ODESA I. I.

MECHNIKOV NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Faculty of International Relations, Political science and Sociology

PORTFOLIO
(media and politics)

Third year student

Group #1
Vlada Tyrnova
Kateryna Aleksandrova

Odesa 2025
 As part of my academic assignment, I had to complete a number of tasks focused
on improving my reading comprehension, analytical and linguistic skills. These tasks
involved working with a selection of articles from news websites that required careful
reading and analysis to achieve the following tasks:
1. Reading articles: My first step was to thoroughly read one article per week in
order to understand the main ideas of the author. This process required active
participation in order to fully understand the views of the authors and the overall
purpose of the texts.
2. Selection of words combinations and their translations: During the reading
process, I highlighted significant phrases that stood out for their relevance or
complexity and would be relevant to the topics of our course. Then I provided an
accurate translation of these words into Ukrainian to convey the original meaning in
another language and to understand their meaning so that I could then operate with
them in real life.
3. Creating annotations for the articles: For each article, I prepared short
annotations summarizing its content. These annotations covered the main topics of
the news and my summary of the texts, allowing me to structure what was important
in the articles.
4. Formulating questions for the articles: And finally, I developed a series of
questions based on the content of the articles. These questions were designed to
provoke critical thinking and deepen understanding of the material. They were
designed to allow the reader to use them to analyze the reading and explain what they
had read afterwards.
These assignments allowed me to improve my ability to analyze complex texts,
improve my translation skills, and promote critical thinking, which are important
skills for professional growth.
 South Korean authorities detain impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol over
martial law declaration

South Korea's anti-corruption agency says impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol has
been detained over insurrection accusations related to his December 3 martial law
declaration but is refusing to speak to investigators.

His arrest is the first ever for an incumbent South Korean president.

A defiant Mr Yoon said he submitted himself for questioning on Wednesday to avoid

any violence after more than 3,000 police officers marched on his residence to arrest
him.

The embattled leader said he agreed to comply with the Corruption Investigation
Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) to avoid "bloodshed".

"When I saw them break into the security area using firefighting equipment today, I
decided to respond to the CIO's investigation — despite it being an illegal
investigation — to prevent unsavoury bloodshed," Mr Yoon said in a statement.

Following an hours-long stand-off at the presidential compound's gate, hundreds of

law enforcement officials in South Korea entered Mr Yoon's residential compound in
the capital Seoul, marking a dramatic escalation in the investigation surrounding the
embattled leader.

Mr Yoon's motorcade was later seen leaving his residence in an upscale area known
as Seoul's Beverly Hills.

It arrived at the investigators' office but was quickly surrounded by security and
moved to the back of the building, where Mr Yoon slipped in, evading the waiting
media.

Authorities have 48 hours to question Mr Yoon, after which they must seek a warrant
to detain him for up to 20 days or release him.

However, Mr Yoon is refusing to talk and has not agreed to have interviews with
investigators recorded on video, a CIO official said.

The CIO said it had no information on why Mr Yoon was refusing to talk.
Mr Yoon's lawyers have said the arrest warrant is illegal because it was issued by a
court in the wrong jurisdiction and the team set up to investigate him had no legal
mandate to do so.

A warrant to search Mr Yoon at his residence, a copy of which was seen by Reuters,
referred to Mr Yoon as "ringleader of insurrection".

Presidential guards were stationed on the CIO floor where Mr Yoon was being
questioned, a CIO official said, but he will likely be held at Seoul Detention Centre,
where other high-profile figures including former president Park Geun-hye and
Samsung Electronics Chairman Jay Y Lee have also spent time.

Police vowed to use more force to detain president

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials and police are jointly
investigating whether Mr Yoon's brief martial law declaration amounted to an
attempted rebellion.

They pledged more forceful measures to detain him after the presidential security
service blocked their initial efforts on January 3.

Mr Yoon has justified his martial law decree as a legitimate act of governance against
an "anti-state" opposition bogging down his agenda with its legislative majority, with
him vowing to "fight to the end" against efforts to oust him.

Despite a court warrant for Mr Yoon's detention, the presidential security service
insisted it was obligated to protect the impeached president and it fortified his
compound with barbed wire and rows of buses blocking paths.

As tensions escalated, South Korea's acting leader, Deputy Prime Minister Choi
Sang-mok, issued a statement urging law enforcement officers and the presidential
security service to ensure there were no "physical clashes".

Saga began with martial law declaration

Mr Yoon declared martial law and deployed troops around the National Assembly on
December 3.
It lasted only hours before politicians managed to get through the blockade and vote
to lift the measure.

Mr Yoon's presidential powers were suspended when the opposition-dominated

assembly voted to impeach him on December 14, accusing him of rebellion.

Separately, the Constitutional Court is deliberating whether to uphold that

impeachment and permanently remove him from office or restore his presidential
powers.

Mr Yoon had not left his official residence in Seoul for weeks before his arrest, and
the presidential security service prevented dozens of investigators from detaining him
during a nearly six-hour stand-off on January 3.

The National Police Agency had convened multiple meetings of field commanders in
Seoul and nearby Gyeonggi province in recent days to plan their detainment efforts.
The size of those forces fuelled speculation that more than a thousand officers could
be deployed in a possible multi-day operation.

The agency and police openly warned that presidential bodyguards obstructing the
execution of the warrant could be arrested.

Supporters and police gathered before dawn

The latest arrest attempt that began before dawn gripped the nation, with hundreds of
thousands glued to live feeds showing bus loads of police arriving near the
presidential residence, pushing past Yoon supporters and then walking towards the
gates of the compound carrying ladders and wire cutters.

