Visits last week by Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, to the United States and by former President Ma Ying-jeou to China highlight a sharp contrast between political visions for safeguarding the democratic island’s future as Taiwan’s 2024 election approaches.

President Tsai and her ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) favor preserving or expanding the autonomy of Taiwan’s 23 million people, in part by drawing closer to the U.S., Japan, and other democratic partners.

In two U.S. stopovers while in transit to and from an official visit to South America, President Tsai helped solidify Taipei’s security and economic cooperation with Washington in unofficial sessions with lawmakers and with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

“We look forward to building ever stronger Taiwan-U.S. ties to defend our shared values of freedom and democracy,” Ms. Tsai tweeted upon returning to Taiwan Saturday.

Mr. Ma, meanwhile, a senior member of the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) party, struck a far more Beijing-friendly tone on his private historic visit to mainland China that ended Friday. Making the first visit to the mainland by any incumbent or former Taiwanese president, Mr. Ma reiterated the official KMT position that there is only “one China,” calling for more exchanges to ease tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

How these divergent DPP and KMT narratives resonate with Taiwan’s public is an important factor in Taiwan’s upcoming presidential election, scheduled for January 2024. With China’s aggressive military maneuvers raising the risks of conflict with Taiwan, experts say the election promises to provide a gauge of the political will of Taiwan’s population at a critical moment.

The growing emergence in Taiwan of a unique Taiwanese identity has emboldened the population to stand up for its freedoms, while also reflecting a pragmatic belief that preserving the status quo is the best way to uphold the island’s vibrant democracy.

“The vast majority of people are saying they prefer the status quo, likely because they just don’t want to go to war,” says Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the German Marshall Fund’s Indo-Pacific program. “They see this has been safe. They don’t want to rock the boat.”

Cai Yang/Xinhua/AP

Former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, foreground left, visits the Yangshan Port in Shanghai, China, April 5, 2023. He called for more exchanges to ease tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

China is keen to sway the electorate in the direction of the KMT, which has traditionally been more pro-Beijing. The KMT chalked up key victories in local elections last November, although some recent polls have put the DPP in the lead in the upcoming presidential race.

Military pressure

China’s increasing pressure tactics – it launched fresh military exercises and dispatched dozens of aircraft around the island Sunday in response to President Tsai’s U.S. visit – are aimed in part at intimidating Taiwan’s population into supporting the KMT’s more accommodating stance, experts say.

“China gets the sense that it can influence the election a little bit if it makes Taiwan’s life more miserable … as a result of Tsai’s policies of cozying up to the United States,” says Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at RAND and adjunct professor of international relations at the University of Southern California. “But if you’re Beijing, you can’t push it too far.”

Indeed, amid growing preoccupation on all sides with military preparations for a possible war on Taiwan, the decisive factor in determining the island’s future remains the will of Taiwan’s people, says Ms. Glaser, co-author of the upcoming book “U.S.-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis.”

“In many respects,” write Ms. Glaser and her co-authors, “the will of Taiwan’s people to resist Beijing’s pressure and preserve their political autonomy and democratic way of life is the center of gravity.”

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has claimed Taiwan as part of its territory since it took power in 1949. That year, Mao Zedong’s Communist revolutionaries prevailed in China’s civil war against Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces, who fled to Taiwan and relocated the government of the Republic of China – the official name for Taiwan. But China’s Communist-led government has never ruled Taiwan.

Tingshu Wang/Reuters

A giant screen in Beijing broadcasts news footage of Chinese warships engaging in exercises around Taiwan, April 8, 2023.

In recent decades, as Taiwan democratized, public opinion has shifted steadily away from the goal of unification with China and toward the embrace of a Taiwanese identity, polls show.

Since the 1990s, surveys show a surge in the percentage of Taiwan’s people who identify as Taiwanese – from 20% in 1992 to 60% in 2022. Meanwhile, those identifying only as Chinese dropped from 10% to 2.7%.

Today, Taiwan’s people overwhelmingly support maintaining the current status of the self-ruled island, with more than 90% favoring the status quo compared with only 1% who want Taiwan to unite with the mainland as soon as possible, according to a March poll by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council.

Responding to China’s policies

This “incredible shift in views on Taiwan toward China” is partly a reaction to Beijing’s hard-line policies, says Ms. Glaser. “The obvious authoritarian turn in China has been very unpopular and unwelcome in Taiwan,” she says. Taiwan “is a very free place, so what’s happened in China has been seen as creating a system that Taiwanese people don’t want to live under.”

As China’s appeals for unification have lost traction with Taiwan’s people, Beijing has adopted more hard-line pressure tactics toward the island, especially since Ms. Tsai was first elected president in 2016. It has cut tourism, restricted trade, and stepped up propaganda slamming the DPP as favoring independence.

