Ottawa, civil society groups are mobilizing. They’re fighting not just against new policies, but to protect the very notion of asylum and the principle that migration can be managed without erasing human dignity.

The post The Continental Mosaic Immigration Sparks Unrest and Policy Shifts Across North America appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Clauses regarding the proliferation of hate speech are notorious for how contestable, narrow, or vague they are. In Kenya particularly, the criminalization of criticism deemed as vilification has harmed activists in the name of quelling anti-government propaganda. Just last year, the Kenyan Police Department, as well as the National Guard, injured 361 people and killed 39 during the national #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests. This wave of demonstrations was one of the largest Kenya has seen since the 2007 election crisis, with protestors from 35 counties participating in the movement. Kenyans in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, and more took to the streets to reject the government’s proposed tax increase to pay off government debt to the International Monetary Fund. These tax reforms would have increased the prices of everyday essentials, such as a 25 percent excise tax on vegetable oil and a 16 percent value-added tax on transportation. With a poverty rate of 38.9 per cent, and many employed citizens belonging to the informal sector, the added financial burden of these taxes would have been detrimental for many Kenyan families. 

The current president of Kenya, William Ruto, ultimately retracted the bill, as Kenyan mobilization proved to be stronger than its police, military, and governmental opposition. Through social media, younger generations promoted popular education programs and organized crowdfunding initiatives to help those without transportation reach protest locations. With the help of Google, activists were able to translate the bill into local languages and utilize artificial intelligence to understand the bill’s provisions that contained complicated legal jargon. However, employing the internet to combat oppression has seen its own set of complications, such as the content moderation and systems of surveillance that arose following the Arab Spring, a movement of protests and revolutions in North African and Levantine countries in the early 2010s. The enhanced governmental monitoring of journalists and social media users put many activists in danger, forcing them to alter their original methods of spreading awareness on social issues in fear of government retaliation. 

Despite these consequences, the lessons from the Arab Spring uprisings influenced the current use of the internet to protect protestors today. In Kenya, the internet and social media have been utilized to simplify the sometimes intimidating entry into political activism. Activists such as Boniface Mwagi have become outspoken about the violence and intimidation the government has used against Kenyans who’ve exposed administrative corruption. In addition, bloggers have routinely used their platforms to inform new protestors about safety measures. 

Despite these successes, this June, a year after the #RejectFinanceBill2024 movement began, the sight of stones thrown in exchange for bullets and the sound of chants for justice silenced by tear gas have once again flooded the streets of Nairobi. The current wave of protests has emerged to demand justice for Albert Ojwang, a father, teacher, and blogger who was found dead in the hands of the Kenyan police force this month.   

On June 6, the Kenyan Police arrested Albert Ojwang in his hometown of Kakoth, near Homa Bay, and transported him to Nairobi as a result of Ojwang’s social media posts criticizing the Kenyan Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eliud Lagat. The following morning, Ojwang was found unconscious in his cell, and after being rushed to the nearest hospital, he was pronounced dead. The same day, the Kenyan Police Department announced that Ojwang’s death was a result of self-inflicted injuries. However, suspecting foul play, on June 9, thousands in Nairobi began to demonstrate, demanding justice for Ojwang and denouncing the police brutality in Kenya. Chants exclaiming “Stop Killing Us”, accompanied by signs displaying the same words flooded popular streets. Soon after, on June 11, these statements were verified to be rooted in truth when a pathologist’s report confirmed Ojwang died as a result of external injuries to the head, neck, and body. Investigators also verified that CCTV footage was tampered with on the night of Ojwang’s death. As of June 16, Eliud Lagat has stepped down as deputy chief of police, five officers have been removed from active duty, and 23 have been questioned for their involvement in Ojwang’s murder. 

The issue of police violence in Kenya, however, did not begin or end with Ojwang, nor did it arise as a result of Finance Bill protests. Kenya’s administrative service police was originally established in 1896 by the British Foreign Office to act as a colonial police force and has historically used extreme violence to suppress human rights and protect taxation laws. During the colonial era, the police aggressively cracked down on land protection uprisings, placing many in concentration camps. The police also enforced hut taxes on rural peasantry, which financed colonial infrastructure and administration. Over time, like most sub-Saharan countries, more Kenyans migrated to urban centers following rapid industrialization and as a result, police forces naturally began to subjugate those in large cities as well. In their research on the role of the police in Kenyan cities, Professor Kristine Höglund and Professor Emma Elfversson found that urbanites in Kenya tend to hold less trust in the police, as the over-policing of many communities has resulted in violent conflicts. 

Today, the protection of the elite and the silencing of civilians is still a major concern amongst Kenyan society. Isaak Hassan, Kenya’s Policing Oversight Authority chairman, stated that the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has reported over 20 deaths in police custody in the past four months. This, in addition to the 72 disappearances and the 104 cases of extrajudicial killings that took place in 2024 — mostly including people outspoken about the repression in Kenya — raises serious concerns about the validity of freedom of speech that the state claims to protect. 

While President Ruto publicly denounced the police brutality witnessed during the Finance Bill protests, the only changes in response to Kenyan police brutality have included the resignation and replacement of individual officers, with few structural changes addressing the culture of police violence taking place. Still, despite the slow administrative changes to policing, the general conviction of Kenyans has remained unchanged. Protestors, activists, and all who have witnessed the impoverishment, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings at the hands of the police remain steadfast in their demands for justice, with the state’s violent suppression doing little to curtail the stamina of Kenyan resistance. 

The post When Freedom in Kenya Kills appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Wildfire Context

By early June 2025, Canada’s wildfires were burning at a near-record pace. More than 3.2 million hectares (about 7.8 million acres) had already been scorched across the country — exceeding the full-season average. Around 200 active fires were burning, nearly half of them deemed “out of control.” Western and central provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, have been especially hard-hit. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, multiple megafires exceeded 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres), with the Shoe Lake fire alone reaching over 500,000 hectares (around 1.2 million acres). Tens of thousands of residents, including many from Indigenous communities, were forced to evacuate. By June 9, Manitoba alone had registered over 21,000 evacuees.

​​As of June 13, the number of active wildfires has increased to 225, and total area burned now exceeds 3.7 million hectares — a pace that continues to outstrip seasonal averages. In Quebec, smoke from northern wildfires has raised concerns over air quality impacts on upcoming international events, including the G7 Summit, underscoring how Canada’s climate emergencies are now intersecting with global diplomacy. 

This crisis is not isolated. In 2023, Canada experienced its worst wildfire season on record, with approximately 17 million hectares burned — more than twice the previous record. The 2024 season, though less catastrophic, still ranked as the second-worst in history, and 2025 appears to be following the same trajectory. Satellite detections of fire hotspots are at their highest early-summer levels since the satellite era began, second only to 2023. In recent days, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre had reported 1,874 wildfires ignited and 3.2 million hectares burned, already surpassing multiple provinces’ historical totals with the peak season still ahead.

International Fallout

By mid-May, smoke from Canadian wildfires had traveled across the Atlantic, carried by high-altitude winds and jet streams. It first reached southern Europe, and a second plume, larger and more concentrated, arrived in early June, drifting across Ireland, the UK, France, and Scandinavia. Initially suspended in the upper atmosphere, the smoke created an eerie visual phenomenon: orange-filtered light, muted sunrises, and milky skies. BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor’s 2023 analysis of Canadian wildfire smoke helps explain the eerie visuals seen again in 2025: smoke particles scatter blue light, allowing reds and oranges to dominate.

Smoke from Canadian wildfires — seen as grey plumes veiling parts of Western Europe in early June — was initially detected at high altitudes. NASA’s Aqua satellite tracked the plumes crossing the Atlantic, where they tinted skies and filtered sunlight across the continent. By mid-June, however, that smoke began to descend, prompting air quality alerts across Europe.