Throngs of those protesters gathered in the sub-zero temperatures, some wrapped in

foil blankets and others waving flags bearing "Stop the Steal" slogans referring to Mr
Yoon's unsubstantiated claims of election fraud — one of the reasons he gave to
justify his short-lived martial law declaration.

MPs from Mr Yoon's People Power Party, along with at least one of his lawyers,
were seen at the residence's gate, apparently arguing with anti-corruption officials
and police officers attempting to enter.

Hundreds of Mr Yoon's supporters and critics held competing protests — one side
vowing to protect him, the other calling for his imprisonment, while thousands of
police officers in yellow jackets closely monitored the situation, setting up perimeters
with buses.

As local news broadcasters reported that Mr Yoon's detention was imminent, some
minor scuffles broke out between pro-Yoon protesters and police near the residence,
according to a Reuters witness at the scene.

Some of Mr Yoon's supporters have drawn parallels with his plight and that of US
president-elect Donald Trump, who also claimed voter fraud contributed to his
election defeat in 2020 but recovered to make a stunning political comeback.

"It is very sad to see our country falling apart," said Kim Woo-sub, a 70-year-old
retiree protesting against Mr Yoon's arrest outside his residence.

"I still have high expectations for Trump to support our president. Election fraud is
something they have in common but also the US needs South Korea to fight China,"
he said.

Despite polls showing a majority of South Koreans disapprove of Mr Yoon's martial

law declaration and support his impeachment, the political stand-off has given
oxygen to his supporters and his People Power Party has seen a revival in recent
weeks.

Support for the PPP stood at 40.8 per cent in the latest Realmeter poll released on
Monday, while the main opposition Democratic Party's support stood at 42.2 per
cent, within a margin of error and down from a gap of 10.8 per cent from last week,
the poll said.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-15/police-arrest-impeached-south-
korean-president-yoon-suk-yeol/104818212?
utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_sha
red&utm_source=abc_news_web
1. insurrection accusations – звинувачення у заколоті
2. martial law declaration - оголошення воєнного стану
3. to prevent unsavoury bloodshed - запобігти неприємному кровопролиттю
4. hours-long stand-off – тривале протистояння
5. dramatic escalation - Різке загострення
6. embattled leader – лідер у скрутному становищі
7. ringleader of insurrection - ватажок повстання
8. an attempted rebellion – спроба повстання
9. forceful measures – силові заходи
10.legislative majority - Законодавча більшість
11.physical clashes – фізичні сутички
12.opposition-dominated assembly – асамблея , де домінує опозиція
13.unsubstantiated claims – непідтверджені заяви
14.election fraud – виборчі махінації
15.within a margin of error – у межах похибки
 Annotation:

The headline of the article I have read is "South Korean authorities detain
impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol over martial law declaration." As the title
implies, the article talks about the arrest of South Korea's impeached President Yoon
Suk Yeol after he declares martial law to put down protests over his controversial
martial law declaration..

Unfortunately, the author’s name is not mentioned. The article was published on
the ABC News website on January 14, 2025.

The main idea of the article revolves around the arrest of President Yoon Suk
Yeol, who faces accusations of insurrection stemming from his martial law
declaration on December 3, 2024. The article emphasizes the political chaos
surrounding his impeachment and subsequent arrest.

The author notes that Yoon's martial law declaration, which was in effect for only
a few hours, provoked considerable backlash and ultimately resulted in his
impeachment. The report describes his arrest as dramatic, featuring a standoff at his
presidential residence. Supporters and opponents of Yoon continue to engage in
competing protests, illustrating the political rifts within the nation.

I found the article important as it sheds light on the challenges facing South
Korea's democracy amid political tensions and public division.
 Key moments from Donald Trump's first full day back: A pointed sermon, a
letter and lots of lawsuits
By Lucia Stein and Rebecca Armitage
Donald Trump promised to act with "historic speed and strength" when he entered the
oval office and by the time he completed his first 24 hours in the job, he delivered on
that pledge.
Shortly after his swearing in as the 47th president, the Commander-in-Chief broke
from the normal conduct of incoming presidents and swiftly began enacting his
vision for his second term.
Armed with his signature black marker and trademark bluster, Trump issued nearly
1,600 pardons and signed dozens of executive orders that rolled back many of the
signature policies of his predecessor.
Some of those measures included blocking a federal law banning social media
platform TikTok, ending diversity and inclusion programs across the federal
government, and seeking to end an immigration practice known as birthright
citizenship.
The speed of Trump's actions took many by surprise. On day one, he signed almost
50 executive actions.
For comparison, when the president took office in 2017, he signed just one executive
order on Inauguration Day.
"It is a fire hose right now. That's what he does. He creates a tonne of chaos so it's
hard to keep up with it," said lawyer and Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett.
"Everything is overload."
Along with the flurry of executive actions, Trump's first full day in office featured a
pointed sermon, a "nice" letter from Biden and the release of January 6 prisoners.
But a series of speed bumps lie ahead, threatening to slow the 47th president's
lightning pace and derail his ambitious, "shock and awe" agenda.
US media is reporting that opponents, scholars and other groups believe Trump's
actions have already exceeded the limits of his presidential power.
After eclipsing his first week record of executive actions, Trump is facing an
extensive list of legal challenges to his orders. Experts believe some issues could drag
on in court battles for years.
These were the key takeaways from day one.
Biden left Trump an 'inspirational type' letter
Sitting at the Resolute Desk inside the Oval Office, Trump was settling into his new
role and taking questions from reporters when he was asked about a treasured
presidential custom.
Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, it has been the tradition of departing presidents to
write a note to their successor and leave it in the desk drawer.
The letters typically include warm congratulations, warnings and advice on how to
navigate America's highest office.
Trump maintained the tradition when he handed over to Biden in 2020 despite his
refusal to follow other conventions, such as attending the inauguration ceremony.
Biden described the note as "very generous".
On Monday, a reporter asked the president if Biden had continued the custom and left
him a letter.
Trump responded by opening the drawers of the Resolute Desk and pulling out an
envelope with the number "47" scrawled on the front.
He joked about reading it with the gathered press, but quickly added he would check
it first.