Yet Beijing’s repressive policies – and especially its heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests – helped solidify attitudes on Taiwan and hand Ms. Tsai and the DPP a landslide victory in the 2020 presidential race.

Indeed, research shows that as China’s coercion has mounted, resistance has grown among Taiwan’s people, who increasingly see China as hostile and threatening and so look for support from the U.S. and other advanced democracies.

“As PRC pressure grows … support for working with China diminishes” among Taiwan survey respondents, says Chong Ja Ian, associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.

This trend continued even when China launched a massive military exercise and fired missiles over the island in August 2022 in response to a visit to Taiwan by then U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Dr. Chong says. “People are … getting used to this intimidation by the PRC,” he says. “This coercive diplomacy toward Taiwan has a diminishing effect,” which could eventually lead China’s leaders “to rethink their strategy,” he says.

Taiwan Presidential Office/AP

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen speaks at a luncheon during a visit by a congressional delegation to Taiwan in Taipei, Saturday, April 8, 2023. China sent warships and dozens of fighter jets toward Taiwan the same day, Taiwan said.

Indeed, Beijing has also used more subtle tactics, waging effective influence operations to boost support for KMT candidates and spread disinformation aimed at creating division and shaking the confidence of Taiwan’s people in their future.

China “has more traction when they try to create more confusion within Taiwan … more divisiveness in Taiwan’s politics,” says Dr. Chong.

War and peace

Like former President Ma, KMT politicians are presenting their party as the best equipped to ease tensions with China, while accusing the DPP of leading Taiwan toward war. “The KMT will bring you peace – we have a dialogue with China. … We will manage the relationship better,” is the message they spread, says Dr. Chong.

This KMT narrative was a factor leading Ms. Tsai’s administration to persuade Speaker McCarthy to meet her in the U.S. rather than travel to Taiwan, as he’d pledged to do earlier. Mr. McCarthy was the most senior elected U.S. official to meet a Taiwanese president in the U.S.

Taiwan’s current vice president, William Lai Ching-te, stepped forward last month to compete in the DPP presidential primary, as Ms. Tsai is barred by term limits from running again. Polls show Mr. Lai’s popularity increasing among voters, with a March poll finding that nearly 40% of voters prefer him over likely KMT candidates.

Meanwhile, as Taiwan’s presidential election approaches and DPP and KMT politicians jockey for position, Beijing could adopt a lower profile.

“As we look to January 2024, Beijing is no doubt considering how its actions might sway public views toward the DPP,” writes Margaret Lewis, a law professor and Taiwan expert at Seton Hall University School of Law, in an email response to questions. “This could counsel in favor of a lighter touch.”

Justin Rex/AP

Abortion-rights protesters march through downtown Amarillo on Feb. 11, 2023, in Texas. Last week, a federal judge there temporarily paused the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a popular abortion pill.

This time last year, Carbondale had zero abortion clinics. Now, this college town of fewer than 22,000 people has two – and lots of out-of-state visitors.

The majority of license plates in Choices Center for Reproductive Health’s parking lot are not from Illinois, but from neighboring states: Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

A few miles away at Alamo Women’s Clinic, the other clinic to open here over the past several months, an employee estimates that “.0002 percent” of their patients are from Illinois. Every day “is crazy,” says another employee. She estimates that the clinic performs about 50 abortions per day: 25 surgically, 25 with a pill. 

Fridays and Saturdays are even busier. Those days are more convenient for out-of-state travel.

As nearby states have passed more and more restrictions on abortion over the past several years, the southern tip of Illinois, and Carbondale specifically, has become a hub for abortion access. And since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June, interstate health care commutes across America have skyrocketed.

Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor

CHOICES Center for Reproductive Health opened its clinic in Carbondale, Illinois, last fall. The majority of license plates in the parking lot are from neighboring states.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court ruled that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion, writing that the authority for regulating abortion would be returned “to the people and their elected representatives” in individual states.

But this simple pronouncement – in a country where people can cross state lines to get an abortion, or receive abortion pills through the mail – has led to a complicated, confusing reality, legal experts say. 

A dozen states have banned abortion, with some exceptions, while even more have expanded protections, according to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute. In many places, pregnant women and physicians alike say they are unclear about what’s allowed and when exceptions apply. Moreover, the rules keep changing as new lawsuits are litigated and state legislatures debate additional measures – including trying to enforce abortion restrictions across state lines, a prospect that has paralyzed some providers even in states where abortion is legal. 