On June 10, wildfire smoke from Canada descended into the lower atmosphere over parts of Europe, causing a sharp deterioration in air quality. According to IQAir, cities like Vienna, Munich, Milan, Zurich, Geneva, Zagreb, and Ljubljana reported pollution levels ranging from “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” to “Very Unhealthy.” By June 11, several of these cities ranked among the most polluted in the world — not due to local emissions, but because of smoke that had traveled thousands of kilometers. While Saharan dust played a minor role in some areas, IQAir confirmed that Canadian wildfire smoke was the primary cause.

In North America, the impact was immediate: by early June, one-third of the United States — from the Great Plains to the East Coast — was blanketed by Canadian smoke. Air quality advisories were issued from Chicago to New York, and hospitals in cities like Minneapolis and Detroit reported a rise in respiratory complaints, especially among children. Schools kept students indoors, and residents were urged to avoid outdoor activity or wear masks . On June 12, parts of Minnesota reached the highest “maroon” level on the Air Quality Index (AQI) — the most severe designation — prompting urgent alerts from state health departments warning all residents to limit outdoor exposure.

In early June, NASA imagery captured a “long, unbroken river of gray smoke” stretching over 7,600 kilometers — from Canada to western Russia — blanketing vast stretches of the Northern Hemisphere. CAMS scientists described the transcontinental spread as “a reflection of the scale of the fires.” Even in locations untouched by flame, the evidence was clear: no region is insulated from climate-driven disasters.

Expert Insights

Scientists and public health experts are sounding the alarm about the broad and intensifying consequences of extreme wildfires. “Smoke knows no political boundaries — and neither does fire,” said Ecologist Dr. Lori Daniels of the University of British Columbia. She noted that Canada’s 2025 smoke patterns followed a vast diagonal trajectory, spanning continents. “We’re all struggling with this, not just in Canada and the United States, but worldwide.”

Dr. Paige Fischer, a professor of environmental sustainability at the University of Michigan, echoed this concern. She called the 2025 season “part of the new norm,” driven by hotter and drier conditions fueled by climate change. “The climate models are projecting that we’re going to have more frequent, more severe wildfires,” she warned — not just in boreal regions, but globally.

Public health officials are also worried. Fine particulate matter in wildfire smoke, especially PM₂,₅ — which stands for “Particulate Matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter” — can enter the bloodstream, aggravating asthma, heart disease, and respiratory issues. Environment Canada and the US CDC issued advisories urging vulnerable populations to stay indoors. Dr. John Balmes, a leading air pollution researcher UCSF, compared inhaling wildfire smoke to smoking cigarettes,  stating that “if you’re healthy, occasionally breathing smoke may only cause transient symptoms,” but repeated exposure carries serious risks, stressing the health implications of even short-term exposure. Beyond the physical risks, many experts pointed to the growing psychological toll: orange skies and burning smells in places like the UK, far from any fire, are creating a shared sense of climate anxiety and helplessness.

Mark Parrington, a senior CAMS scientist, emphasized that only extraordinarily intense fires could inject smoke high enough to circle the globe. According to IQAir, some plumes reached 9,000 meters in altitude before descending and settling over Europe. Canadian fire officials, including Liam Buchart, confirmed that exceptionally dry conditions in late May and June — driven by climate change — were a major factor in the fires’ rapid spread and scale.

Wildfire scientists are also warning that the reactivation of “zombie fires” — blazes that smolder underground through winter — could prolong the crisis. According to analysis reported by the Financial Times, as summer brings a return to warm and dry conditions, smoldering underground fires are expected to reignite and spread, potentially resurfacing as active, flaming wildfires. These reawakened fires can sustain smoke emissions for months, well beyond the normal fire season, keeping air quality threats active even after visible flames subside.

Together, these voices paint a sobering picture: wildfires are no longer local disasters. They are cascading effects linked to this atmospheric instability that threaten lives, economies, and ecosystems well beyond their point of ignition.

Climate and Global View

The 2025 wildfires have become a case study in climate feedback loops: warming temperatures increase fire risk, while the fires themselves release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. Canada’s boreal forests, once seen as carbon sinks, are now emerging as major carbon sources. According to NASA, shorter winters and prolonged droughts are extending fire seasons — making them hotter, longer, and harder to control.

By early June, the fires had released 56 megatonnes of CO₂, second only to Canada’s 2023 fire season. The cumulative emissions from these two years now rival the annual output of some industrialized nations. While wildfire smoke can create short-lived cooling by blocking sunlight, its long-term climate impacts, particularly the release of carbon, are unequivocally harmful.

These fires have also strengthened calls for global cooperation. In June, Canada received firefighting aid from US states like Oregon and Idaho, as well as from Australia, which sent nearly 100 wildfire specialists, trained in direct suppression tactics and incident management. This kind of cross-border support is becoming increasingly critical as overlapping fire seasons stretch national emergency resources to the limit.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the current trajectory as “ever closer to the brink,” calling for a “fast, fair and funded” global energy transition. Experts agree that this must be matched by stronger mitigation efforts, such as reducing emissions, improving land use practices,  as well as large-scale investment in resilience like early warning systems, air quality monitoring, and sustainable forest management.

From firelines in Alberta to sunset watchers in Somerset, the signs of climate disruption are everywhere. The 2025 wildfires are not an isolated incident — they are part of a pattern. And unless that pattern is broken, the costs will only grow. Experts say the choice is no longer whether to act, but whether we will act together.

The post Smoke Without Borders appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This budget cut will have drastic impacts on McGill employment. Staff, whether it be teaching, researching, or maintenance, represent 80% of McGill’s operating expenses, as declared by Christopher Manfredi. That would lead, according to the Montreal Gazette, to about 250-500 jobs being cut. Furthermore, McGill confirmed in the May 16 town hall that it intends to continue its hiring freeze. Christopher Manfredi and Fabrice Labeau, while declaring that the university had to lay off 60 employees in April alone, said this relief was temporary.

In fact, the next few years will prove even more challenging for McGill. The full extent of these government decisions will be felt even more harshly in the next four years, which will be critical for McGill’s survival. “Because we have thrived for 200 years, it may be tempting to assume that no matter what happens, we’ll continue thriving for 200 more,” Provost Manfredi and VP Labreau declared during the May town hall. “But if our deficits mount, McGill’s core academic mission will eventually become untenable.”

Despite the gravity of McGill’s financial situation, the May 16 town hall provided more details on the solutions evoked in February. McGill administratives recognised that cuts and layoffs were needed in the short term, but that it was not a sustainable solution in dealing with the university’s financial difficulties. Thus they introduced the Horizon Plan, a wide initiative to reduce and optimise expenses while salvaging McGill’s finances.

According to the Town Hall meeting, the objective of the Horizon Plan is twofold: finding new sources for funding while using current funds more effectively. This plan poses a number of questions that remain to be answered, notably concerns about the raising of new funds. Focusing on how to most effectively utilize current funds, the town hall brought more insight on the actions McGill plans to take within the next year. Another large part of the Horizon plan is to find ways to streamline the process; to simplify, rationalise, and make more effective McGill’s spending while also avoiding unnecessary expenses.

McGill will be joining Uniforum, a benchmarking platform where universities can compare their service performances with each other. Featuring Australian, British, and Canadian universities, Uniforum will give McGill data to  optimize its use of  its current  expenses. Fabrice Labreau explains that Uniforum will enable McGill to reinvest resources and ultimately improve their services. Last February, McGill started gathering information and data for Uniforum, asking employees of over six months about their experience with  its services, prior to looking at “resource allocation” over the spring and summer. This will build a “clear picture of McGill’s resource usage” before the “first results on satisfaction and resource allocation” are published with Uniforum in Fall; upon which McGill will be able to make decisions regarding budget and finances. 

