Day: April 16, 2025

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.

The speaker had an alarming warning for his audience: for the first time ever, Social Security benefits may not reach beneficiaries this month thanks to cuts to the government office that handles them. But if the message to the gathering of advocates for disabled persons on Tuesday night was urgent, the delivery was all-too-familiar.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Folks, let’s put this in perspective,” former President Joe Biden intoned. “In the 90 years since Franklin Roosevelt created the Social Security system, people have always gotten their Social Security checks. They’ve gotten them during wartime. During recessions. During a pandemic. No matter what, they got them. Now, for the first time ever, that might change. It would be calamity for millions of families.”

It was Biden’s first public speech since leaving the White House, and it brought it all back. There was the former President’s favorite feigned indifference to his 2020 rival, referring to “This Guy” as a stand-in for Trump. There were the cliches: “They’re shooting first and aiming later,” Biden said. And there were the awkward sentence constructions. “In fewer than 100 days, this new Administration has done so much damage and so much destruction. It’s kind of breathtaking it happened that soon.”

It’s the comeback no one is asking for, starting just 85 days after Biden left the White House.

There is a rhythm to most post-presidencies, with most Commanders-in-Chief stepping back for a period out of the spotlight. Trump, of course, defied trends, but Obama traveled the globe and palled around with his celebrity friends. George W. Bush retreated to Texas to take up oil painting and largely swore off politics. Bill Clinton took a (brief) minute to cede the spotlight to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who assumed office as New York’s junior Senator with 17 days left on her time as First Lady. All began work on their Presidential libraries, quietly raising money behind the scenes.

Biden has taken a different path since stepping down. He has been back in Washington every couple of weeks for meetings about his post-presidential life. Last month he came to pick up a lifetime achievement award from one of his most loyal unions, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He popped up at a Model UN event in New York and this weekend for a Passover seder with Delaware’s Governor. He appeared in black tie for opening night of Othello on Broadway, snubbing another star-studded play, Good Night and Good Luck led by George Clooney who penned a brutal op-ed urging Biden to leave the 2024 race, earning permanent exile from the Biden orbit.

Closer to home, Biden has started on the outline for his memoirs. He has scaled-back his calls to pals on Capitol Hill, taking a breather from the day-to-day political brawl. To the bewilderment of even his best allies in the Senate, there has been no hard movement on a presidential library. And he has done zero fundraising in an environment where dollars get harder to raise the further the asking party is from the action. Some of Biden’s most excuse-prone donors say they are not even sure where Biden plans to build his library, whenever he does get around to it.

If he’s less interested in fundraising than in getting back in the public eye, it may be because he wants to draw the contrast with Trump’s tumultuous start to his second term. Democratic faithful readily point to what they insist is Biden’s record of accomplishment: a tax credit that led to the lowest rate of childhood poverty in U.S. history; millions in spending to ease the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic; huge subsidies for U.S. businesses through investments in the clean-energy sector; and an economy that added more than 16 million jobs. And Biden clearly relished the opportunity to step back on stage, joining the Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled conference in Chicago Tuesday.

His political instinct isn’t wrong that Social Security is a good re-entry point: 73 million Social Security recipients are older and disabled, and even if the checks do get out this month, Republicans are on a collision course over funding the program. Trump has repeatedly promised he would not cut it, but the math doesn’t add up in the spending plans he is pushing. Congress is pursuing a spending framework that makes deep but vague cuts, and there are really only a few piles of money big enough to cover them. The Senate framework sets a baseline of $4 billion in reductions, while the House is chasing at least $1.5 trillion in spending slashes.

Meanwhile, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, helmed by billionaire Elon Musk, has already cut the Social Security Administration by 10% and shuttered dozens of regional offices, putting an unsustainable stress on the system. Musk has called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and suggested cuts to automatic spending programs have to be on the table. White House officials insist that he’s merely talking about fraud, but Democrats don’t buy it.

It’s why Democrats, in search of a coherent message in the post-Biden era, have rallied around threats to Social Security. House Democrats used Tuesday as a national day of action on the entitlement program. Senate Democrats launched their first ads of the cycle on Tuesday, targeting Republican incumbents in Maine and North Carolina. Republicans can hardly hold public events without confronting enthusiastic protests demanding no changes to the retirement safety net. Meanwhile huge audiences have turned out for Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even deep-red places like Utah, while Sen. Cory Booker’s record-breaking marathon speech on the floor drew rapturous reactions.