Last week, the accessibility of a popular abortion pill was thrown into doubt by two conflicting federal court decisions in the space of a few hours – a dispute that will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The legal landscape is even more chaotic than it was before,” says Kimberly Mutcherson, co-dean and a professor at Rutgers Law School.

“The Supreme Court’s desire to get out of the abortion business – it’s just not going to happen,” she says. The web of cases and conflicting rules emerging in the wake of Dobbs “aren’t just raising questions about abortion, but are raising fundamental questions about federalism, about the power of the federal government, and about the relationships between states.”

Conflicting abortion pill rulings

The legal landscape is poised to become even more complicated, as state and federal courts wrestle with questions untested in over a century. Amid shifting state laws, federal litigation has continued, including the recent flurry of federal district court opinions concerning the use of mifepristone, a popular abortion pill. 

Approved in 2000, and approved in other western countries earlier than that, mifepristone is one of the most tightly regulated prescription drugs in the country. But a federal district judge in Amarillo, Texas, last Friday temporarily paused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decades-old approval of the drug. While the ruling didn’t go as far as the plaintiffs bringing the case hoped it would – and the judge gave the Biden administration seven days to appeal before the decision goes into effect – it is a rare instance of a federal court temporarily suspending FDA approval of a drug over the objections of the agency and the manufacturer.

“Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review – until now,” wrote U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk in his ruling.

Just hours later, over 1,500 miles away, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice, in Washington, temporarily blocked the FDA from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of mifepristone.”

The litigation has returned the abortion question to federal courts less than a year after Dobbs. There are additional legal questions as well, ranging from an obscure 19th century anti-vice law to federalism and separation-of-powers concerns. Last week’s conflicting district court orders all but ensure the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in.

In his ruling, Judge Kacsmaryk wrote that sending abortion pills through the mail violates the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that made illegal the mailing of “obscene” material, including anything “intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of an abortion.”

Senate Judiciary Committee/AP

Matthew Kacsmaryk listens during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 13, 2017. Judge Kacsmaryk sparked a legal firestorm last week with an unprecedented ruling temporarily halting approval of mifepristone, an abortion drug.

His interpretation echoed that put forward by Republican attorneys general in the Texas case, who also argued that the drug’s availability undermined their ability to regulate abortion. The ruling also directly contradicts a nonbinding opinion last December from the U.S. Department of Justice, which said that abortion medication can be mailed if the sender “lacks the intent” that the drugs will be used “unlawfully.”

While the availability of mifepristone has not changed overnight, legal experts say, the Texas ruling in particular broke new legal ground in the realm of both reproductive and states’ rights.

The Texas court “is using arguments around an agency’s power to interpret its own statute and apply it, counter to all evidence,” says Rachel Rebouché, dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law. The ruling, she adds, “deprives states of being able to regulate abortion the way they want.” 

Pulling mifepristone off the shelves nationwide, Democratic state attorneys general have argued, would endanger abortion access in states where the procedure is legal.

That includes states like Illinois, says Danika Severino Wynn, VP of abortion access at Planned Parenthood. Mifepristone has been used by more than 5 million people, she notes, and over half of all abortions performed in the country are done with medication, not surgery. Providers would still try to give patients options for care with a similar drug, misoprostol; however experts say this drug is not as effective when used on its own. 

“We know [mifepristone] is safe,” says Ms. Severino Wynn, who is also a midwife by training.

And in states like Illinois, where clinics located near the borders of abortion-restrictive states already have high wait times, “those wait times will go up even more” if access to mifepristone is restricted, she adds. “This will have ripple effects.”

A town divided  

Six months after the Alamo Women’s Clinic opened its doors in Carbondale, there’s still no sign on the building. 

Employees tried to buy a sign shortly after moving their clinic almost 1,000 miles north from San Antonio, Texas, where the name “Alamo” is far more apt. But when the sign-maker learned that the clinic provided abortions, the company refused Alamo’s business. Now, the clinic plans to stay signless for the time being. Patients tell them they like the anonymity, and it’s helped discourage  protesters, who often encircle abortion providers.

Not surprisingly, Carbondale’s emerging identity as an abortion haven has split the town. 

Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor

Amber Segler, who works at a restaurant in Carbondale, appreciates the area's new identity as a hub for abortion access.

“I think it’s a good thing,” says Amber Segler, working behind the counter at a local vegetarian restaurant. “I like that we’re becoming a safe space for women. I like that about my community.” 

Other residents, however, have watched the changes with mounting dismay. 