McGill’s goal is to make its core academic mission tenable again, and to make the university sustainable enough to thrive for many years to come. By “reinvesting,” the university will  shift money from one place to another—in other words, key groups will suffer from this financial plan, even though Fabrice Labreau remained evasive about such consequences in his interview with the McGill Reporter. He claimed we will know the first results heeding from McGill’s inscription to Uniforum in Fall 2025.

For now, it remains unclear whether some departments, services and staff will be durably cut or laid off in McGill’s future years – including student TAs and academic advisors. Yet Labreau remains optimistic despite current challenges. He stresses to students that generating spending efficiencies through the Horizon plan will free up resources to be reinvested into education and research. 

If the economic relief from staff layoffs turns out to be more than “temporary,” the loss of these jobs will durably affect the McGill staff laid off in the past six months. For now, the 60 people who lost their jobs in April will not be the last. While it is unclear how the Horizon Plan will affect student life, the new budget plan will certainly impact academic life for McGill students.

The post McGill’s Horizon Plan: Reinvesting in Our Future appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Gaza has been  experiencing a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, with their population now facing acute food insecurity. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), 470,000 people are in IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe), over a million in Phase 4 (Emergency), and the remainder in Phase 3 (Crisis). The United Nations has declared Gaza as “the hungriest place on Earth,” warning of an imminent risk of famine for all residents.

The healthcare system has collapsed, with only a fraction of hospitals and clinics operational due to shortages of fuel, medical supplies, and staff. The World Health Organization reports that 57 children have died from malnutrition since the aid blockade began on March 2, 2025, and nearly 71,000 children under five are expected to be acutely malnourished in the coming months.

Despite some aid deliveries, the situation in Gaza remains desperate. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that only around 200 truckloads of aid have entered Gaza in the past 12 days, constantly delayed at checkpoints and blocked by Israeli restrictions. The few convoys that make it through carry only flour, which must be cooked before eating — an almost impossible task for families without electricity, water, or fuel. Civilians have intercepted aid trucks, leading to cases where some were forced to loot essential supplies as aid convoys stalled for days at checkpoints.

This is not just a bottleneck — it’s a blockade that has sharply restricted the flow of vital supplies. There have been witness reports of civilians scrambling to seize food as it arrives, while Israeli troops have used tear gas, smoke bombs, and live ammunition to disperse crowds, leading to injuries and at least one confirmed death.

International Outcry: World Leaders Speak Out for Aid

Israel’s continued blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza has drawn sharp condemnation from international bodies and human rights groups. While the United Nations has managed to bring in only minimal quantities of food aid—just 4,600 tonnes of wheat flour over three weeks—much of these efforts have been met with persistent restrictions. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has described the situation as “the cruelest phase of this cruel conflict,” emphasizing the urgent need for unimpeded humanitarian access. He criticized the minimal aid allowed into Gaza, stating that Israel has only authorized a “teaspoon” of aid when a “flood” is needed. World leaders have echoed this alarm. Former UN humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths has described the conditions in Gaza as “apocalyptic,” highlighting that no place is safe — not hospitals, not shelters, not even schools. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had also condemned the killings of aid workers and called for an immediate ceasefire to ensure humanitarian access. 

Human rights organizations have  spoken out as well. Human Rights Watch has described the blockade as a “tool of extermination,” while Amnesty International called it “a clear act of genocide and collective punishment.” Despite these urgent appeals, even as the flow of aid remains severely limited and sanctuaries shrink, Canada has responded. On June 10, Prime Minister Mark Carney, alongside leaders from the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Norway, announced sanctions—including travel bans and asset freezes—targeting far‑right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, accusing them of inciting violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

McGill’s Neutrality Meets Montreal’s Unflinching Solidarity

On May 21, 2025, McGill University President Deep Saini addressed the campus community regarding the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In his email, he acknowledged the profound impact of the situation, stating, “Many of us are watching the escalation of human suffering in Gaza with alarm.” However, he reiterated the University’s stance of neutrality, emphasizing that McGill “must remain mindful of its academic mission and refrain from commenting or taking a position on a geopolitical crisis.” He assured students and staff of the availability of support resources for those affected by international emergencies. 

The momentum of pro-Palestinian activism on McGill’s campus can be traced back to the Lower Field encampment, which began in May 2024. The encampment — dubbed the “liberated zone” by students — demanded McGill’s divestment from companies linked to Israel’s military operations and called for greater transparency in university investments. It quickly became a hub of political discourse and mutual aid, hosting teach-ins, cultural events, and communal meals. Media coverage was extensive, with national outlets picking up the story and sparking campus-wide debate on the role of universities in global conflicts.

Although the encampment was eventually dismantled following negotiations with university administrators, it was also forcibly broken up —with bulldozers and private security moving in during heavy rainfall, and protesters carrying their belongings out under pressure. This closure set the tone for a year marked by heightened student mobilization. This continuity of activism highlights that the current mobilizations — like the protests against the Gaza blockade and the continued calls for McGill to divest — are not isolated events but part of an evolving movement with deep roots in student-led organizing.

This past May, Montreal once again became a stage for global solidarity. On May 17, SPHR McGill and community allies marked 77 years since the Nakba by gathering in front of the Israeli consulate in downtown Montreal. The demonstration, endorsed by SSMU, included speeches, chants, and a call to “flood the streets until full return and liberation.” Images shared on social media captured the crowd’s energy, with Palestinian flags waving and banners demanding justice.

Just days later, on May 23, another protest unfolded outside the US consulate. Activists gathered to temporarily shut down the building’s operations to draw attention to American support for Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. Videos circulating on social media documented the protesters’ chants and confrontations with police, emphasizing the urgent tone of the demonstrations.

These events underscore the links between local activism and global solidarity, demonstrating how McGill students and Montrealers refuse to remain passive observers. Their message is clear: as long as Gaza’s crisis continues, the streets of Montreal will echo with calls for accountability. That momentum will continue this summer with the Global March to Gaza on June 15 — an unprecedented international mobilization that has already gathered support from more than 80 Canadian organizations, including Palestine Vivra and Labour 4 Palestine. The march aims to draw attention to  Gaza’s forced isolation and push for immediate, life-saving humanitarian access. In Montreal and beyond, the streets remain a powerful stage for voices demanding justice.

The post Gaza’s Worsening Crisis and Montreal’s Solidarity Movement appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between McGill and SSMU is a formal contract governing their relationship, dictating issues such as the SSMU’s ability to collect student fees, use McGill’s name, and access campus spaces. Under Article 10 of the agreement, either party may terminate the relationship, provided a mediation process is undertaken first. The current MOA, signed in 2022 and set to expire in 2027, has now been called into question due to what McGill administration views as SSMU’s failure to disassociate from activist groups. In the aforementioned email, Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell wrote that “SSMU allowed and, at least tacitly, supported a three-day strike that further divided a campus community already deeply cleaved and hurting,” referencing incidents during the April strike that the administration described as disruptive and unsafe.

The university’s decision came shortly after the end of the student strike. Endorsed by Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), the strike was enacted through a motion passed at the March 27 Special General Assembly, where students voted in favor of divestment and public solidarity with Palestinians. Throughout the strike period, students organized picket lines, teach-ins, and demonstrations.

While many of these events were peaceful, some rallies brought demonstrable acts of violence and the obstruction of classes.  The administration cited an incident involving vandalism in the James Administration Building as an example of unacceptable behaviour. In an email addressed to all McGill students, Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell wrote that the strike created “a campus environment in which dozens of classes were blocked or interrupted.” She claimed that the university’s “goal is not to silence dissent, but to affirm that all students—whatever their identity or politics—deserve to live, learn, and express themselves on a campus freedom of fear, harassment, or violence, where their dignity is respected.”