Later, he told reporters he appreciated the note, offering few details on what was
included.

"It was a little bit of an inspirational-type letter, you know, enjoy it, do a good job.
Important, very important, how important the job is. But I may, I think it was a nice
letter, I think I should let people see it," he added.

Biden has declined to say what he wrote, noting "that's between Trump and me".

'Have mercy': Bishop makes pointed sermon in front of Trump

Trump started his first full day as America's commander-in-chief by attending a

prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral.

The Episcopal bishop of Washington, Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde,

delivered her sermon as part of the interfaith ceremony.
But she surprised everyone when she made a direct plea to the president.

"In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who
are scared now," she said, looking directly at the president.

"There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and
independent families. Some who fear for their lives."

Her comments came hours after Trump signed a slew of executive orders, including
one that proclaimed the US government will only recognise two sexes, male and
female.

She also pleaded with the president to show compassion to undocumented

immigrants, as he seeks to end birthright citizenship and halt all refugee admissions.

"The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labour in poultry
farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and
work the night shifts in hospitals, they … may not be citizens or have the proper
documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals," she said.

"I ask you to have mercy, Mr President, on those in our communities whose children
fear that their parents will be taken away."

Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, showed no emotion during the sermon, but
did exchange a few whispered words.

When asked for his reaction by reporters, Trump said the sermon was "not too
exciting".

"I didn't think it was a good service," he said.

But later, at 12:49am local time, Trump got on the social media platform Truth Social
to blast the Right Reverend Budde for her sermon.

"She brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way," he
wrote.

"She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart."

Within hours, Trump experiences the limits of his power

Hours after he was sworn into office, Trump signed a flurry of executive orders,
which he vowed would enact "the complete restoration of America and the revolution
of common sense".

Executive orders basically allow presidents to make policy outside of the regular
lawmaking process through Congress.

But executive power still has limits, and it can be challenged — and overturned — in
the court system.

After Trump signed an executive order to cut off birthright citizenship — the right of
any child born on US soil to call themselves an American citizen — 18 Democratic
attorneys-general filed a lawsuit.

"The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment …

nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States
citizenship at birth," they said.

Four additional states filed a similar suit later in the day, bringing the total number of
states challenging Trump to 22.

New Jersey Democratic Attorney-General Matt Platkin said presidents might have
broad authority but they are not kings.

"The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of
existence, period," he said.

lon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is also facing multiple

legal challenges in court.
Trump tapped the richest man in the world to lead DOGE in identifying potential
spending cuts and streamlining government regulations.
But public interest groups say the DOGE panel violates laws on transparency for
government advisory groups.

No sign of mass immigration crackdown yet

Trump pledged to introduce the largest deportation program in US history once in
office and started laying the groundwork for this plan with a series of executive
orders signed on day one.
With the sweep of a pen, he halted the use of an app set up by the Biden
administration to allow migrants to apply to enter the US legally as asylum-seekers
and reinstated the "Remain in Mexico" policy, which forces asylum-seekers to wait in
Mexico until they are scheduled to appear before US immigration judges.
He has also prioritised the completion of the border wall.
The orders had an immediate impact. The Associated Press reported that within
minutes of Trump being sworn in, migrants who had appointments to enter the US
using the special app saw them cancelled.

But other moves were slower to unfold. As of Tuesday evening, local time, there was
little sign of the large-scale immigration raids expected to target major sanctuary
cities immediately after Trump's inauguration.

US media had reported his team was planning to begin large-scale deportations the
day after his inauguration, with suggestions up to 200 officers could be sent to
Chicago to carry out a major immigration raid.

Other sanctuary locations under consideration included New York and Miami.

But Trump's "border czar", Tom Homan, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) had launched smaller operations the day after the inauguration.

"I wouldn't call them raids, they're targeted enforcement operations," he told CNN.

"I'm not going to tell you specific locations out of safety concerns, but ICE is back
doing their job effective today."

Homan said officers are initially targeting undocumented migrants with "a criminal
conviction that makes them a public safety threat".

A Trump enemy loses security detail

Within hours of taking office, Trump terminated the Secret Service detail that was
assigned to his former national security adviser, John Bolton.

Trump fired Bolton in September 2019 after saying he "strongly disagreed with
many" of his hawkish foreign policy positions.
The next year, Bolton published a memoir in which he claimed Trump was woefully
ill-informed on foreign policy matters, and claims he personally asked Chinese
President Xi Jinping to help him win the 2020 election.

Trump denied the allegations and said Bolton "should go to jail".

But in 2020, after the US assassinated Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani,
American authorities learned of a revenge plot against senior government figures,
including Bolton.

He's been under Secret Service protection ever since, but his detail was taken away
from him hours after Trump was sworn in.

"I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has made this decision,"
Bolton said in a statement to CNN.

"The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary

Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hitman to target me."

During a White House press conference, Trump called Bolton a "stupid guy" and said
no-one should expect a security detail for life.

"I thought he was a very dumb person," Trump said.

"I used him well, because every time people saw me come into a meeting with John
Bolton standing behind me, they thought that he'd attack them, because he was a
warmonger."

Jan 6 rioters walk free

To the surprise of his opponents and critics, Trump ordered the immediate release of
everyone jailed over the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The insurrection in Washington DC was widely seen as an attempt by Trump's

supporters to prevent the certification of Biden as president.