“For the majority of people in this area, it really is appalling that it’s taking place here,” says Pastor Mark Surburg, from inside his office at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in nearby Marion, where illustrations of fetus development hang in the hallway. Mr. Surburg has been a leader of the area’s opposition efforts through the Southern Illinois Pro-Life Alliance, a group of about 50 churches in the area who joined together to coordinate “sidewalk counseling” outside the new clinics.  

“Illinois, through its legislation, has sort of sought to make itself the death capital of the Midwest,” says Mr. Surburg, who keeps a stack of fact sheets on the Illinois Reproductive Health Act in his office to distribute to reporters. 

This act, which was signed into law by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June 2019, grants residents the “fundamental right” to abortion care. In January Governor Pritzker signed a follow-up piece of legislation, HB4664, which protects women traveling to Illinois for abortions from other states.

“The Dobbs decision brought a lot of momentum, sadly, for the other side,” says Brian Westbrook, executive director of the St. Louis-based nonprofit Coalition Life. The Supreme Court ruling “changes the landscape,” he adds. “Now we fight the battles state by state.”

In a concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh forecast some of the legal turmoil now playing out at the state level. Specifically, he wrote that the constitutional right to interstate travel would allow a woman to travel to another state to obtain a legal abortion. 

That question is very much on the minds of abortion-protective and abortion-restrictive states. Since Dobbs, 10 states have enacted “shield laws” that protect, to varying degrees, in-state providers and out-of-state patients from prosecution by other states. In April, Idaho became the first state to implement a so-called “abortion trafficking” bill.

The law doesn’t explicitly criminalize leaving the state to obtain an abortion, but it does prescribe a two- to five-year prison sentence for any adult who tries to help a minor obtain an abortion without their parents’ consent. This would penalize adult friends or relatives who help a minor travel out of state, or even if they travel out of state to buy abortion medication to bring back.

Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor

Pastor Mark Surburg, a leader of southern Illinois' anti-abortion efforts, stands outside Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Marion, Illinois. Feb. 16, 2023.

“What we want to make sure of is that parents are the ones who are in charge of their children. Parents are the ones who need to be involved in helping to make these decisions,” Barbara Ehardt, a Republican state representative who sponsored the law, told HuffPost in March.

Reproductive rights groups have promised a legal battle over the Idaho law. This kind of law is untested, and possibly unprecedented, legal experts say. One possible analogy is the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and 1850, which required all states, including abolitionist ones, to return runaway slaves to their owners. That was a federal law, however, and it has typically been federal law enforcement that has prosecuted criminal acts across state lines.

“Right now the understanding between states is we want to respect the rules in your jurisdiction,” says Professor Mutcherson at Rutgers. “But once we start going down a path where [states] want to pick and choose what rules we’re going to respect, and there’s no federal constitutional hook to keep people in basically the same realm, then you do start to worry.”

Waiting for legal clarity has had its own impact, however. With so much uncertainty around the future of mifepristone – and in the abortion landscape more generally, such as the untested questions around interstate enforcement – chilling effects have become widespread.

Walgreens announced in early March that it wouldn’t distribute abortion pills in 21 states where GOP attorneys general were threatening legal action, Politico reported. (In January, the FDA expanded the availability of abortion pills to include retail pharmacies for the first time; Walgreens says it is currently seeking certification to distribute the pills in certain states.) And physicians, many of whom are licensed in multiple states, have been concerned about possibly having their licenses revoked for providing abortion care in a state where it’s legal for a patient from a state where it isn’t.

“Typically if a physician’s license is revoked or suspended in one state, other states where the physician is also licensed will be notified. This could be a catalyst for the physician’s license to be revoked or suspended in these other states” even though the physician has acted within the law, says Joanne Rosen, a senior lecturer at Johns Hopkins University. “It’s really introduced a chilling effect on physicians who are licensed in other states and fear that being initiated against them.”

Perhaps the most dangerous legal confusion has been reported in states with strict abortion bans, however, where exceptions to the ban – often to preserve the life of the mother – have been unclear to the physician, the patient, or both. In Texas, for example, five women who say they were denied medically necessary abortions have filed a lawsuit asking the state to clarify when the procedure is medically permissible.

“Without that clarity what we have been seeing, and rightly so, is people have been being extremely cautious,” says Professor Mutcherson.

State legislators “haven’t stepped in to clarify what their medical exceptions mean,” she adds. “What I don’t want is for someone to have to die before we figure these things out.”

Henry Gass reported from Austin, Texas; Story Hinckley from Carbondale, Illinois.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story stated that Walgreens announced that it would not distribute abortion medication in any state; in fact, although the pharmacy is not currently dispensing the pills, it is seeking certification to do so in certain states.