In response to McGill’s notice of termination, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights McGill (SPHR) – though not an SSMU-affiliated organization – issued a statement accusing the university of “attacking student democracy.” In an Instagram post on April 7, SPHR wrote: “McGill has once again attacked the pro-Palestine student movement, intending to crack down on democratic forms of protest like a strike.” They described the decision as a “strategy of extortion” and a response to “pressure from Zionist donors and our warmongering political class.” The group called on the SSMU to refuse further concessions during negotiations and to “stand firmly with Palestine and our democratically enforced demand for divestment.”

In a statement issued to the McGill Daily, SSMU President Dymetri Taylor reassured that organizational “operations are normal,” noting that SSMU-affiliated clubs, services, and staff employment will remain unaffected during mediation. Taylor emphasized SSMU’s commitment to advocacy and the democratic representation of its undergraduate constituency.

One senator from the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) also weighed in on McGill’s decision. Anzhu Wei, who attended the GA and supported the motion, called the university’s termination of the MOA “ridiculous,”  adding that students are being punished for their political beliefs.

The termination of the MOA places the future of SSMU in limbo. Without the agreement, SSMU could lose the right to collect fees, occupy space in the University Centre, and coordinate student services in their current capacity, per Taylor’s statement. Campbell stated that the university remains “fully committed to ensuring that students continue to have strong, democratic representation and uninterrupted access to critical services.” Still, for students, the structure of that future representation remains unclear.

According to McGill’s public letter, the university will enter mediation with SSMU within two weeks of the termination letter. Until June, both parties will attempt to resolve the conflict, with the possibility of renewing or restructuring their agreement.

As the mediation process begins, SSMU has committed to transparency and regular updates. Students are encouraged to follow SSMU’s social media platforms and official channels for developments. Campbell similarly assured students the University would “keep [them] informed as we navigate this process.” In the meantime, McGill students continue to express concern over the long-term implications of the termination.

SSMU’s ability to function as an independent student union, manage funding, and maintain club spaces depends on the resolution of this process. As such, both the administration and student leadership face a critical moment in reshaping undergraduate representation at the university. McGill’s decision to suspend its agreement with SSMU signals a new and uncertain chapter in campus governance. What began as a student-led strike has sparked a broader reckoning over the limits of protest and student power.

The Daily reached out to McGill’s media relations team to provide comment on the administration’s rationale regarding the termination, how it perceives its relationship with SSMU, as well as what they expect from the negotiations. As of publishing, McGill has not given the Daily a response.

The post McGill Terminates Agreement with SSMU Following Pro-Palestinian Student Strike appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Get Organized! is a workshop series launched by SSMU External Affairs earlier this year. The series offers students a chance to connect with local movements, learn political organizing skills, and build relationships rooted in action. 

“The workshop series started and was kind of inspired by a similar series at the CSU at Concordia that was called Get Radical,” shared Jamila, who works as the Policy and Mobilization Researcher at SSMU External Affairs. “It’s a really clear entry point for anybody at McGill who’s been looking to get involved but finds it overwhelming or doesn’t know who to reach out to or what to join.”

When she first arrived in Montreal, Jamila wanted to be politically active, but found it intimidating to join spaces without knowing anyone. “Get Organized has been a really, really wonderful way for people to just get to know each other and make friends with people that share an interest in being politically active,” she stated.

Each session  featured local grassroots organizations doing movement work, including SLAM-MATU, Students for Migrant Justice, the Immigrant Workers Center, and Mobilizing for Milton Park.

“Each workshop has one or multiple local organizations doing some kind of grassroots organizing,” Jamila explained. They noted how the workshops “make it possible for people to feel more empowered politically by making friends and comrades, learning about things that are already happening, and then learning skills so that they can start things autonomously if they like.”

Though McGill has cracked down on certain forms of campus advocacy, particularly around Palestinian solidarity, Pitre says Get Organized! hasn’t encountered those barriers.

“I think that we’ve been able to put forth some quite radical programming and have really candid discussions about things like protest safety and knowing your rights when interacting with the police, but also McGill security.”

For Pitre and her team, part of the series intends to introduce students to new avenues of involvement beyond what’s already visible. “There are so many other ways for people to get involved … and we wanted to broaden the different range of struggles and local groups that students are aware of so they can get involved in other things.”

Harlan Porfiri, a student from the US, shared that the political context at home deeply shaped their motivation to join: “In the United States, the rise of fascism is particularly concerning. The rise of anti-trans rhetoric and legislation as well as weaning access to reproductive healthcare immediately threatens the well-being of my friends and family.”

Harlan heard about the workshop series through McGill Students for Good Jobs and signed up right away. Sharing their experience, Harlan said they “feel more knowledgeable about the organizing happening in my community and how I can make an impact as a student. I am impressed and inspired by the number of people interested in organizing, as well as the resources available to us as students to do so.”

“The current state of the world often moves me to fear, but I can say with absolute certainty that putting my energy toward community organizing has given me hope and the strength to look forward. It’s a very powerful feeling to be in a room full of people who see some injustice or some lack in the community and agree that they want to do something to fight against or change it.”

When asked what she’d say to someone on the fence about joining, she replied:

“It just feels so empowering to get to know other people and skills that make it possible for you to just do something, without waiting for the opportunity to come up. You look around and see things that you want to change in your community … having other people and skills to make that happen is really empowering.” 

For future workshop or mini-series opportunities, follow @ssmu_ea on Instagram.

The post “Get Organized”: A Workshop Series for Students Who Want to Do More appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The following interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

Aurelien Lechantre for the McGill Daily (MD): Could you begin by introducing yourselves and what you do for OSVRSE?

Jen Collins (JC): Yes, I’m Jen Collins. I’m the educational advisor for OSVRSE, the Office of Sexual Violence Response Support and Education. I’ve been here since August and I do programming, promote things for the office and manage the volunteer team, which are called peer educators. 

Alice Dautigny (AD): And I’m Alice Dautigny. I’m part of the peer educators team at OSVRSE: we are a team of seven student volunteers who give workshops to different groups and clubs from McGill, but  we’re trying to open it up to more students. Thus our work consists in helping organize events, managing the OSVRSE Instagram, and educating the community on how to respond to assault disclosure or situations of sexual violence.

MD: Then would you say the main activity of the office consists in the education aspect through such workshops? 

JC: OSVRSE is first and foremost a support space for those impacted by sexual violence. It’s a central spot on campus for that: we support anybody impacted by sexual violence by creating a safe space. We help people navigate receiving sexual violence disclosures from a friend, and support those who have experienced sexual violence themselves.  Even professors come in and ask about how to make their classroom a more safe and welcoming environment. So we help with accommodation, psychosocial support and counselling, safety planning, etc.

Then our student volunteers do workshops for clubs. Peer-to-peer learning is great because the students understand each other: they know what they’re going through and how to adapt presentations to the audience.

MD: What do these workshops mainly consist of, and what do they entail?  Is it like a class about the subject, the topic you’re about, or is it interactive? Who is your audience?

AD: Most of our audience, until now, is composed of clubs looking to organize events. Usually these events involve alcohol and drinking, so workshops are required for the audience to be able to respond if there’s any issue during their event. The workshops are educational content about several topics that can be interesting for student organizations to be aware of: being an active bystander and responding to disclosure (understanding how to behave if someone during an event comes to you for support). Our workshops are designed to be interactive, with lots of questions, simulations so people can put themselves in the place of an active bystander to prepare for real case situations, looking at real life scenarios, and always a 30-minute Q&A session.

MD: You mentioned active bystanders. What do you mean by that exactly? 

AD: In a workshop context, we like to use the term active bystander to teach participants how to behave when you’re a witness of sexual violence or sexual harassment. So usually it’s looking at our behaviour as witnesses in public spaces and can also be if you witness your friends in toxic relationships with dangerous sexual violence behaviors.

MD: Why do you think it important to comprehend this role of active bystander, specifically on campus?