Trump had said ahead of inauguration day that he would pardon some of the people
involved in the riots, but suggested particularly violent offenders might not be freed.
Trump issued full pardons to nearly 1,500 people involved in the attack. Fourteen
other offenders had their sentences commuted, and all outstanding charges over the
attack were dropped.
Hours later, Oath Keepers extremist group founder Stewart Rhodes, who helped
orchestrate the January 6 riot, walked out of prison.
He had been serving an 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy.
Trump's actions have drawn criticism from police who battled the mob, their families,
Democrats and even Republicans.
Michael Fanone, a police officer who was beaten and repeatedly tasered in the
insurrection, said he has asked a court for protection in response to the pardons.
"These individuals are not prevented from making contact with me or members of my
family, and I anticipate that they will," he told the ABC.
Former House Speaker and Democrat Nancy Pelosi has branded the pardons "an
outrageous insult" to the justice system.
"It is shameful that the President has decided to make one of his top priorities the
abandonment and betrayal of police officers who put their lives on the line to stop an
attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power," she said in a statement.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-22/key-moments-from-trumps-
first-full-day-back/104846158?
utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_sha
red&utm_source=abc_news_web
1. commander-in-chief - верховний головнокомандувач
2. military officer - військовий офіцер
3. birthright citizenship - громадянство за правом народження
4. lawmaking process - законодавчий процес
5. federal law - федеральний закон
6. legal challenges - правові виклики
7. immigration practice - імміграційна практика
8. foreign policy positions - позиції зовнішньої політики
9. woefully ill-informed - дуже погано поінформований
10. justice department - міністерство юстиції
11. seditious conspiracy - бунтівна змова
12. criminal charges - кримінальні звинувачення
13. public interest groups - групи громадського інтересу
14. asylum-seekers - шукачі притулку
15. executive order - виконавчий указ
 Annotation:

The headline of the article I have read is "Key moments from Donald Trump's
first full day back: A pointed sermon, a letter and lots of lawsuits". As the title
implies the article describes about Donald Trump's first day as the 47th president of
the United States and his desichions.
The author’s name is Lucia Stein and Rebecca Armitage. It was published in the
ABC News website on January 22, 2025.
The article deals with focuses on Donald Trump's first 24 hours as the 47th U.S.
President, highlighting his swift and extensive executive actions upon returning to
office.
The author starts by telling that Trump's unprecedented rapid-fire approach,
signing nearly 1,600 pardons and around 50 executive orders on his first day. Much
attention is given to blocking TikTok, ending diversity programs, and attempting to
end birthright citizenship. Notable events included receiving a letter from Biden,
attending a controversial church service where Bishop Budde made pointed remarks
about LGBTQ+ rights and immigration, and pardoning January 6 rioters including
Stewart Rhodes.
The article goes on to say that Trump's executive actions face significant legal
challenges, with 22 states opposing his birthright citizenship order. It also notes the
immediate impact on immigration policies and the termination of John Bolton's
security detail.
In my opinion this article effectively captures the dramatic shifts in U.S. policy and
heightened political tensions marking Trump's return to power.
 US judge temporarily blocks Donald Trump's order to pause federal grants
and loans

A US judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping order to

pause federal grants and loans.

The White House earlier announced it would pause federal grants and loans while the
administration conducted an across-the-board ideological review to uproot
progressive initiatives.

The order from US District Judge Loren L AliKhan came minutes before the funding
freeze was scheduled to go into effect.

It lasts until Monday afternoon, local time, and applies only to existing programs.

Administration officials said the decision to halt loans and grants — a financial
lifeline for local governments, schools and nonprofit organisations around the country
— was necessary to ensure that spending complied with Mr Trump's recent blitz of
executive orders.

The Republican president wants to increase fossil fuel production, remove protections
for transgender people and end diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

A vaguely worded memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget, combined
with incomplete answers from the White House throughout the day, left politicians,
public officials and average Americans struggling to figure out what programs would
be affected by the pause.

Even temporary interruptions in funding could cause lay-offs or delays in public

services.

A spokesperson for the Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas, David Smith,
said the order "sort of came out of the blue".

The district is one of the countless ones that receive federal funding.

Now it is trying to figure out what it means "based on zero information" Mr Smith
said.

Judge AliKhan, who was appointed by former US president Joe Biden, said in halting
the freeze: "It seems like the federal government currently doesn't actually know the
full extent of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause."
Jessica Morton, an attorney for the National Council of Nonprofits, which brought
the lawsuit suit, said the group had tens of thousands of members around the country
that could be affected.

"Our client members have reported being extremely concerned about having to
shutter if there's even a brief pause," Ms Morton said.

Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei said the plaintiffs had not identified
anyone specifically who would lose funding right away if the pause went into effect.

Just minutes after Judge AliKhan ruled, Democratic attorneys-general from 22 states
and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit seeking to block and
permanently prevent the administration from cutting off federal funding.

"There is no question this policy is reckless, dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional,"

New York Attorney-General Letitia James said.

Trump administration says Medicaid not affected by pause

Trump administration officials said programs that provided direct assistance to

Americans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, student loans and food
stamps, would not be affected.

They also defended the funding pause, saying Mr Trump was following through on
his promise to turn Washington upside down if elected for a second term.

Organisations such as Meals on Wheels, which receives federal money to deliver

food to the elderly, were worried about getting cut off.

"The lack of clarity and uncertainty right now is creating chaos," spokeswoman Jenny
Young said.

She added that "seniors may panic not knowing where their next meals will come
from".

The National Science Foundation postponed this week's panels for reviewing grant
applications.

Republican leaders in Louisiana said they were "seeking clarity" to ensure nothing
was "jeopardising [the] financial stability of the state."
Washington senator Patty Murray said Mr Trump's actions would "wreak havoc in
red and blue communities everywhere".