Rebecca Blackwell/AP

Mary Kelley of Lake Worth, Florida, wears a Donald Trump T-shirt in Palm Beach, March 31, 2023. Legions of Trump supporters have donated money or bought merchandise in response to recent Trump appeals tied to his legal bills.

When Donald Trump flew to New York last week to face criminal charges, he was ready – and so was the MAGA merchandise. For $47, supporters could buy a white T-shirt printed with “Not Guilty” above a mug shot of the former president with the date of his April 4 arraignment.  

The mug shot was fake, as was Mr. Trump’s purported height on the wall chart, which added two inches to his 6’ 3” frame. But the indictment’s impact on the former president’s coffers has been undeniably real.  

His campaign said last week it had raised $12 million since the indictment was announced on March 30, a haul that was nearly as much as in the prior three months. Every day, supporters are bombarded with digital solicitations that claim Mr. Trump is the victim of a Democratic plot designed to stop him returning to the White House. “Our nation is becoming a Marxist Third World country,” says one, “that CRIMINALIZES dissent and IMPRISONS its political opposition.” 

By fundraising off his legal perils, Mr. Trump has already blurred the line between politics and the law. But the spiraling cost of preparing criminal defenses in multiple jurisdictions, from New York to Georgia, as well as potential federal cases, could yet test Mr. Trump’s unparalleled ability to tap his supporters for money. Should he prevail in the GOP presidential primary, his legal bills in 2024 could sow trouble for Republicans who saw his “Make America Great Again” candidates as a drag on midterm tickets and resented his parsimonious spending in battleground races. 

Now the party faces the prospect that their presidential frontrunner is fundraising largely to pay legal bills, while lesser-known candidates struggle in his wake to grab public attention and small-dollar donations. 

“The perception in the Republican Party for a couple of years is that Trump’s fundraising is a problem for other Republicans. He uses up a lot of small donors who might otherwise contribute to other Republicans,” says Robert Boatright, a political scientist at Clark University who studies campaign finance. 

Even before he pleaded not guilty in New York on felony charges related to the paying of hush money to a porn star during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump was racking up big legal bills. Before he declared his 2024 candidacy in November, the Republican National Committee was paying some of these bills. In the run-up to the midterms, Mr. Trump’s own political operations were spending more on lawyers than on GOP candidates, even as his solicitations urged supporters to help flip Congress to GOP hands. 

Marco Bello/Reuters

Supporters of Donald Trump gather outside his Mar-a-Lago resort a day after he was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, in Palm Beach, Florida, March 31, 2023.

All of this precedes potential charges against Mr. Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, where he’s under investigation for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Separately, a federal special prosecutor is investigating his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters and the handling of classified documents found at his home in Florida. 

Donations to Mr. Trump’s main campaign fund are subject to federal restrictions on what counts as legitimate expenses. His leadership political action committee, however, has far more flexibility to direct money to lawyers and legal advisers, including in criminal cases unrelated to campaign operations. 

Supporters who buy T-shirts and contribute $100 to Mr. Trump may not know exactly how their money will be used, says Professor Boatright. He notes that the fine print states that 10% of donations go to the leadership PAC, but that this proportion is subject to change. 

Whether the gusher could eventually dry up is another matter. “His base is finite. That number is not growing. So raising and spending a lot of money this early in the campaign could cause him problems later on,” says Professor Boatright. 

What this means for other GOP candidates who need to build war chests for 2024 is unclear. While some Republicans complain that Mr. Trump’s incessant solicitations eclipse the rest of the field, there are also non-MAGA donors on the right who are anxious to move on. 

Mr. Trump’s fundraising off his indictment “is an impressive number,” says Dave Carney, a GOP strategist and fundraiser based in New Hampshire. But he’s not convinced that a dollar that goes to the former president is automatically a dollar less for other candidates. “Trump has all these small donors. Would they donate to other candidates or not? That’s an open question,” he says. 

Leah Millis/Reuters

A supporter listens to former President Donald Trump speak during the first rally for his re-election campaign, in Waco, Texas, on March 25, 2023.

Mr. Trump’s likely rivals for the GOP nomination, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, are busy raising money for PAC’s they don’t directly control. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has declared her candidacy, raised $11 million in the six weeks after she joined the race in February. 

How costly Mr. Trump’s legal bills could get during the 2024 election cycle is unknowable. Top-rated criminal defense attorneys can bill up to $2,000 an hour, say lawyers who work on complex cases, and Mr. Trump will need legal teams in each jurisdiction where he faces criminal cases, as well as a central legal team to advise on strategy and coordination. That suggests tens of millions of dollars could be consumed – money that would otherwise be available for campaign operations. 