AD:  I feel like McGill’s campus is both huge and very lively: partying, drinking and meeting people are an inherent part of campus life. Thus it is really important to have associations like OSVRSE and to make sure everyone is aware of the reality of sexual violence at our age.  There’s the beginning of many relationships and discovery of the dating world, so it is important to help prevent and educate people on what is a safe relationship and how to recognise abuse, sexual violence or toxicity — as, unfortunately, sexual violence is a reality for thousands of people, especially students 

MD: Do you think most McGill students are educated on such matters today? Are there other initiatives that OSVRSE has put in place to further education and awareness surrounding sexual violence on campus? 

JC: It is difficult to measure this precisely with stats, but I think “It Takes All Of Us” (“It Takes All of Us” is an online education program about consent and sexual violence, mandatory for every student entering McGill) is great in that aspect. It was created before I came here, but I got to take part in doing it and seeing it in the office. It’s really helpful: I wish I had it when I was in undergrad at my university.

AD: Actually, I heard about OSVRSE through the “It Takes All of Us” form. I looked up who the association was after seeing it in the form, then I saw they were searching for volunteers and  joined! But the other volunteers mostly heard of it through “My Involvement” or directly on the OSVRSE website. 

MD: How and where might we find you? If a student needs support or just wants to participate in a workshop, how can we get to know that? 

JC: You can go online at the OSVRSE website: you could book a workshop, you could see a response advisor, the different possibilities are all on our website and if you don’t see a time slot that works for you, you can always email the office, osvrse@mcgill.ca, and we’ll get back to you within our office hours. 

MD: Do you have anything to add? Perhaps an upcoming event or somewhere we might find you?

JC: Yes! On April 1, in honor of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we are holding a trivia event at Mac campus. There’ll be food and prizes, and it’ll be really fun. We got a lot of local businesses to donate gift cards for raffles and prizes. So we really want to end the year with a big, fun event –  I think everyone loves trivia.

AD: And follow our Instagram (@OSVRSEmcgill) if you want to stay updated and participate in future workshops and events!

The post Highlighting OSVRSE appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 3, 2025, two Palestinian members of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) submitted a motion calling for a Special Strike General Assembly (SGA) to deliberate on initiating a student strike in support of Palestinian liberation. This motion was accompanied by a petition garnering 52 signatures from students across various faculties, meeting the constitutional requirements set forth in Article 13.2 of the SSMU Constitution. Article 13.2 mandates that for a Special General Assembly to be convened, a written request must be submitted by at least 50 members representing a minimum of four different faculties or schools, with no more than 50 per cent of the signatories from any single faculty.  Upon satisfying these criteria, the SSMU scheduled the SGA for Thursday, March 27.

The motion received significant backing from campus organizations, notably Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) McGill. SPHR actively promoted the initiative, urging students to participate in the SGA and support the strike motion. Their endorsement emphasized the urgency of addressing the university’s affiliations and investments perceived to be complicit in actions against Palestinian communities. In preparation for the strike, SPHR continues to post support resources for activists, emphasizing that “in every historic example of divestment, prolonged mass student mobilization was essential to success.” 

The proposed strike motion outlined three central objectives:

• First, it calls on McGill University to divest from companies involved in weapons manufacturing and operations within Israeli-occupied territories; including but not limited to Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Textron, and Thales. Further, the strike would emphasize the need to reexamine financial entanglements deemed complicit in human rights violations.
• Second, it advocates for academic disruption through a temporary cessation of classes, intended as a material and symbolic act of protest to draw campus-wide attention to the Palestinian cause.
• Third, the motion demands institutional accountability, urging the administration to sever ties with entities implicated in the oppression of Palestinian communities. Additionally, the strike would put pressure on McGill to stop disciplinary action against students mobilizing for Palestinian rights. 

The March 27 General Assembly saw hundreds of students pack into the SSMU Cafeteria, reaching the maximum in-person capacity of 300, while over 400 more joined online through Zoom. The energy in the room was charged in in  a mix of tension, urgency, and collective determination. Students lined up at microphones to speak passionately for and against the motion, debating the implications, logistics, and symbolism of striking. Discussion featured both emotional appeals and procedural interventions, reflecting the deep engagement of attendees. While many voiced unequivocal support for the motion, both the principles and practices of the strike were debated. In the end, the motion passed by a significant majority,, with 679 SSMU members voting in favouur. 

The motion outlines that the strike is intended as an act of protest against the university’s perceived complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. It specifically demands that McGill University divest from companies involved in the occupation of Palestinian territories and the manufacturing of arms. The motion further calls for the disruption of regular academic activity to raise awareness and foster solidarity. During the strike, undergraduate students are asked not to attend class: however, students may still submit assignments online and attend scheduled exams. During class time, students are urged to participate in strike-related programming. These include information sessions, picket lines, and artistic interventions meant to mobilize broader campus dialogue and public visibility. 

Statements from organizers emphasized the urgency of collective action. During the GA, attendees cited recent developments in Gaza and longstanding student organizing traditions as motivators for their involvement. Members of SPHR and others expressed that this strike would not only be about Palestine, but also about confronting institutional complicity and reclaiming agency as students within university governance.

Speaker and organizer Rama Al Malah expressed the urgency of the motion, introducing the strike as part of a continuous effort for Palestinian liberation. “We know this is the will of the students, and we will strike and continue to fight for our people no matter what,” she shared in an emotional address to the crowd. 

Although the motion ultimately passed, the discussion at the GA reflected a range of conflicting student opinions. Some attendees voiced apprehension over academic consequences for students, while opposing parties challenged the effectiveness of the strike motion. Procedural debates arose around how to balance democratic participation with accessibility in a hybrid setting. 

“The atmosphere at the GA was full of hope — the entire room was buzzing with energy when I walked in. After the motion passed almost unanimously, everyone erupted into cheers and applause,” a student in attendance shared on the spirit of the event. 

SPHR’s framing of the strike echoed similar calls made during past student mobilizations at McGill, including anti-tuition hike protests and campaigns for fossil fuel divestment. Most notably, McGill students organized a pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024 that lasted several months, featuring teach-ins and cultural programming in what students called a “liberated zone” on campus. The encampment called for university divestment from companies tied to Israel’s military operations and drew national media attention before being dismantled. 

The McGill strike also arrives amid a broader wave of student-led activism across Montreal. Just one day prior, on March 26, around 200 students from Dawson College staged a walkout and marched to Concordia University as part of a coordinated day of action for Palestine, reinforcing a city-wide momentum for solidarity movements. This follows an emergency protest for Palestine on March 18, where hundreds of activists took to the streets and organized in front of the U.S. Consulate after Israel resumed its aggression on Gaza.

As of now, no public statement has been issued by the McGill administration or faculty associations regarding the motion or strike.  According to the motion, students are encouraged to participate in events relating to Palestinian liberation and refrain from attending classes. SPHR and supporting organizers are expected to coordinate teach-ins, community-building sessions, and peaceful demonstrations on campus, facilitated by SSMU. While the motion outlines no formal penalties for students who do not participate, it emphasizes the symbolic power of mass mobilization. Further details regarding event schedules, accommodations, and outreach will be shared on social media platforms in the days ahead.

This moment represents a significant chapter in McGill’s long legacy of student activism. “It is the students who steer us towards truth and justice,” Al Malah stated during the presentation of the strike motion. “We learned from history that students have the power to force the hands of our political class and administration that divestment is possible.” The passage of the strike motion underscores a renewed student interest in global solidarity and institutional accountability. With a resounding turnout and a mandate to act, McGill undergraduates have made clear that their vision of education extends beyond the classroom, and is rooted in justice, equity, and meaningful global engagement.

Whether or not the strike achieves its concrete demands, it has already galvanized a generation of students into collective consciousness and participation. As the strike approaches, all eyes are on what unfolds next — and on how student voices continue to shape the university’s stance in an increasingly politicized global landscape.

The post McGill on Strike: Student Solidarity for Palestine appeared first on The McGill Daily.