"We are talking about our small towns, our cities, our school districts,"
she said.

Officials asked about programs promoting abortion, gender ideology

The full scope of the administration's review was spelled out in a 51-page spreadsheet
sent to federal agencies and viewed by The Associated Press.

Each line was a different government initiative, from pool safety to tribal workforce
development, to special education.

Officials were directed to answer a series of yes or no questions for every item on the
list including, "Does this program promote gender ideology?" or, "Does this program
promote or support in any way abortion?"

Responses are due by February 7.

Trillions of dollars are potentially under review.

Grants that have been awarded but not spent are also supposed to be halted if they
might violate one of Mr Trump's executive orders.

"The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green
new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not
improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve," acting director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Matthew Vaeth, said in a memo distributed on Monday.

The funding pause is the latest example of how Mr Trump is harnessing his power
over the federal system to advance his conservative goals.

For example, federal employees are being asked to report their colleagues if they try
to continue diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-29/us-judge-blocks-trump-bid-to-
pause-federal-grants-loans/104870550?
utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&
utm_source=abc_news_web
1. temporarily blocked – тимчасово заблоковано
2. sweeping order – повний наказ
3. to halt loans and grants – зупинити кредити та гранти
4. A vaguely worded memo – нечітко сформульований меморандум
5. public officials – державні службовці
6. cause lay-offs – спричинити звільнення
7. sort of came out of the blue – як грім серед ясного неба
8. based on zero information – базується на нульовій інформації
9. the full extent – повною мірою
10. Attorney-General – Генеральний прокурор
11. seeking clarity – прагнучи ясності
12. jeopardising financial stability – загрожує фінансовій стабільності
13. might violate – може порушити
14. taxpayer dollars – гроші платників податків
15. a memo distributed – розповсюджений меморандум
 Annotation:

The article is titled "US judge temporarily blocks Donald Trump's order to
suspend federal grants and loans". Unfortunately, the author's name is not
mentioned in this article. It was published in the ABC News website on January 29,
2025.
The main idea of the article is to report on an important legal event when a US
federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's executive order that would have
suspended federal grants and loans across the country.
The article is about that Judge Loren L AliKhan issued the order minutes before
the funding freeze was to take effect, and the blockade will last until Monday
afternoon. According to the article, the Trump administration paused to review
programs for compliance with recent executive orders targeting progressive
initiatives. The author notes that a freeze would have affected local governments,
schools, and nonprofits across the country. Much attention is paid to the concerns
raised by various stakeholders, including the National Council of Nonprofits and
several state attorneys general who filed lawsuits. The administration argued that
major programs such as Medicare and Social Security would not be affected.
In my opinion this article particularly interesting because it highlights the tension
between executive power and judicial oversight, and demonstrates the real impact of
policy decisions on public services and organizations.
 Anthony Albanese's careful, polite rejection of Donald Trump finds unusual
bipartisan support
By David Speers

"I'm not going to provide a running commentary on statements by the President of the
United States."

It's become the go-to prime ministerial response when Anthony Albanese can neither
bring himself to agree with Donald Trump's latest shocking statement nor risk
publicly disagreeing.

Albanese has largely stuck to the formula over the first few turbulent weeks of the
second Trump presidency. But after Trump's jaw-dropping declaration the US will
"do what's necessary" to take "long term ownership" of Gaza, the prime minister had
to offer something more.

It wasn't exactly a slap-down, more a polite and careful rejection.

Pressed for a reaction to the president's radical idea, Albanese repeatedly stated
Australia's long-held and bipartisan support for a two-state solution had not changed.

Without spelling it out, the prime minister was making it clear Australia still supports
the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. It does not
support clearing them out of Gaza to who knows where and turning this strip of land
into an American-owned "Riviera of the Middle East" for the "people of the world".

'Don't respond to everything that's said'

Albanese, however, has been careful not to condemn, ridicule, blow steam, or in any
way canvass the consequences of Trump's proposal, much to the disappointment of
the Greens and pro-Palestinian groups.

This is in part due to uncertainty over how serious the president may be.

An approach has now been adopted to hit pause and take time to establish whether a
bombshell statement like the US owning Gaza is real policy, or what Trump's former
advisor Steve Bannon once referred to as "flooding the zone with shit".

"Don't respond to everything that is said. Don't engage unnecessarily on noise," says
one of the older hands within the Australian government.
The view is: wait until "Bibi week" (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's
visit to Washington) is all over. What's real and what's noise will only become clearer
then. Best not to jump at shadows too soon.

This caution is not without its risks. It can look weak. But when it comes to Trump,
it's an entirely bipartisan approach.

Coalition didn't go all in

Peter Dutton and his new shadow foreign minister David Coleman didn't say a thing
yesterday about a US president potentially re-shaping the global order.

There was no rush from the conservative side of Australian politics to go all-in with
Trump on this apparent land grab.

It was left to the shadow assistant minister for foreign affairs Julian Leeser, to simply
echo the prime minister's carefully coded language.

"I don't intend to provide a running commentary," he said, before similarly re-stating
support for a two-state solution.

Liberal senator Dave Sharma, a former Australian ambassador to Israel, was perhaps
surprisingly, less diplomatic.

"He's not a conventional US President," Sharma observed. "The first thing that he
says is not necessarily where the US policy ends up."

This is the quiet bit the government can't say out loud. What Trump says is not
necessarily what he does.

"Something Trump's own team often says about him," Sharma went on, "is take him
seriously, but don't necessarily take him literally and that would be the sort of mantra
I would adopt here."

The difficulty, even for the closest of US allies, is working out what's real US policy
and what's simply Trump talk.