An added wrinkle is Mr. Trump’s reputation as a prickly customer who has a history of not always paying his bills, including to his lawyers, says David Rossman, a professor of criminal law at Boston University. “He’s a difficult client who likes to think that he knows best,” he says. 

Last summer, Mr. Trump hired Chris Kise, Florida’s former solicitor general, to head up his defense in the classified documents case. Mr. Kise reportedly demanded a $3 million upfront fee that was paid by Mr. Trump’s leadership PAC. But within months, Mr. Kise had been sidelined amid apparent disagreement over how to handle the investigation. 

As a purported billionaire, Mr. Trump in theory has deep pockets to fund his own legal defense. But as a presidential candidate, he largely eschewed self-funding and sought to leverage his celebrity, while building a small-dollar fundraising juggernaut. The optics of that operation, funded by everyday Americans, paying his white-shoe lawyers in New York to file court motions, may have prompted a tweak to his solicitations. 

An email sent on Saturday started by telling supporters who are “doing poorly right now” to ignore his request for money. “Take care of yourself and your family – especially this Easter weekend! Some things always come FIRST,” it read. 

It has been a month since an oil tanker carrying 800,000 liters (210,000 gallons) of industrial fuel oil sank off the coast of the Philippines’ Oriental Mindoro province, but many of the area’s fishing boats remain grounded.  

As authorities struggle to contain the oil leaking from the sunken MT Princess Empress, some 173,000 people in 163 villages are reeling from the effects of the massive spill. Many rely on the sea for income, and community needs currently exceed government aid – a family might receive food, for instance, but can no longer afford to send their children to school. 

Making matters worse is the uncertainty of the cleanup timeline. Some estimates say the province’s shores should be back in business within a few months, while others say coastal villages will continue to feel the spill’s impact well into 2024. 

Keeping fishing communities afloat during the cleanup will be a test of cooperation, say local government and civil society leaders, as will protecting the area’s biodiversity and seeking justice and accountability for the spill. To help address the need gaps, the county’s bishops’ conference has raised more than $50,000 through its social action arm, Caritas Philippines. They will start selecting beneficiaries this month, focusing on “still unreached communities and the poorest of the poor in hard-hit areas,” says Jing Rey Henderson, head of the research and advocacy office of Caritas Philippines.

“This particular mission is only possible through close cooperation among communities, the church, and civil society organizations,” he adds. “Together we can help those who badly need our assistance.”

Protecting the strait

When the prevailing winds brought leaked oil to the shores of Maidlang II village in mid-March, residents – mostly fishers – mobilized immediately. They improvised spill booms from cogon grass, rice straw, and coconut materials. 

“The goal is to protect the 60-hectare [150-acre] mangrove forest in our village,” says village chieftain Norie Labay. “If the mangroves will be destroyed, our livelihood and our first defense against harsh weather conditions will also be destroyed.”

Mark Saludes

An aerial view of the coastal area of Calapan City in Oriental Mindoro province in the Philippines taken on March 3. The coast of Calapan is part of the Verde Island Passage, which has been called the "Center of the Center of Marine Shorefish Biodiversity." The Verde Island Passage and its rich biodiversity is now threatened because of the oil spill.

The mangrove forest in Maidlang II is part of the Verde Island Passage (VIP), a strait that connects the South China Sea with the Tayabas Bay and the Sibuyan Sea beyond. The 1.14 million hectare passage has been called the “Amazon of the oceans” for its rich marine biodiversity and ecological importance. It is also one of the busiest sea lanes in the Philippines, being the main shipping route between the Port of Manila in the north and the Visayas and Mindanao in the south. 

This is where the MT Princess Empress went down on Feb. 28. 

Since then, the United States and Japan have both sent experts to provide technical assistance in containing the oil spill. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. says the international support “is a big help,” and the government is looking to “clean up the oil in less than four months.” However, the University of the Philippines’ Marine Science Institute estimates that clearing the spill could take six months to a year, and experts say the effects on marine life could last for decades.

The residents of Maidlang II, who were successful in preventing the oil from reaching the mangrove forest, are still making improvised spill booms to cover the village’s other 4 miles of shoreline. 

“There has to be cooperation,” says Ms. Labay. “While it is the duty of the government to resolve the problem, it is the responsibility of the village people to help protect the ocean.”

But as the cleanup drags on, villagers say they need more support. They’ve received food aid from various government agencies, but there is still no long-term livelihood assistance. There’s also been no push by authorities to penalize the ship’s owner and charter (RDC Reield Marine Services, Inc. and SL Harbor Bulk Terminal Corporation, a subsidiary of San Miguel Corporation Shipping and Lighterage, respectively).