However, the Ukrainian armament is still deeply reliant on foreign aid. Military assistance to Ukraine has become central to European and North American foreign policies. Ukraine is blind without Washington’s sharing of satellite images and information transmission, which came to a halt after tensions arose between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine also does not have an infinite supply of soldiers. Zelensky has already lowered the conscription age to 25 for all men in the country, and reports of dubious enrollment methods have circulated. Russia is better equipped for a lengthy conflict, even though public opinion at home may impact this. Producing most of its armament domestically, it can still count on drones from Iran, as well as ammunition and, reportedly, soldiers from North Korea, estimated at about 12,000 by Ukraine in February of this year.

Trump’s entry into office on January 20 radically changed the diplomatic dynamics surrounding the conflict. During his campaign, he promised to put an end to the war; but, on February 12, he was on the phone with Putin. After Zelensky visited the White House on February 28, Trump attempted to pressure Kyiv into accepting a deal on critical minerals in Ukraine, valued at $500 billion, to “pay back” for US support during the conflict. Though tensions following the Oval Office meeting dissipated, with discussions of American and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah on March 11, this episode demonstrates Trump’s pursuit of American interests first and foremost at the expense of Ukrainians.

Zelensky also expressed concerns over “exclusionary” peace talks between Russia and the US, claiming that the American President is locked in a misinformation bubble and adheres to the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In that same meeting, Trump proceeded to call the Ukrainian President a “dictator” and accused Zelensky of starting the conflict.

Yet, Trump is not the only reason Ukraine cannot rely on its foreign allies. Europe stands divided on military assistance. The UK, France, and Germany remain committed to the Ukrainian people. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged global leaders to “keep the pressure” on Russia, Macron asserted French support for Ukraine, Germany sent additional support with Gepard anti-aircraft systems, to name a few examples.. Nevertheless, the EU rejected the proposed 40 billion Euro assistance plan, only allocating 5 billion Euro to supporting Ukraine — focusing solely on ammunition, rather than humanitarian aid.

It is in this inauspicious context that ceasefire talks recirculated. US envoys met a Russian delegation in Riyadh on March 24, and representatives from Kyiv the next day. The talks focused on a limited ceasefire, ensuring strikes stopped, resuming traffic in the Black Sea, and restricting the targeting of energy infrastructures. Washington seemed rather hopeful in Riyadh, claiming a “positive announcement ” would be made in a few days.

While all three delegations agreed to the limited ceasefire, their understandings of ceasefire conditions seemed to contrast. Zelensky ’s announcement that a ceasefire would take place with immediate effect was followed by news of Russian strikes in Sumy, damaging a school and a hospital while also killing 88 Ukrainians. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister, Andril Sybiha, stated that “Moscow speaks of peace while carrying out brutal strikes on densely populated
residential areas in major Ukrainian cities.” The Kremlin replied that they understood that a ceasefire would only be enacted once certain conditions were met. This, alongside the fact the Kremlin
already broke off 25 ceasefires, explains Ukraine’s deep mistrust in Russia’s respect for the agreement.

In the words of the Guardian, these ceasefire talks and agreements cannot lead to any durable peace in Ukraine. Per the Guardian, the Russian and Ukrainian visions of peace are simply too opposed: the Kremlin asserts authoritative claims to Ukrainian territory and refuses to relinquish what it has already gained territorially, while Ukraine maintains claims of sovereignty, refusing to surrender its territory to Russia.

Peace in Ukraine does not appear possible in any foreseeable future, to the despair of humanitarian activists. War is always ultimately a humanitarian crisis, and Ukraine is no exception. If we talk about world leaders, military strategies and ‘big decisions’, we must not forget that war affects peoples’ everyday lives, impacting millions of Ukrainians and forcing them to flee the country as homes and resources are destroyed.

The post Three Years Later: Peace in Sight in Ukraine? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This decision follows public consultations on homelessness and social cohabitation in Montreal conducted by the Office de consultation publique de Montral (OCPM) in mid-February. These consultations underscored the complexity of addressing homelessness and emphasized the need for diversified, long-term solutions. Participants highlighted that there is no universal solution to these issues and recommended developing resources adapted to various needs, such as shelters accommodating couples, individuals with pets, and those exhibiting disruptive behaviors, to ensure better social integration and support for vulnerable populations. The STM claims the.new measure is meant to “balance the needs of all metro users” and “ensure stations remain accessible for transit purposes.” They have also cited safety concerns and increasing incidents of overcrowding in metro stations, particularly during colder months.

Advocacy groups have strongly condemned the move, arguing that it effectively displaces some of the city’s most vulnerable residents without offering viable alternatives. Québec solidaire called on Legault to urge churches and community organizations to step in to provide additional shelter, but critics argue that relying on religious institutions is an inadequate systemic solution.

Indigenous community advocates have pointed out that the number of unhoused Indigenous people in Montreal is rising, a population which faces disproportionate struggles due to inadequate shelter resources and policing practices. Many activists argue that instead of displacement, Montreal needs long-term solutions, including more funding for shelters, transitional housing, and wraparound social services: comprehensive support programs that address multiple needs at once, such as mental health care, addiction treatment, job assistance, and case management to help individuals reintegrate into stable housing.

The STM’s policy has reignited a city-wide debate: should public spaces be made more accessible to unhoused populations, or should other solutions be prioritized? As criticism mounts, the STM has yet to announce any plans to revise the policy or introduce alternative solutions for unhoused individuals who seek refuge in the metro. Advocacy groups continue to call for emergency measures to support the city’s unhoused population, stressing that access to shelter remains a year-round issue. The debate over public space and homelessness in Montreal is far from over, with pressure on the city and the STM to provide meaningful solutions rather than temporary deterrents

The post Nowhere to Go: STM Cracks Down on Homelessness appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As a hub for student activism in America, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian resistance on campus, Columbia University has been the first of many higher education institutions in the U.S. targeted by the Trump administration. For example, on March 20, Trump announced the suspension of 175 million USD in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania for allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports. The Trump administration has also called for an investigation into the University of California (UC) system in the wake of allegations of antisemitism. As a result of these threats, the UC system has also banned ‘diversity statements’ from their faculty hiring process amidst a federal crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, showcasing how the Trump administration’s goals will leave lasting impacts on both students and staff.

The cuts in Columbia’s federal funding mark the first of many initiatives that the U.S. government is taking in stripping private and public institutions of their autonomy, in curriculum, admissions, and hiring processes. Critically, it has also created a shift in the exercise of First Amendment rights in spaces where free thought has traditionally been welcomed. As the number of campus protests
has exploded in the past year – with over 3,000 protests logged by Harvard University Ash Center’s
Nonviolent Action Lab – the Trump administration is adamant to control many of the country’s
leading universities. Trump has carefully crafted a route to justify restrictions on free speech, such
as by equating pro-Palestinian activism with anti-semitism, setting a dangerous precedent for
future leaders.

Amid the protests at Columbia, Trump dispatched federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into two university residences, as revealed in an email sent out to students from the Interim President Katrina Armstrong on March 13. These agents, alongside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, had been assigned with arrest warrants, one for Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, his detention being met with massive outcry across the country. Following his arrest, Trump vowed to deport pro-Palestinian activists, claiming that they support Hamas and are antisemitic. Despite the extreme circumstances that students across the country have been met with, protestors have refused to back down.