The two aren't always the same, as the shifting positions over tariffs in recent days
has shown.
The threat to whack Canada and Mexico with tariffs is now on hold. Trump won
concessions from both on stronger border controls. His earlier talk of hefty tariffs can
now be seen as a negotiating tactic.

Trump has been willing to follow through

The willingness to follow through with higher tariffs on China, by contrast, turned
out to be real. Even though it's resulted in retaliatory action from Beijing against the
US.

This could be the opening skirmish in a wider trade war between the US and China,
with unpredictable consequences for the world, and a potentially significant impact
on the Australian economy, regardless of who wins the election.

Australia has at least avoided any threat from the Trump White House so far in the
form of a direct hit with tariffs. Along with fellow Quad members Japan and India,
Australia is one of the few countries to avoid such a threat.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-06/donald-trump-gaza-anthony-albanese-
tariffs/104901276?
utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&
utm_source=abc_news_web
1. running commentary – поточний коментар
2. long term ownership – довгострокове володіння
3. long-held support – давня підтримка
4. two-state solution – двостороннє розв'язання
5. bombshell statement – приголомшлива заява
6. flood the zone with shit – створювати інформаційний шум
7. bipartisan approach – міжпартійний підхід
8. re-shaping the global order – перебудова світового порядку
9. apparent land grab – очевидне захоплення землі
10. trade punishment – торговельні санкції
11. opening skirmish – перша сутичка
12. wider trade war – ширша торгова війна
13. calls the shots – заправляє всім
14. retaliatory action – дії у відповідь
15. be easily overruled – легко скасувати
 Annotation:

The article is headlined «Anthony Albanese's careful, polite rejection of Donald

Trump finds unusual bipartisan support». The article was written by David
Speers and was published in the ABC News website on February 5, 2025.
The article is devoted to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's diplomatic
response to Donald Trump's controversial statements about Gaza, emphasizing the
careful balancing act required in managing Australia's relationship with the United
States during Trump's second presidency.
The author analyses how Albanese takes a measured approach, in particular by
using the phrase "I'm not going to provide a running commentary" in response to
Trump's controversial statements. The article goes on to say that this cautious stance
enjoys bipartisan support in Australia, with opposition leaders Peter Dutton and
David Coleman taking similar positions.
Much attention is given to Trump's statement about "long-term ownership" of
Gaza, to which Albanese responded by reaffirming Australia's support for a two-state
solution without directly criticizing Trump.
In my opinion, the article effectively illustrates the diplomatic challenges that US
allies face in responding to Trump's unconventional presidency, demonstrating how
even traditional allies must carefully navigate their responses in order to maintain
strategic relationships while defending their own political positions.
 Tariff and trade negotiations with Donald Trump make UFC look mild
By Annabel Crabb

Really, it's a wonder the NSW government bothered to spend $16 million bringing
UFC to Sydney, when comparable thrills are offered — at no extra charge — by our
new mano-a-mano cage sport: Trade negotiations with our closest allies.

Yesterday's bare-knuckle telephone encounter between plucky working-class

scrapper Anthony Albanese and flame-haired Floridian ex-retiree Donald Trump
enjoyed hysterical parliamentary pre-sizzle on Monday, to a degree not seen since
Tony Abbott vowed to "shirt-front" Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2014.

In the red corner: Mr Albanese, vowing to emerge from the encounter with Australian
steel exports intact.

In the blue corner: Peter Dutton, also officially Team Aussie Steel but moving with
the loose-limbed assurance that comes to a man with a politically lucrative side bet
on Albo and Kevin getting creamed by The Orange One.

Game on!!!

Yesterday's papers hyped the clash. Students of the form recalled the 2017 steel-
tariffs bout in which Point Piper pugilist Malcolm Turnbull got the better of Trump.

Could the Aussies make it two for two in Copacabana vs Mar-A-Lago: Beach House
Meets White House?

Real-time deal-making

Gone are the days in which trade matters were settled by swarms of nerds armed with
lever-arch folders bulging with actual trade data. Gone is the complicated interpretive
dance of diplomatic communiques, with its shy euphemisms ("Cordial" means
"nothing whatsoever was decided". "Respectful" means "there was shouting". And
"Frank" means "a violent brawl ensued in which the second assistant secretary was
near-fatally shivved with a broken Perrier bottle").

This is real-time deal-making in the Trump reality era, where reality is a subjective
construct.

When a relaxed-looking Mr Albanese emerged post-bout, it was to report a

negotiated draw: Not a bad result at all.

The pair had agreed to say that an exemption for Australian steel was "under
consideration".
But wait — what? Barely an hour elapsed before Mr Trump popped up live in the
Oval Office, signing a new brace of executive orders to which the president supplied
his own commentary.

An order gutting the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (which does pretty much what
you think it does). A full pardon for Rod Blagojevich, a former The Apprentice
contestant who was convicted of corruption in 2011. "Bad people," declared the
president of Mr Blagojevic's tormentors. An order restoring plastic straws to US
government agencies. "As you've consistently identified, nobody really likes paper
straws," offered White House staff secretary Will Scharf supportively as he handed
the order to Mr Trump, who confirmed the sentiment with a compact nod and a
flourish of his Sharpie. "They explode," he added.

Next came the order for a 25 per cent tariff on imported steel. "It's 25 per cent,
without exceptions or exemptions," the president declared.

After some congratulatory remarks, largely self-administered, Mr Trump was asked if

it was true he'd just told the Australian prime minister he was considering an
exemption for Australian steel.

"I just spoke to him! Very fine man," said Mr Trump, with — perhaps? — the
slightly elevated enthusiasm of a man who cannot quite recall the exact name of the
guy with whom he just had a 40-minute phone call about steel. "I told him that that's
something that we'll give great consideration to."