The Rev. Edwin Gariguez, social action director of the Apostolic Vicariate of Calapan and convenor of the Roman Catholic Church-backed movement Protect VIP, urged the Philippine government to “implement long-term solutions to protect critical marine and coastal biodiversity,” and to impose “strict liability to charterers in instances of pollution” under existing laws, such as the 2007 Oil Pollution Compensation Act.

In the meantime, he sees a need for government and civil society to rally around the province’s fishing communities, to expedite cleanup and help families navigate the crisis.  

Banned from their boats

In a previously busy fishing community of Pola, economic activities have been effectively brought to a halt after the country’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources recommended the suspension of fishing in areas impacted by the spill. 

Mark Saludes

Fishing boats remain grounded one month after an oil spill from a sunken oil tanker contaminated the shores of Pola town in Oriental Mindoro province, Philippines, March 4, 2023.

About 80% of the town’s 35,000 people “rely on the ocean for their livelihood,” says Pola Mayor Jennifer Cruz.

“For now, the municipal government can provide food assistance to those affected households and individuals. But people also need money to buy other things and to send their children to school,” she says.

The fishing ban is expected to continue until authorities are positive that marine species in affected areas are safe from contaminants. It’s a move to ensure the safety of the community, but leaves Pola’s small-scale fishers with few options. Aldrin Villanueva, president of the town’s fisher organization, says some have left the province to look for work.

“The majority of fishers in our town are small fishers with small boats,” says Mr. Villanueva. “We can only catch fish within the [now-contaminated] municipal waters.”

Fisher Christoper Apelo was out on his boat on March 2 when news broke that the oil spill had reached Pola, and everyone was advised to keep ashore. He has three children, and the eldest – a high school senior – has been pulled out of school and sent to Calapan to find work. 

“I get what my family needs in the ocean on a daily basis,” says Mr. Apelo. “That is the only job I have known since I was a kid. Without the ocean, I am nothing.”

That’s where the church in Calapan and Caritas Philippines hope to make a difference by providing cash assistance to affected students and families in the hard-hit towns such as Pola. They are more than halfway to the initial fundraising goal of $100,000, and will start distributing funds in May. 

Mark Saludes

The Rev. Edwin Gariguez, social action director of the Catholic Apostolic Vicariate of Calapan inspects the containers full of oil collected from the shores that have been affected by the oil spill during a visit in a fishing community in Maidlang II village, March 3, 2023.

Those who rely on the sea are also organizing to demand justice. In late March, more than 40 representatives of various fisher organizations in Oriental Mindoro formed the Koalisyon ng mga Mangingisdang Apektado ng Oil Spill (KMAOS), or Coalition of Fishers Affected by the Oil Spill. Dindo Melaya, convenor of KMAOS, says “close cooperation” among different fisher groups is necessary “if we really want our voices to be heard.” 

“We need to work together because it is not just a problem of one town but of the entire province,” he says.

KMAOS heads “Stop the Oil Spill, Save Our Seas” – or SOS – an alliance of various faith-based and civil society groups demanding accountability from the ship’s owner and charter. Formed on March 28, members include Protect VIP, Greenpeace Philippines, Mindoro State University, Caritas Philippines, and others. 

Lawyer Aaron Pedrosa, secretary-general of Sanlakas and board member of the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, says his organizations are “willing to provide legal services if the affected communities are seeking to pursue a case.”

“It is only right that these companies behind this harrowing incident deliver reparation to communities and shoulder environmental rehabilitation requirements,” says Mr. Pedrosa. “We must hold these polluters to account for every negligence.”

I was a corporate wife and a mother of four children. My life was confined to Scouts, music lessons, sports teams, orthodontists, PTA, church, keeping the budget, and so on and on. I felt fenced in and yet bound by love to my family duties. Some days I’d dream of freedom but always return lovingly to my tasks.

A neighbor, a wealthy widow who had raised six children, invited me to tea one afternoon. After listening sympathetically to my woes, she asked me a pointed question: “Elizabeth, what do you do each week for fun?” I was shocked. Fun? “I’m too busy for fun,” I said. 

“Think of something fun to do every week,” she urged. I didn’t have to think.

“I would love to ride horseback,” I said.

I found a riding stable about 45 minutes away. It was run by a charming Irishman full of flattery and encouragement. When I began lessons, he told me I was a natural. After I’d gained some ability, I was introduced to Royal.

I’d seen Royal hanging his magnificent head over his stall to be patted as I walked through the stable. He was tall – 17 hands at the withers (5 feet, 8 inches at the shoulder). He was a chestnut, a brilliant sorrel red, with a triangular white star on his forehead. He stood proudly, with his head up and his neck slightly arched – a steed. Royal had been raised at a fox-hunting club, galloping hard over fields and fences.