Universities across Canada and the U.S. have already been experiencing massive budget cuts, curtailing many PhD programs and even rescinding acceptances, as reported at the University of Pennsylvania. Now, with the threat of additional cuts looming over American universities, higher
education has become an instrument to Trump’s agenda to lead the country down a path of anti-intellectualism. As demonstrated earlier by the UC system’s banning of ‘diversity statements’ (despite California being a forerunner of readjusting to restore diversity in its admissions after the banning of affirmative action in the 90s), universities have preemptively changed their policies to align with the Trump administration’s values in order to protect themselves against retaliation. The many arguments that Trump has used to silence or control universities, such as punishing antisemitism due to anti-war protests, have been used as scapegoats for their broader mission of destroying “wokeness” in the U.S. In 2021, J.D. Vance declared that “the universities are the enemy.” This was not just an empty statement, as indicated by Trump’s recent executive order to shut down the Department of Education. Along the campaign trail, Trump and the Republican Party argued that the department should be under state control and that it has become dominated by liberal ideology. This anti-woke agenda is a symptom of the accelerating democratic backslide in the U.S., as well what many scholars deem to be an element of a developing fascist regime. In its self-declared war against “woke” culture, the Trump administration has actually been fighting against political opposition, resistant strains of thought, and values that do not directly align with its own.

On Friday, Columbia announced that it would concede to the requests from the federal government, which includes placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic receivership, making protest rules on campus more strict, and increasing law enforcement authority. In the coming year, more and more universities will have to face a decision to either retain their institutional independence or to make concessions to the Trump administration and fundamentally restructure university policy.

Columbia University protests during its first encampment in April 2024.

The post Activism as a Scapegoat appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 18, they flooded the streets again, at the same starting point. But the general sentiment wasn’t joy: it was outrage.

Early Tuesday morning, the clock read 2:10 AM when the people of Gaza woke up to the deafening sound of air strikes — sounds they didn’t think they would have to endure any more.

Israeli raids targeted the northern, central, and southern governorates of Gaza. According to Al Jazeera Arabic, Israeli tanks also shelled the town of Abasan in Khan Younis. The world awoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcing that the war on Gaza had resumed.

By Tuesday afternoon, Gaza time, the Palestinian Health Ministry reported “404 martyrs and 562 injuries arrived at Gaza Strip hospitals so far,” adding that “a number of victims are still under the rubble.”

This continuation of brutal attacks comes two weeks after Netanyahu blocked aid from entering Gaza, just as Gazans were preparing to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan.

As of March 21, the rising toll of martyrs has reached nearly 600, with the majority of casualties being children.

The Islamic resistance group Hamas stated that “Netanyahu and his extremist government are making a decision to overturn the ceasefire agreement, exposing prisoners in Gaza to an unknown fate.” They called on people in Arab and Islamic nations, as well as the “free people of the world,” to take to the streets to protest the assault.

On Tuesday afternoon, at exactly 5:00 PM, Montreal4Palestine (M4P) rallied up Montreal residents in front of the U.S. consulate in response to this call. They expressed their frustration and anger concerning the escalation.

“Brothers and sisters, we are standing here today as a show of dignity, because we cannot just stay at home, and watch as these atrocities happen,” said one of M4P’s chanters. “I am fasting, and many of you are fasting right now, but that doesn’t stop us [from showing up]. Whether we’re fasting, whether it’s cold, whether it’s raining, we will continue to resist, we will continue to fight, because that’s what Gaza teaches us.”

“Today marks day 528 of the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” stated one of M4P’s organizers, noting that while the ceasefire technically went into effect on January 19, the aggression never stopped. “Only one truth stands clear: this is not a war on Gaza, this is an American-backed genocide. The Zionist enemy’s renewed aggression is not an isolated event. It is part of an ongoing war of extermination, targeting our people, targeting our cause, [and] targeting our resistance.”

Reports have suggested the Israeli government alerted the White House before launching the attacks, completely breaching the ceasefire agreement. U.S. President Donald Trump purportedly gave a green light to Israel’s moves.

“This is not ignorance, this is complicity!” continued the organizer. “The United States has once again proven that it is not a broker of peace, but a partner in war crimes, and genocide. Because with every
bomb that falls, every child under the rubble, every mother holding her dying baby, they all bear the fingerprints of American weapons.”

Montreal residents’, rejoicing only a few months back, now carried the weight of dozens of news headlines reporting rising death tolls. People screamed “shame!” in condemnation of the attacks, affirming the message of M4P’s organizer’s speech.

One speaker took the mic to say her piece in French, listing previous U.S. acts in complicity with Israeli aggression and violence towards Palestinians: “On December 6, 2017, Trump, then also President, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the so-called State of Israel. And yesterday, he gave the green light to resume attacks on Gaza. So to try to separate the U.S.’s actions from what is happening in Gaza is to veil your face and deny that the so-called State of Israel is nothing more than an American colonial project.”

Many hecklers tried to disrupt the demonstration, yelling out obscenities at the chanters. They were met with M4P’s popular chant that goes, “All the Zionists are racist. All the Zionists are the terrorists,” to the beat of White Stripes’ “Seven Nation Army.” The chant has been a crowd favourite, used as rebuttal whenever Zionists attempt to cause chaos and invalidate the peaceful protest.

“They have tried and failed to crush our resistance, they have bombed our hospitals, they have wiped entire families,” said M4P’s organizer. “But they have not, and they will not, break our people and our resistance.”

Prior to the resumption of the war in Gaza, U.S. aggressions on Yemen have escalated, with the U.S. bombing Sanaa — the capital city controlled by the Houthis — and its surrounding areas, as well as the northern governorate of Saada and the port of Hodeidah. The U.S. government claimed to have been targeting Houthi leaders, their attacks resulting in the death of 53 people so far, including children, and nearly 100 injured.

Abdul Malik al Houthi, the leader of the Houthi movement, stated that the U.S. and Israel were “seeking to impose the equation of permissibility on the region and its people.”

“We will respond to the American enemy with missile strikes and targeting its warships and naval vessels,” he said.

The Houthis have been launching attacks on shipping containers along the maritime corridor in the Red Sea since 2023, in solidarity with Gaza, and had stopped when the ceasefire was announced in January.

However, ever since the breach of truce, and the Israeli blockade of aid, they resumed attacks. They have declared they will not stop until aid deliveries in Gaza are allowed back in. They have also carried out a missile attack on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. Hamas also launched three rockets into the city, their first counterattack since Israel’s breach of ceasefire. No casualties were reported.

The post Montreal Stands in Solidarity with Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Major policy achievements during Trudeau’s run, which started in 2015, included legalizing cannabis, implementing a national carbon pricing policy, and negotiating key bi- and trilateral trade agreements like the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). His government also rolled out social programs such as the Canada Child Benefit and a national childcare program designed to lift children out of poverty and make early education more affordable. However, his leadership was not without controversy. Approval ratings at home plummeted as inflation surged, a housing crisis emerged, and divisions within the party broke out. Meanwhile, economic tensions inched higher after Trump slapped a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian imports that led to a tit-for-tat response by Trudeau’s government. These woes, in addition to increasing public dissatisfaction, ultimately forced Trudeau to step aside, providing an opportunity for the Liberal Party to relaunch under new management.

But for all the gravity of his leaving, Trudeau’s final moments in office were not without a trademark touch of levity. An image of him walking out of Parliament on March 10, 2025 — with the chair under one arm and his tongue stuck out in jest — caught the public eye in a candid moment. Some considered the moment a testament to Trudeau’s charm and relatability; others saw it as emblematic of his occasionally overly relaxed style of leadership. It was, in any case, an apt distillation of his tenure: a leader who mixed serious governance with personal and sometimes idiosyncratic style.

As Trudeau steps aside, Carney presents a very different leadership profile. As the only person to have served as the Governor of the central banks of two G7 countries, he is historically placed as an eminent economist. During the 2008 financial crisis, his strong actions as Bank of Canada governor — cutting interest rates and keeping liquidity flowing — helped Canada recover more quickly than most of its peers. He was appointed Governor of the Bank of England in 2013 and worked swiftly to calm financial markets during the turbulence around Brexit. Now, in his capacity as prime minister, Carney’s crisis management experience is widely seen as an invaluable asset for confronting domestic and international economic challenges alike.

