Aurelia Butler

Throughout the presidential campaign, I noticed that Trump supporters tended to fall into one of two camps. The first camp — core MAGA — heard Donald Trump’s wild rhetoric, including his vows to punish his political enemies, and loved every bit of it. They voted for Trump because they believed he’d do exactly what he said.Then there was a different camp — normie Republican — that had an entirely different view. They did not believe Trump’s words. They rolled their eyes at media alarmism and responded with some version of “stop clutching your pearls. This is just Trump being Trump. He’s far more bark than bite.”But Trump’s selection of Matt Gaetz as his nominee for attorney general, along with his selection of Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense and Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, shows that Trump did mean what he said. He is going to govern with a sense of vengeance, and personal loyalty really is the coin of his realm.Gaetz’s nomination is particularly dreadful. He isn’t just the least-qualified attorney general in American history (he barely practiced law before running for elected office and has served mainly as a MAGA gadfly in Congress), he’s also remarkably dishonest and depraved.Gaetz has created immense turmoil in the House. He was primarily responsible for deposing the House speaker Kevin McCarthy in a fit of pique, and he’s so alienated House colleagues that one had to be physically restrained from attacking him on the House floor. He has a reputation as showing colleagues explicit pictures of his sexual partners, and he is under a House ethics investigation into whether he had sex with an underage girl while he was a member of Congress.Gaetz has denied these claims, and the Department of Justice closed its own investigation into sex trafficking and obstruction of justice last year.Gaetz’s nomination is a test for Senate Republicans. Can they summon up the minimum level of decency and moral courage to reject Gaetz? Or will they utterly abdicate their constitutional role of advice and consent in favor of simply consenting even to Trump’s worst whims?No matter what happens next, however, Gaetz’s nomination is reaffirmation that the Donald Trump who tried to overthrow an American election hasn’t matured or evolved or grown. He is who he is, and it should surprise no one that he nominated a vengeful loyalist to lead the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States. More

The attack ended a two-month pause in missile strikes on Kyiv, which had only been hit by Russian drones during that period.Russia ramped up its deep strikes into Ukraine on Wednesday with a volley of missiles aimed at Kyiv and a northeastern border area, ending a more than two-month pause in such attacks on the capital, the Ukrainian air force said.The missile bombardment came as Russian forces sought to press their advantage in both soldiers and firepower across the eastern front. Ukraine’s military on Wednesday reported a wave of aerial bombing targeting its troops holding a pocket of Russian territory near the northern border that was captured last summer.As air raid alerts wailed in Kyiv around 6 a.m. and civilians headed for hallways or basements for safety, the Ukrainian air force said it was tracking 96 aerial targets entering the country’s airspace. That included missiles, ending an unusual 73-day pause in Russia’s use of missiles to strike civilian and military targets in the capital.The air force said four missiles were aimed at Kyiv and two were short-range missiles fired into the northeastern border area.The city has in that period come under numerous drone attacks. Scores of drones were also used in the attack on Wednesday, the air force said.Across Ukraine, the past few months have also seen a longer than usual break from large-scale missile attacks. The last major missile attack came on Sept. 3, with a strike on a military academy in the eastern Ukrainian city of Poltava that killed more than 50 people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