But Biden’s Tuesday evening event reminded everyone why the former President hadn’t been able to generate the same enthusiasm. Biden joked about his half-century in public service, pointing to legislation he championed as a lawmaker, “as a United States Senator 400 years ago.” At another point, he mocked Musk’s obsession with zombie beneficiaries. “By the way, those 300-year-old folks getting that Social Security, I want to meet them,” Biden said. “Hell of a thing, man. I’m looking at longevity. Because it’s hell when you turn 40 years old.”

The 27-minute speech Tuesday gave no one nostalgia for Biden. Even fewer think him sticking around is going to fix any of the long-term, structural problems facing Democrats. Biden may want a comeback, but if he pushes his luck, he could find himself in a lonely camp.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.

As women, we’ve been told that our grief is private, that our struggles with our bodies are something to bear alone. That isolation serves a purpose—it keeps us from recognizing our shared experiences, from seeing each other, from building something different.

If you’ve ever felt like your body was working against you—whether from illness, aging, injury, or something harder to name—you are not alone. That ache, that sorrow, that rage, is what I call Body Grief—the longing and mourning that accompany the loss of bodily autonomy.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The truth is that we are all grieving something: the loss of function, the betrayal of our physical forms, the ways our bodies fail us—or are failed by the systems meant to care for them.. But what if we weren’t just soldiers in a system that doesn’t care for us, but people who cared for one another? What if feeling our grief didn’t just help us heal—but also made us more compassionate, more connected, more willing to fight for a world that truly supported us? Body grief has the potential to connect us, even when our individual experiences seem worlds apart. And if we allow ourselves to feel it, rather than suppress it, we might find something unexpected: each other.

In a time of deep division—political, cultural, personal—Americans are in search of common ground. We crave unity, but where can we find it when everything—from healthcare to history—feels like a battleground? We live in a society that conditions us to push through pain rather than process. To ignore discomfort, to equate worth with productivity, to see bodily struggles as something to hide or overcome rather than something to acknowledge.

As Dr. Nola Haynes, a political scientist and a senior foreign policy advisor, told me, “The way that success looks in this country is by any means necessary, and it’s not paranoia, especially for women.”

Imagine a world where this wasn’t the norm. What if we allowed ourselves to sit with our grief, to recognize that our bodies have been sites of struggle for all of us in different ways? Instead of believing we are failing, it might behoove us to realize that the system was never built to support us in the first place.

Read More: Let’s Talk About Our Grief

Women and marginalized genders have long carried the weight of bodily grief—through forced birth, medical neglect, gendered violence, and systemic erasure. Their suffering has often been dismissed as exaggeration, hysteria, or simply the cost of existence. But this isn’t just an individual burden. It is a collective experience, one that connects us across identities and political divides.

For disabled people, for instance, body grief is daily, tangible, and systemic. It’s in the way our healthcare system fails us, in the exhaustion of constantly advocating for accessibility, in the way our bodies are either feared, pitied, or erased. For those newly confronting the limits of their bodies—through aging, injury, or illness—this grief can feel shocking and isolating, like a secret no one warned them about. But it isn’t a secret. It’s just something we were never given the language to talk about.

Body grief exists in racialized trauma, in the ways racism manifests physically—through stress, maternal mortality disparities, environmental injustice, and generational harm. It echoes through the bodies of those who have experienced sexual violence, reproductive injustice, and pregnancy loss, forced to navigate their grief alone in a culture that prefers to look away It also exists in the trans experience, in the dysphoria and medical gatekeeping that dictate who is allowed to transition and who must suffer in silence. “Being a trans woman…is living under the constant reminder that our bodies are deemed by many to be unacceptable in the traditional gender paradigm,” said activist and writer Charlotte Clymer. “The curse of body grief is navigating absurd notions of women’s pain and trauma as they relate to our bodies, and the blessing of body brief is recognizing that commonality as a catalyst for the power of community among women.”

Indeed, normalizing body grievances is more than awareness; it is liberation. I’ve learned this from personal experience. Before my total hysterectomy at 31, I was silently hemorrhaging into adult diapers for half my life each month, never realizing how abnormal my suffering was. The isolation was suffocating, the grief immeasurable. It would’ve been so different if I actually spoke about this pain—if I knew we could unravel the shame and stitch solidarity in its place.