His elevation to Liberal leader wasn’t only a matter of his own credentials but also a response to Canada’s political moment. The Liberal Party’s choice to favor a technocrat over a politician in the traditional sense signifies an embrace of the data-driven, expert-based form of governance. Public mood has also been critical — Canadians are searching for a leader who can offer financial stability and long-term economic growth amid continuing trade disputes and signs of economic turbulence. Carney’s non-partisan credentials and crisis-tested leadership provide some comfort, but with no prior experience in or proximity to politics, doubts about how he’ll approach coalition-building, public engagement and legislative negotiations have arisen.

Carney’s influence in shaping Canada’s global role, as well as its standing within the Liberal Party, is widely expected to be significant. His economic pragmatism and emphasis on fiscal responsibility have the potential to alter the party’s focus and, some fear, may redirect it toward more moderate policies. North of the border, his steadfast commitment to defending Canada’s sovereignty, from external pressures — particularly from the US — is a clear signal of where he intends to go on issues of economic independence and diversification. His dream of diversifying Canada’s trade relationships beyond the United States may lead the country to engage more with the European Union and other global markets as alternative partners to reduce dependence on a single market.

Carney immediately inherits complex and urgent problems as he takes office. The paramount of these concerns is an increasingly aggressive trade conflict with the US that has weighed down Canada’s export-sensitive economy. Trump’s tariffs have spurred domestic economic uncertainty, raising calls for tougher negotiation tactics and trade diversification. In addition to outside pressures, Carney will have to confront internal economic issues, such as poor growth, inflation, and housing affordability. While Carney aligns ideologically with the Liberal Party, his reputation as a policy expert rather than a seasoned politician suggests he may need time to adapt to the dynamics of political life, build public support, and manage internal party challenges.

On the eve of his departure from politics, Trudeau addressed the nation, sharing his thoughts on his time in office and the strength of Canadians while calling on the people to stay true to democracy and unity. “I am so proud of Canadians. I’m proud to have served a country full of people who stand up for what’s right, rise to every occasion, and always have each other’s backs when it matters most,” he said in his farewell message. His comments highlighted the importance of solidarity and collaboration going forward under a new government.

The switch from Trudeau to Carney marks one of the most massive political turnovers in modern Canadian history. It represents a clear break from personality-driven leadership to an emphasis on economic expertise and crisis management. Although Carney is well-respected for the financial skills he developed in previous jobs, his capability to govern and engage with the public remains to be seen. With a new governing season upon us in Canada, observers are listening closely with good reason, eager to see if his tenure on the driver’s seat can usher in economic stability, reinvigorate national sovereignty, and guide us smoothly through the trials and tribulations of both domestic and international politics.

The post From Trudeau to Carney: Canada’s New Political Era appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 4, Trump activated a blanket 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico encompassing virtually all goods. A primary aspect of President Trump’s campaign was the promise of a better economy and lower inflation, but the economic impacts of these tariffs seem to contradict this. Americans and Canadians alike have growing concerns about Trump’s tariff war as duties of this magnitude inevitably lead to higher prices, raising the cost of virtually every good in both Canada and the US.

Economists have warned for years that tariffs and anything short of free trade inevitably lead to inefficient allocation of resources and marginally worse outcomes. Trump’s tariffs will make most Canadian goods less competitive by making them more expensive. American importers will now have to pay the US government a 25 per cent levy to bring them into the country.

Tariffs lead to higher costs for manufacturers to acquire materials such as steel, agricultural products, machinery, energy, and building materials. To retain profit margins, these costs are, more often than not, passed onto the consumer. This leads to rising prices for everything that crosses the border: groceries, cars, houses, electricity, gas, and more.

The US and Canada have been allies from their very formations and are intimately woven together in trade. “A tariff war has no winners,” former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau stated after the activation of the tariffs.

What are President Trump’s goals with this economic war? He has stated multiple times that the tariffs will pressure Canada to secure its border and stop the “flow of fentanyl” into the country. However, statistics show that flows of fentanyl into the US from Canada account for less than one per cent of all fentanyl seized. Moreover, since January, the Canadian government has implemented a 1.3 billion dollar border plan that includes adding 10,000 border security personnel workers and appointing a “fentanyl tzar” — but this did not stop President Trump from enacting the tariffs.

Other potential reasons have been mentioned across Trump and Elon Musk’s X accounts: protecting national industries, growing American manufacturing, or even blatantly crippling the Canadian economy to better annex it as the 51st state.

Canada has made its feelings clear on what Trudeau called a “completely bogus and … unjustified” trade war. In response to Trump’s tariffs, Trudeau announced an equivalent 25 per cent tariff on 30 billion dollars’ worth of American goods and promised to tariff another 125 billion dollars of goods if the president did not cease his actions in the next three weeks. Later that day, President Trump posted on X further threatening Canada, saying that he will match any retaliatory tariffs: “Please explain to Governor Trudeau of Canada, that when he puts on a retaliatory tariff on the US, our reciprocal tariff will increase by a like amount!”

An inspiring wave of unity has overtaken Canada and its people from coast to coast. The federal government, provincial governments, and citizens are coming together to boycott US products and buy local. As the US’s largest alcohol trading partner, Canada has begun to pull American booze off the shelves. Unlike tariffs, this measure will have no economic impact on Canadians and instead directly decrease the sales of American liquor companies, who will then lobby against the tariffs. Politicians from all parties are uniting in a call of resistance, urging Canadians to never back down when facing a “bully.”

Further resistance from Canada ensued on March 6 when Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that come March 10, a 25 per cent surcharge on electricity would be added to power exports to Minnesota, Michigan, and New York, should Trump continue with his actions. Trump has already acknowledged the US’s dependence on Canadian electricity by placing a lower 10 per cent tariff on energy imports from Canada. Indeed, the US is a net importer of energy from Canada, buying around 50 per cent more than it sells to its neighbour. The ten per cent tariff already in place, topped with Ford’s proposed 25 per cent surcharge, would lead to a 35 per cent increase in the cost of electricity for the approximate 36 million Americans residing in the states affected — a devastating increase for lower-income households.

The growing resistance to this unwarranted economic attack on Canada may have prompted President Trump to rethink his course of action: not 20 minutes after Ford’s announcement, Trump announced a one-month exemption on all tariffs affecting products that comply with the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). While only affecting around half of the products originally tariffed and not retroactive — meaning all taxes paid between Tuesday and Thursday are not refundable — this still gave many industries, especially the auto and agricultural industry, a sigh of relief.

On March 7, Trump threatened to levy a 250 per cent tariff on dairy products from Canada, citing Canada’s own 241 per cent tariff on US dairy imports as a “rip-off.” However, Canada’s tariff primarily protects Canadian farmers; as dairy is a very minor export to Canada, this economic measure stands to have minimal effect on either country.

Trump also stated that he wishes to place tariffs on Canadian lumber. However, experts in the US say increasing lumber costs could have devastating effects on the American economy, resulting in increased construction and housing costs. Economists and home-builders caution that the US does not have the necessary industrial capacity to meet the demand for lumber through American resources alone.

The stock market has reacted negatively to the tariff war; the S&P 500 has plummeted by about four per cent in the past week.

President Trump’s aims remain unclear and his current proposed actions stand to hurt Americans just as much, if not more, than Canadians. With the uncertainty of more tariffs looming in the coming months, the effect on both economies remains unknown. While the world holds its breath as it watches two long-standing allies bicker, one thing remains certain: we have entered a new era for international relations between Canada and the United States. President Trump has tarnished the trust that has made our neighbouring countries prosper for over two centuries.

Editor’s note: This article was written before Premier Ford and President Trump stepped back from their threats of 25 per cent tariffs on US imports of Ontario electricity, and 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian steel and metal imports, respectively. As of the time of publication, the Canada-US trade spat is still rapidly developing.

The post The Tariff War: Trumped by Canada? appeared first on The McGill Daily.