Planes bulldozed by the numbers

What happened next gives you some idea of just how dicey it must be to negotiate
any sort of detail with the 47th president.

"We have a surplus with Australia, one of the few," Mr Trump explained.

"And the reason is they buy a lot of airplanes. They're rather far away and they need
lots of airplanes."

Now, the first thing is true: The United States does enjoy a rare trade surplus with
Australia, a factor on which the Turnbull government leaned heavily in 2017.
According to Trading Economics, we spent $31.3 billion on American stuff in 2023,
while sending Australian stuff worth just $12.59 billion the other way.

And yes, Australia is "far away", though only if you're starting out from America.

But planes aren't particularly near the top of the list of stuff we import.
"Aircraft and spacecraft" accounted for $698 million of our US imports in 2023.
Which is a lot, but not as much, for example, as we spent on self-propelled
bulldozers, which was $804 million.

We only sent $11 million worth of bulldozers back the other way, which means that
Australia has a hefty self-propelled bulldozer deficit with the United States, even if
you leave some wiggle room to account for the times when Scott Morrison visits
Mar-A-Lago.

But planes? Where did that idea come from? We import more pharmaceuticals ($2.47
billion) than planes. We import more gold ($1.6 billion) than planes. We import more
"human or animal blood, vaccines, toxins, antisera" ($1.25 billion) than planes.

Surprises are the standard

Mr Albanese was customarily discreet about the detail of his discussion with the
American president. But you get a sense of the challenge. How much of the chat was
about planes? Did Mr Albanese need to politely pretend that we buy lots of planes?
Will we need to keep mentioning planes in future? Should we buy some planes just to
make sure?

A glance at Mr Turnbull's account of his 2017 steel negotiations — published in his

memoir — confirms that the path to agreement was similarly strewn with surprises.

Unlike Mr Albanese, Mr Turnbull had had several encounters with Mr Trump by the
time steel came up, one of which — regarding Mr Trump's acceptance of Syrian
refugees from Australia — famously got quite tense indeed.

And the final agreement to an exemption from steel tariffs finally came in June 2017
when Mr Turnbull found himself crammed inside (ironically) a steel secure shipping
container on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg in June 2017, accompanied
by finance minister Mathias Cormann, the US president and his retinue, plus UK
prime minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron.

Mr Turnbull wanted to talk about steel. Mr Trump wanted to talk about Kerry Packer.
"Emmanuel, do you know Malcolm is the best lawyer in the world? He kept my
friend Kerry Packer out of jail."

"Oh, Donald, it wasn't that hard," replied Mr Turnbull.

"No, he was so guilty. Deserved to go to jail for ever!" responded the US president.

Even allowing for the fact that this is Mr Turnbull's own account, you can sense the
scale of the task at hand. Eventually, the pair bonded over Colourbond, which Mr
Trump had once used in a New York construction project, and the mission was
accomplished.

'Man of Steel'

Steel has been a recurrent theme in leader-to-leader relations with the USA for more
than two decades now; the 43rd US president George W Bush welcomed John
Howard as a guest to his Texan ranch in late 2003 and bestowed upon the Australian
PM the nickname "Man Of Steel".

"I can't tell you what a comfort it is to talk to him on the phone," said Mr Bush,
tenderly, of Mr Howard.

"He's steady. It gets tough when you make tough decisions and we both made the
tough decisions but there was never any doubt in his mind. He was steady under fire."

The invasion of Iraq was — at that time — about six weeks old.

Mr Howard responded to Mr Bush's words with commensurate warmth, praising the

"leadership of the US".

"I think the military textbooks will be replete with the experiences of Operation Iraqi
Freedom for many years to come," he said.

These events took place in the old days, when certain rules applied and the
bromances between like-minded leaders were simple affairs, uncluttered by the
sponsored presence of sprawling billionaires. Things still went wrong, obviously. But
now? Unmistakably, we've arrived at a new plane of unreality.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/trump-albanese-steel-tariffs-trade-
negotiations/104924386
1. trade negotiations – торгівельні переговори
2. closest allies – найближчі союзники
3. bare-knuckle telephone encounter – жорстка телефонна розмова
4. loose-limbed assurance – нестрога гарантія
5. politically lucrative – політично вигідний
6. trade matters – торгівельни питання
7. under consideration – на розгляді
8. trade surplus – торговельний профіцит
9. leader-to-leader relations – відносини між лідерами
10. negotiated draw – переговорна нічия
11. diplomatic communiques – дипломатичні комюніке
12. government agencies – урядові установи
13. customarily discreet – традиційно стриманий
14. sprawling billionaires – роздуті мільярдери
15. real-time deal-making – укладання угод в реальному часі
 Annotation:
The headline of the article I have read is “Tariff and trade talks with Donald
Trump make the UFC soft”. The article is written by Annabel Crabb and was
published on the ABC News website on February 11, 2025.
The article is about the recent trade negotiation between Australian Prime Minister
Anthony Albanese and former US President Donald Trump regarding steel tariffs in
comparison to UFC fights. It was based on a phone call between Albanese and
Trump over Australian steel exports. While Albanese stated that agreed exemptions
are ‘under consideration’, Trump later announced 25% tariffs ‘without exceptions’.
Much attention is given to Trump mentioned that Australia buys a lot of airplanes,
but according to the data, Australia also buys more bulldozer, pharmaceuticals, and
gold from the United States than airplanes. It compares with Malcolm Turnbull’s
successful steel talks with Trump in 2017 despite the similar challenges.
The author comes to the conclusion that the difference between the unpredictable
diplomatic world we live in today and the easier relations between George H.W.
Bush and John Howard and between Bush and Howard and the United States.
I found the article interesting because its was written in a very good language with
a bit of humour and historical references to describe the current international trade
relations with Trump in power
 Reading Logs:
1/ 1. When I read this article, I felt quite shocked and worried. It's not every day you
read about police breaking into a presidential compound to arrest a leader. The whole
standoff between different security forces made me feel tense throughout the article.

