Syrian Actor Bassem Yakhour’s Tour of Damascus Shows Extent of Currency Collapse

Actor Bassem Yakhour tours the streets of Damascus. (YouTube screengrab)
Actor Bassem Yakhour tours the streets of Damascus. (YouTube screengrab)
TT
20

Syrian Actor Bassem Yakhour’s Tour of Damascus Shows Extent of Currency Collapse

Actor Bassem Yakhour tours the streets of Damascus. (YouTube screengrab)
Actor Bassem Yakhour tours the streets of Damascus. (YouTube screengrab)

Syrian actor Bassem Yakhour toured last week the streets of Damascus to demonstrate the extent of the collapse of the local currency after 10 years of war.

In a humorous video posted on his YouTube channel, the actor said he would challenge himself and his film crew to buy a grilled meat sandwich with only 1,000 pounds. He then embarked on a tour of local markets to determine what 1,000 pounds would buy him today.

Before the war, 1,000 pounds traded for some 21 dollars, but now it’s worth no more than a third of a dollar.

Yakhour said that before the war, 1,000 pounds would have bought a kilo of meat, with vegetables and fruits. It would have been enough for a family to spend comfortably and prepare two to three days-worth of food. What about today?

As he toured the markets, viewers could not help but notice that the actor was sporting an expensive watch, worth thousands of dollars. “Why bother wondering what 1,000 pounds can buy when you are wearing such an expensive watch?” asked one.

At the Salhiyah market, Yakhour remarked that 1,000 pounds wasn’t enough to buy decent men’s cotton underwear. The cheapest he could find cost 3,500 pounds. Before the war, a cotton blend underwear would have cost around 100-300 pounds, while 400-600 pounds, or 8-12 dollars, would have bought the customer the best quality available. An excellent quality bra would have cost 150 pounds before the war, while now the price has skyrocketed to 8,000 pounds.

Clothes vendors said that prices now are much cheaper than before the war, if counted in dollars. Now, as they struggle to cope, the spike in prices has led to a drop in quality to meet the people’s purchasing power. Finding an item of clothing for 1,000 pounds is almost impossible, they said, noting that even before the war cheap polyester socks would have cost that much. Yakhour’s tour showed that 1,000 pounds would now buy a paltry five walnuts or an ear of boiled or grilled corn.

A thousand pounds is not even enough to buy traditional sweets from the Shaalan market. The price of 200 grams of knefe or madlouka starts at 1,100 pounds, Yakhour found out. He did manage to find two sandwiches that cost 800 pounds: The famed wrap from Bisan, although they are hardly filling.

Standing before a display of smuggled biscuits, Bakhour did not even bother to ask about their prices (3,000 pounds a packet). A local selection of biscuits can be bought for 1,000 pounds.

Yakhour dared to head to a famous shop known for selling western sweets. Confiding with viewers that he was expecting to be kicked out for asking if it sells cakes for a 1,000 pounds, he was surprised to learn that he could buy small pastries for 1,000 apiece. A slice of cake starts at 1,200 pounds.

For vegetables and fruits, the actor headed to the old al-Hal market, which sells produce at prices 30 percent cheaper than other parts of the capital. There, he bought the ingredients for his grilled sandwich: potatoes and onions at a cost of 850 pounds. He then headed to a gas station to buy some diesel – enough to fill a small teacup. The owners gladly sold it to him for free.

Yakhour then gathered some wood from a field on the outskirts of Damascus, lit a fire and grilled his potatoes and onions, before wrapping them up in a sandwich, winning the challenge. The crew dismissed his claim, with Yakhour jokingly replying: “Did you expect me to invite you to meaty meal worth 1,000 pounds?”

The war has deprived the Syrian people of countless things, including a kilo of goat meat, which now sells at 30,000 pounds or half the monthly salary of a state employee.

The pound sank to a new record low on Sunday with a scramble for dollars in a country hit by sanctions and facing a severe foreign currency crunch, dealers and bankers said.

Traders said it cost as much as 3,450 Syrian pounds to buy 1 dollar on the street on Sunday, more than 18% lower than the end of last month.

Its last freefall was last summer when it hit the psychological barrier of 3,000 to the dollar over fears tougher US sanctions would worsen the country’s dire economic plight.

One leading Damascus-based licensed exchange dealer said the dollar had been rising with demand that far exceeded supply after months of relative stability in the 2,500 range.

Also squeezing the inflow of dollars has been a financial crisis in neighboring Lebanon where billions of dollars held by Syrian businessmen were frozen by its hard-hit banks, businessmen and bankers say.

Lebanon’s financial sector has for decades been a safe haven for leading Syrian businessmen and also firms associated with the government who used some of its banks to circumvent sanctions to import raw materials.

The country has been forced to reduce subsidies on fuel and conserve foreign currency for essential imports, businessmen say.

The collapse of the currency has driven up inflation as Syrians struggle to afford food, power and other basics.

Bankers say although the central bank vowed last week to intervene to prop up the collapsing currency, it is reluctant to support the currency in order to protect its scarce remaining foreign reserves. They were estimated at $17 billion before the 10-year conflict began.



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”