Perhaps, then, body grief could be the Great Unifier—if only we all had the privilege to grieve, to lean into our emotions, and to find solace in our communities. Writer, producer, and impact leader Ashley Jackson reflected on her own experience with invisible illnesses like Fibromyalgia and Long Covid, affirms this truth: “Community is not so much about asking for help or renewing your placard. It means that when I was able to confront myself, I didn’t have to do it alone. It was isolating to come to terms with my body grief on my own… but my community said, we will hold you in this grief.”

Body grief is not just about what we have lost—it is about what we can build when we finally acknowledge it. And if we listen to each other, if we recognize our shared grief, we might just find the common ground we’ve been searching for all along.

“When the winds of change blow, some build walls, others build windmills.” — Chinese proverb

Afghanistan remains one of the most complex and controversial spots on the map of Eurasia. After the Taliban came to power in 2021, it seemed the countries of Central Asia were faced with a choice: to distance themselves from the new regime or cautiously engage with it. However, it appears they have chosen a third path – pragmatic cooperation free from political intentions.

Today, a window of opportunity is opening for the Central Asian states to reconsider their relationship with Afghanistan, not as a buffer zone or a source of instability, but as a potential element of a new regional architecture.

At the same time, these countries are in no hurry to establish close political ties with Kabul. They avoid making declarations about “integrating” Afghanistan into Central Asia as a geopolitical region. Instead, the focus is on practical, rather than political or ideological, cooperation in areas such as transportation, trade, energy, food security, and humanitarian engagement.

This pragmatic approach is shaping a new style of regional diplomacy, which is restrained yet determined. Against this backdrop, two key questions emerge: What role can Afghanistan play in regional development scenarios, and what steps are needed to minimize risks and maximize mutual benefit?

Afghanistan After 2021: Between Stability and Dependency

Since the end of the war and the Taliban’s return to power, Afghanistan has experienced a degree of relative order. However, the country remains economically and institutionally dependent on external assistance. Historically, Afghanistan has survived through subsidies and involvement in external conflicts, from the “Great Game” to the fight against international terrorism. Today, new actors, such as China, Russia, India, Turkey, and the Arab states, are stepping onto the stage alongside Russia, the United States, and the broader West.

In the context of current geopolitical realities after the fall of its “democratic” regime, Afghanistan has found itself in a gap between the experiences of the past and a yet undetermined future. It has a unique opportunity to transcend its reputation as the “graveyard of empires” and determine its fate while simultaneously integrating into the international community. How the de facto authorities in Afghanistan handle this opportunity will not only shape the Afghan people’s and the region’s future but also influence the development of the entire global security paradigm.

In parallel, the countries of Central Asian are building bilateral relations with Kabul on strictly pragmatic terms: participation in infrastructure and energy projects, food supply, and humanitarian aid. All of these steps have been taken without political commitments and without recognizing the regime.

The border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan near Khorog, GBAO; image: TCA, Stephen M. Bland

Geo-Economics and Logistics: Afghanistan as a Strategic Hub

The regional reality in Central Asia is increasingly taking on a geo-economic dimension. The region is not only an arena for the interests of external powers but also a zone for developing transport, logistics, and energy networks in which Afghanistan is playing an increasingly prominent role.

Currently, four of the six corridors under the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) pass through Afghan territory, linking it with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.

Central Asian countries are paying special attention to infrastructure projects that, under favorable conditions, could reshape the region’s economic landscape. These include the Trans-Afghan railway, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, and the Central Asia-South Asia power project (CASA-1000).

What is particularly significant is that these projects are beginning to move beyond the conceptual stage.

Recently, the presidents of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan officially inaugurated the 500 kV Datka–Sughd transmission line, a key component of the CASA-1000 regional project. Over the next 15 years, both countries are expected to supply Afghanistan and Pakistan with 23 billion kWh of electricity through this line, marking a major step forward in regional energy cooperation.

The Trans-Afghan Corridor is also beginning to take shape. While its eastern route (via Kabul) faces engineering and financial challenges, the western path (Torgundi–Herat–Kandahar–Spin Boldak) is becoming more defined. The Afghan government recently signed five contracts with domestic companies to design a 737.5 km railway connecting Herat and Kandahar.