2. Yes, I'm still wondering about several questhions:

 Why exactly did President Yoon declare martial law in the first place?
 What specific evidence do they have for calling it an "insurrection"?
 Will South Korea's government remain stable during this crisis?

3. I found the article pretty easy to understand. Even though I don't know much about
South Korean politics, they explained terms like "CIO" and the impeachment process
clearly enough that I could follow along.

4. The part where Yoon's supporters compared him to Trump made me think about
how similar political situations can happen in different countries. I started wondering
about what limits should exist on presidential powers and how countries protect
themselves when leaders might abuse their authority.

5. Of course! I'd definitely recommend this to my classmates. It gives us, as a future

diplomats, a real-world example of what happens during a constitutional crisis, which
would help with the concepts we're studying in class.

6. Yes, I would like to follow the development of this story. I am interested to learn
about the results of the Constitutional Court's decision and to understand more about
the specific legal arguments surrounding the declaration of martial law.
2/ 1. While reading this article, I felt a mix of worry and surprise, because: Trump
signing almost 50 executive orders on his first day of presidence; the part about
pardoning January 6 rioters made me feel uncomfortable, especially when Stewart
Rhodes walked free after serving just part of his 18-year sentence; and the bishop's
courageous sermon gave me a moment of hope, though Trump's midnight social
media response dampened that.

2. I still have a few questions:

 Will any of Trump's executive orders actually hold up in court?
 What exactly did Biden write in that letter?
 When will the big immigration raids happen?

3. The article was easy to understand. I liked how they explained what executive
orders actually are – "basically allow presidents to make policy outside of the regular
lawmaking process." The quotes from different people helped show different
perspectives, like when Attorney-General Matt Platkin said presidents "are not
kings."

4. That bishop standing right in front of Trump saying "have mercy" on immigrants
and LGBTQ+ children really hit me. I keep thinking about her courage and how she
said immigrants "may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast
majority are not criminals." It makes me wonder about the real people affected by
these policy changes.

5. I'd definitely recommend this to my classmates because we all need to be aware of

what is happening in the world around us and this article also shows real-world
examples of what we are studying in classes – executive power, checks and balances,
and how quickly things can change with a new president.

6. Absolutely! I would love to read what they write about how these lawsuits are
going. I'm particularly interested in the birthright citizenship lawsuit, as 22 states are
already challenging it.
3/ 1. The article evoked concern and worry in me. Reading about organizations like
Meals on Wheels potentially losing funding made me anxious about vulnerable
populations losing services. I felt relief when the judge temporarily blocked the order,
though uncertainty remains about what will happen after Monday.

2. A few questions remain unanswered:

 Which specific programs would be affected by the funding pause?
 What will happen when the temporary block expires on Monday?
 How will the administration determine which programs promote "gender
ideology"?

3. No, the article was clearly written and accessible. Key terms have been adequately
explained, and the quotes from affected parties helped illustrate the real consequences
of the policy.

4. The concept of reviewing federal programs based on ideological criteria made me

think about the relationship between politics and public services. It raises important
questions about whether essential services should be evaluated based on political
viewpoints or on their effectiveness in helping citizens.

5. I would recommend this article to my classmates, because It provides a concrete

example of how executive orders can impact government operations and
demonstrates the role of judicial review in the American system of checks and
balances.

6. Yes, I would like to follow this story, particularly the outcome after the temporary
block expires. I am interested in learning which programs might ultimately be
affected and how organizations are preparing for potential funding disruptions.
4/ 1. The article made me feel concerned yet interested. I was worried about the
diplomatic tensions described, but appreciated learning how Australia's leaders are
handling the situation.

2. Yes, I still wonder about several questions:

 What is President Trump's actual policy on Gaza?

 How will Australia respond if trade tensions between the US and China worsen?
 What will happen after Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington?

3. No, the article was clearly written. Though some political terms were used, the
author explained them well enough to understand the main points.

4. The approach of "take him seriously, but don't necessarily take him literally" made
me think about how challenging diplomatic communication can be. It's interesting
how both major Australian political parties are choosing to wait before responding to
controversial statements.

5. I would recommend this article to my classmates, because it provides a good

example of how countries manage diplomatic relationships during uncertain times.

6. Yes, I would like to read more from David Speers. His writing is clear and
informative. I'm also interested in following how Australia continues to navigate its
relationships with both the United States and China.
5/ 1. The article evoked amusement and interest. The author's use of humor when
comparing trade negotiations to UFC fighting kept me engaged throughout. I found
myself smiling at the descriptions of the interactions between world leaders.

2. Yes, I still thinks about:

 How will these personal negotiations affect Australia-US trade relations in the
future?
 Will Australia need to change its approach to maintain good trade relations with
the US?
 How accurate was President Trump's understanding of Australia's imports?

3. No, the article was clearly written. Though it contained some political terms and
Australian references, the context made them understandablee. The author's writing
style uses metaphors and similes, but remains accessible.

4. The shift from traditional diplomatic processes to personality-driven negotiations

made me consider how international relations have changed. It was thought-
provoking to see how facts seem less important than personal relationships in modern
diplomacy, raising questions about the stability of agreements based on such
foundations.

5. As with my previous five Readings Logs I would recommend this article to my

classmates, because this article presents important diplomatic interactions in an
accessible way while demonstrating how trade negotiations actually work in practice.

6. Yes, I would like to read more by Annabel Crabb. Her writing effectively explains
complex political situations in an entertaining way. I am also interested in following
developments in Australia-US relations, particularly regarding trade and economic
cooperation.