Riding Royal over jumps was a challenge. I was so far off the ground! I felt as if I were riding powerful coiled energy. We got along well, and I couldn’t wait for my weekly lesson. It lightened my spirit all week; my tasks seemed easier. 

Several months passed, and one day the trainer told me that Royal was for sale. I bought him. The trainer began working with me to groom Royal for the show ring. The horse had to learn to jump fences in a controlled manner instead of flying over them as he would in an open field. We started with small poles and worked our way up to full jumps.

After two years and an ever-deepening relationship with my beloved horse, I moved with my family to a different city. I found an equestrian stable nearby and relocated Royal. 

By that time, Royal and I had developed a routine: When I arrived at the stable, I would take him from his stall to a big paddock, where I’d remove his halter and let him run free. He would kick and roll and then take off at a gallop, head high, whinnying with his tail flying straight out behind him. This might go on for 10 minutes or so. When he was finished, he’d trot over to me and stand still while I put on the halter. We’d walk over to the stanchion for grooming and saddling up for my ride.

Soon after our move, I arrived at the stable on a particularly cold day. It was 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The cold seemed to energize Royal. He was holding his head so high I was practically swinging from his halter as I led him out of the barn. I struggled to hold him. We got to the big paddock, which was adjacent to a farm with fenced, rolling pastures, and I slipped off his halter and let him loose.

Royal started galloping around the paddock. But this time, as he neared the fence, he effortlessly flew over it. I watched in horrified astonishment as he galloped full-speed across the first field, jumped another fence into the next field, covered it in a few strides, jumped a third fence, and vanished into the woods.

I was devastated. How was I going to find him? How would I catch him if I did find him? And there went any hope of making a good first impression. 

Then, as these dire helpless thoughts raced through my mind, I saw movement at the edge of the far woods. It was Royal, racing toward me! He jumped one fence, then another, crossing both fields at a full gallop. Finally, he jumped the paddock fence and trotted up to me, blowing and stamping. Then he lowered his head so I could reattach his halter. 

I was laughing and sobbing with relief as I patted his neck. I was incredulous. Royal had found freedom, as I had. But he’d also found love and satisfaction within fences. For him and for me, I realized, fences and freedom had always been a matter of choice. 

Reuters

Paetongtarn Shinawatra, daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, greets her Pheu Thai Party along with two other candidates for prime minister, Srettha Thavisin and Chaikasem Nitisiri, in Bangkok, Thailand, April 5.

For more than a century, America’s posture in the world has been as defender of democracy. With democracy in decline over the past 17 years, the Biden administration wants to flip that script. A new policy aims to be “affirming” when a country begins to escape autocratic rule, nurturing it with quick economic aid and advice to prove to the people that open and fair democracy can be a better system for daily life.

So far, U.S. support of democratic bright spots has included the Dominican Republic, Moldova, Nepal, Tanzania, and Zambia. Yet it may face a difficult challenge in Thailand, a longtime American ally.

The Southeast Asian country, which has seen multiple coups against elected governments for decades, faces what is considered its most consequential election on May 14. A civilian political party, Pheu Thai, is far ahead in the polls in a contest for parliament’s elected lower chamber. If it wins enough seats, its victory might end the military-dominated government of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, a former general who took power after a 2014 coup.

Mr. Prayuth has run the Thai economy into the ground. Yet he survived youth-led mass protests in 2020 that called for reform of Thailand’s constitutional monarchy and an end to the country’s conservative and elite establishment. Lately, he has seen defections, such as by longtime ally Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, a former general.

“I’m beginning to grasp that it was wrong to think that people are unable to elect good and capable representatives to office,” Mr. Prawit wrote on Facebook. “The politicians, whom the elite look down on, actually understand the problems. These politicians are more reliable when people call for their help than other groups in the power structure.”

Mr. Prawit, who is running in the election with his own party, may be pivotal after the election in forming a ruling coalition and helping Thailand make a crucial transition. Should the United States be ready to offer massive aid during this probable transition, dispensing advice on political freedoms and taking other steps with speed?

One answer lies in a study of democratic bright spots that have occurred in the past decade. Eight of the 12 best performing ones have stemmed from pivotal elections – ones in which a democratically backsliding or stagnant government loses power at the ballot box – conclude scholars Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Feldman at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Thailand will serve as a test case for the United States in being nimble and catalytic when a window of reform opens. “Positive developments and possibilities for democracy are occurring around the world on a regular basis in all kinds of political systems,” write the two Carnegie scholars. As a country that has long seen elected leaders taken down in coups, Thailand may be ripe for a new approach.