The “five-country corridor” initiative (China-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Iran), which Tehran is trying to promote, also retains its potential. While it currently exists mostly on paper, the construction of a railway segment from Uzbekistan to Herat and its integration with the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan (CKU) railway would give it practical value as part of a new Eurasian transport network.

Image: Caspian Bulletin

The activity of neutral Turkmenistan in this area also deserves attention. Turkmenistan’s role in the “North-South” and “East-West” logistical intersections makes it one of the key operators in Eurasian traffic, including the Afghan direction. A connection is being formed through Iranian territory, with access to the ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar.

However, Ashgabat’s “flagship” project is the TAPI gas pipeline, designed to supply natural gas to countries with a total population of 1.75 billion. As President Berdimuhamedov stated, “Speaking about the TAPI gas pipeline project, I would like to emphasize its high social significance. According to experts, the construction of the pipeline and related infrastructure systems, new institutions, and enterprises will create 12,000 jobs in Afghanistan and solve several key humanitarian issues in the country.”

Alongside the implementation of the TAPI project, Turkmenistan is also building power transmission lines and an optical fiber communication system along the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan route. A 214-kilometer section of the pipeline has already been built in Turkmenistan. Last September, the construction of a 153-kilometer section from Serhetabad to Herat was launched. The construction is now ongoing in Afghanistan, where ten kilometers have already been built.

In addition to the countries of Central Asia, external actors are also showing interest in developing trans-Afghan routes. India, using the Iranian port of Chabahar, is seeking direct access to the markets of Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. This direction is seen by New Delhi as a strategic alternative to the China-Pakistan corridor.

Russia, in turn, links the development of Afghan logistics with the implementation of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which connects Russia with Iran and then, via Chabahar, to South Asia. Integrating Afghan transit into this route can provide additional flexibility and a regional dimension to the INSTC.

All this opens up opportunities for transregional connections, where Afghanistan serves not as a point of fracture, but as a connecting link between South, Central, and Western Asia.

There is a political saying: “If you’re not at the Table, you’re on the Menu.” For Central Asia, participation in new corridors is not a choice but a matter of survival; either you are the route, or you are a transit territory without rights.

However, Afghanistan’s potential is not limited to transit. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), copper reserves at the Aynak deposit exceed 660 million tons of ore with a metal content of 1.67%, corresponding to about 11 million tons of copper. This makes it one of the largest undeveloped copper projects in the world. Iron ore reserves at Hajigak reach 2 billion tons with iron content up to 64%. Additionally, the USGS has recorded significant resources of lithium, beryllium, tantalum, and other rare earth elements, especially in the southwestern and northeastern provinces. According to their forecasts, Afghanistan could occupy a leading position in the world in terms of lithium potential.

However, despite the availability of these reserves, sectoral problems remain significant: lack of infrastructure, regulatory instability, absence of a transparent licensing distribution mechanism, and field commanders having control over mining operations. Due to these factors, the potential major industrial projects, Aynak and Hajigak, are essentially suspended. Despite this, an eventual wave of bidders is anticipated.

At the same time, smaller but more practically oriented projects are gaining momentum, including the construction of power grids and small hydropower plants, warehouses, and Afghan companies’ participation in agricultural programs. This is the level of cooperation where concrete solutions can be realized.

Thus, the development of Afghanistan’s infrastructure opens a window of opportunity. The country is transforming from a “buffer zone” into a geoeconomic link between Central, South, and Western Asia. At the same time, this is a space of high sensitivity: growing activity here requires coordination among the Central Asian countries to avoid duplication, enhance stability, and prevent rivalry.

Yes, Afghanistan remains a complex partner, but ignoring its geoeconomic link means losing a key element of the new Eurasian economic framework.

Of course, structural barriers remain, such as the Afghan-Pakistani conflict, lack of international recognition, and the sanctions regime. Nevertheless, the countries of Central Asia, with the support of their surrounding environment, continue to view Kabul as an important economic neighbor.

Security and Ideology: The Region’s Cautious Vigilance

Despite signs of stabilization within Afghanistan, the Central Asian states maintain a cautious stance on issues of security and ideological influence from the Taliban. Of particular concern are reports of the presence in Afghanistan of militants from transnational groups with a Central Asian orientation. Although the Taliban claims to have control over the situation, most regional experts acknowledge the long-term risks involved.