In Donald J. Trump’s first term as president, some of his toughest opponents were not elected Democrats but left-leaning nonprofit groups. They bogged down his immigration and environmental policies with lawsuits and protests and were rewarded with a huge “Trump bump” in donations.Now, some of those groups are promising to do it all over again.“Trump’s gotta get past all of us,” Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote on the nonprofit’s website the day after the election.“Trump’s bigotry, misogyny, anti-climate and anti-wildlife zealotry — all will be defeated,” Kieran Suckling, the executive director of an environmental nonprofit called the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote in an email to potential donors.That bravado masks uncertainty. This time could be a lot harder. Mr. Trump’s administration could learn from past mistakes and avoid the procedural errors that made its rules easier to challenge. And the higher courts are seeded with judges appointed by Mr. Trump.Another problem: Nonprofits are finding that some supporters are not energized by another round of “resistance.” Instead they have been left exhausted, wondering whether their donations made any difference. Some are afraid that they could be targeted for retaliation by Mr. Trump and his allies for donating to groups that oppose his administration.“The response from donors has been shock, anger and depression, sprinkled in with a few checks,” said Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which challenged several of Mr. Trump’s previous immigration policies in court. “It’s not been a flood.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The U.S. secretary of state met with European allies rattled by the American election results at a critical moment for Ukraine and the alliance.Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken visited NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday at what he called a “critical moment” for Ukraine and the U.S.-led military alliance, as Europe braces for the anticipated upheaval of a new Trump era in Washington.In a trip organized only after last week’s presidential election results made clear that U.S. policy will likely swing dramatically away from President Biden’s lock step support for NATO and Ukraine, Mr. Blinken met with alliance and European officials to help plan for a post-Biden future.Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in January has deeply shaken Europe’s mainstream political leaders, thanks to his skepticism about the value of NATO, the cost of defending Ukraine, and the wisdom of isolating Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin.Once in office, Mr. Trump could move quickly to change U.S. policy on all three fronts — a shift that European leaders fear might leave their countries both less secure from Russian aggression and at an economic disadvantage.Mr. Blinken did not explicitly mention Mr. Trump or last week’s election in his public remarks after meetings at NATO headquarters. But an American leadership change with huge global import was the obvious subtext, as Mr. Blinken stressed the intrinsic value of the alliance.Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, addressed the elephant in the room before sitting down with Mr. Blinken at a Brussels hotel. He said that their meeting offered “an opportunity to coordinate steps” after the U.S. election, noting that Ukraine’s government was speaking “both with the president-elect and his team and also with the outgoing administration.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The leader of the Anglican Church, Justin Welby, announced he would resign on Tuesday. Here’s what happens next.On Tuesday, the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announced he would resign over his handling of an abuse scandal.A damning report concluded last week that after becoming archbishop in 2013, Mr. Welby failed to pursue a proper investigation into claims of widespread abuse of boys and young men by John Smyth, a prominent lawyer and evangelical leader, decades ago at Christian summer camps.Mr. Welby’s abrupt resignation means the question of who becomes the next archbishop — the spiritual leader of 85 million Anglicans worldwide — is now urgent.Here’s what you need to know:How will the next archbishop be selected?Who are the leading candidates for the next archbishop?How long will Mr. Welby remain in the post?How will the next archbishop be selected?As Mr. Welby was scheduled to retire in 2026, it’s likely that the Church of England was already beginning to plan for the process of replacing him. The job of managing it falls to a committee known as the Crown Nominations Commission, which was created in 1974. It has 16 voting members, including bishops, representatives from the Canterbury diocese, the global Anglican Communion and the General Synod, which is the church’s national assembly. But do not expect them to operate a transparent selection process.The group is likely to canvass quietly within the church although there may already be prepared dossiers on potential successors. The commission will eventually agree on its preferred candidate — and possibly a reserve — to be sent to Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, who then advises the monarch on the appointment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Insurers that paid claims in Maui say a deal unfairly keeps them from recouping their own losses.The ashes of last summer’s devastating fire in Lahaina on Maui, which killed 102 people and destroyed the town, were still smoldering when talk turned to how fraught the rebuilding process would be.Fire victims would need help fast, and Hawaii officials pushed hard for a quick resolution to the avalanche of lawsuits filed against the entities that had caused the fire: the state’s electric utility, a school system and Maui County, among others.Just days shy of the fire’s one-year anniversary in August, a settlement was announced: Together, those responsible would pay $4 billion to settle more than 600 lawsuits; compensate over 10,000 homeowners, businesses and others; and — critically — keep key institutions, like the utility, solvent.But getting a deal done that quickly meant adopting an unorthodox approach to the insurance industry’s role in the settlement — one that the industry is challenging. Now, hopes for a timely payout are at the mercy of the courts.Typically, insurers pay claims and then sue whomever they blame for the damage — like the driver who might have caused a car accident — to recover some of what they paid. In the Lahaina settlement, the insurers are instead expected to seek repayment from the people and businesses they insured. A person who received a share of the $4 billion deal from a pain-and-suffering claim, for example, could have to pay a portion of that to the insurance company.The industry is balking at this idea, saying it upends a core piece of its business model. Insurers have turned to state and federal courts to try to block the deal, slowing it down and frustrating fire victims and Hawaii leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Workers cleared away flowers laid at the site of the attack, while censors scrubbed online criticism. The goal is to stifle potential questions and criticism.Two days after the deadliest known violent attack in China in a decade, officials were working to make it seem as if nothing had happened.Outside the sports center in the southern city of Zhuhai where a 62-year-old man had plowed an S.U.V. into a crowd, killing at least 35 people, workers on Wednesday quickly removed bouquets of flowers left by grieving residents. Uniformed police officers and officials in plainclothes shooed away bystanders and warned them not to take photos. At hospitals where patients were taken after the attack — at least 43 more people were injured — local officials sat outside the intensive care units, blocking journalists from speaking with family members.“I’m here keeping watch,” one man, who identified himself as a local community worker, said when reporters entered the ward. “No interviews.”On the Chinese internet, censors were mobilized to delete videos, news articles and commentaries about the attack. Almost 24 hours had passed before officials divulged details about the assault, which happened on Monday, including the death toll. Their statement offered limited details, and they have held no news conferences.The response was a precise enactment of the Chinese government’s usual playbook after mass tragedies: Prevent any nonofficial voices, including eyewitnesses and survivors, from speaking about the event. Spread assurances of stability. Minimize public displays of grief.The goal is to stifle potential questions and criticism of the authorities, and force the public to move on as quickly as possible. And to a large degree, it appeared to be working.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

President-elect Donald J. Trump has threatened a tax of at least 60 percent on goods from China — a move with the potential to decimate small American brands.In the days after Donald J. Trump won the presidency, several small American fashion designers placed anxious calls to overseas manufacturing partners. Spurred by fears that the president-elect will make good on promises to raise tariffs, thereby upending their operations, they scrambled to find alternatives.The tariffs “would be devastating,” according to Chris Gentile, owner of the Brooklyn-based Pilgrim Surf + Supply, which produces items like padded work coats and fleece zip-ups in China. “I don’t know how we could function.”Throughout his campaign, Mr. Trump threatened to levy a 10 to 20 percent tax on most foreign products and, most significantly, at least a 60 percent tariff on goods from China. The thinking is that sharp taxes would compel companies to begin producing in America again. In conversations with clothing designers over the past week, that logic was met with extreme skepticism.Some designers are not convinced that talk of dizzying tariffs will survive past the campaign trail. But for smaller, independent apparel businesses that rely on the comparative affordability and high quality of Chinese clothing manufacturers, the mere threat of increased taxes on foreign goods was enough to plan for the worst.“We’ve established relationships with these factories,” Mr. Gentile said. “They’ve become almost like family.”A still-scrappy entrepreneur 12 years in, Mr. Gentile doesn’t have an army of supply-chain wonks to ferret out new factories. The task of corresponding with his manufacturers falls largely on him. He’s spent untold hours working with his Chinese production partners on how to set in the sleeves of his shirts just so or how poofy a down jacket should be.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More