There is also some unease about the development of religious infrastructure, including a network of madrasas, including those known as “jihadist madrasas.” These institutions could potentially form an ideological base beyond Afghanistan’s borders.

Nevertheless, the Central Asian countries have avoided alarmism, focusing on dialogue and taking a realistic approach to the assessment of threats.

Afghanistan as Part of the Regional Consensus

At the first “Central Asia – European Union” summit held in Samarkand, Afghanistan did not occupy a central position on the agenda. Nevertheless, in some speeches, the importance of a stable and engaged Afghanistan was emphasized, not so much as an object of foreign policy, but as part of the broader regional space.

In the final declaration, leaders reaffirmed their commitment to seeing Afghanistan as a “safe, stable, and prosperous state with an inclusive governance system that respects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens,” including women, girls, and ethnic and religious minorities.

It is clear that the “gender issue” was included in the declaration at the initiative of the European side since the Central Asian republics have never focused on this problem. As previously reported by TCA, the emphasis on the “gender issue” is not quite what the Central Asian countries expect in the context of the Afghan resolution. For them, it is much more important to address pressing issues such as security, economic cooperation, and migration control, which directly affect stability in the region. This is why Central Asian countries prefer to focus on practical steps and avoid unnecessary politicization of issues that might complicate dialogue with the Taliban and worsen the situation in neighboring Afghanistan.

In this regard, the position of the EU and Central Asian countries on women’s and girls’ rights, as reflected in the Samarkand declaration, should be seen as only “generally aligned.”

The declaration also established a mechanism for regular consultations on the Afghan agenda, stating: “We support the holding of regular consultations between the special representatives and envoys of Central Asian countries and the EU on issues related to Afghanistan.”

These consultations will help adapt regional policy to the new reality where this is no official recognition of the Taliban, but an understanding that, de facto, they are a key link in ensuring access to humanitarian aid and preventing cross-border threats.

Earlier at the Samarkand meetings, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev of Uzbekistan emphasized in an interview with Euronews that Afghanistan remains one of the priorities of the country’s foreign policy. According to him, the Uzbek approach has always been based on pragmatism and a focus on long-term goals, rather than ideological preferences. Mirziyoyev also noted that “many who disagreed with our policy on Afghanistan are now forced to acknowledge its correctness and inevitability,” referring, among other things, to international partners.

These statements reflect not only Uzbekistan’s position but also illustrate the overall shift in the perception of Afghanistan by the Central Asian states.

Kazakhstan has demonstrated the same approach. Since the Taliban came to power, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has consistently emphasized the need for a multilateral and balanced approach to the Afghan issue. His speeches focus on the integration of Afghanistan into regional and international processes. Kazakhstan supports the international community’s efforts, including under the UN’s auspices, to stabilize the situation, provide humanitarian aid, and launch infrastructure projects. Thus, Kazakhstan is developing a concept of “positive neutrality,” where Afghanistan is seen not as an isolated threat but as a potential partner and a key element of regional stability.

Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that a coordinated and pragmatic approach to the Afghan dossier has emerged in Central Asia. Even countries that previously held more rigid positions, in particular, Tajikistan, are now demonstrating increasing flexibility, both in official statements and in practical cooperation. The focus of the regional approach is gradually shifting from isolation and fears to economic ties, infrastructure, and a shared future that is in the interests of all the countries in the region.

Summary

Afghanistan has already become an integral factor in the stability and security of Central Asia. Pragmatic, cautious, and consistent interaction is the formula that the countries of the region are applying to their southern neighbor today.

A stable Afghanistan is not an end goal, but a condition for the long-term development and enhancement of Central Asia’s independent regional position in a changing world through the strengthening of ties and reduction of threats.

History has repeatedly tried to turn this region into a battleground for external interests, the so-called “Great Game.” However, at the current moment, Central Asia has the opportunity to not just react to the plans of outside powers but to implement its own. Afghanistan, no matter how complex and contradictory it may be, can become part of this shift, not as a threat but as an opportunity. It all depends on by who and how the future of the region is managed.

Thus, Central Asia is not a battleground; it is a crossroads, and crossroads have their own rules.