Evelyn Reynolds

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign anticipates winning the Iowa state caucuses and advisers have suggested internally they would only be concerned about the former president being upstaged if another candidate started polling within five or 10 points, according to people close to the campaign.The margin of the expected win has been an informal litmus test for several weeks, and with none of Trump’s rival candidates close to breaching that threshold, the campaign has been confident Trump will win the state’s first-in-the-nation nominating contest.Victory for Trump in Iowa would give him crucial momentum that advisers hope will propel him to the Republican nomination for 2024, as well as the personal satisfaction of attaining what eluded him in 2016, when he finished second – after Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas – despite leading in the polls.The confidence inside the Trump campaign is tempered mainly by the recognition that low turnout from supporters could undercut Trump’s commanding position, a situation he has attempted to address by scheduling a blitz of rallies before the 15 January caucuses.Trump returned to Iowa on Friday to run through four campaign rallies in two days after visiting the state infrequently in recent months, at least compared with his main rivals, Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, and Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor.In presidential primaries and caucuses, voters cast ballots in their states as the first of two steps. The outcomes of those contests determine which individuals, called delegates, will go to the Republican national convention to formally be chosen as their party’s nominee.The idea for the Trump campaign is that a victory in Iowa would give him the necessary momentum to win the next contests in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, putting him ahead of the field for Super Tuesday on 5 March.By mid-March, the campaign anticipates they will have won enough bound delegates that Trump is assured of clinching the nomination to set up a general election rematch against Joe Biden, according to an internal analysis.The campaign’s analysis, based on public and internal polling, estimates Trump to win 973 delegates by 5 March and 1,478 by 19 March, a senior campaign official told reporters last month. It takes 1,215 to win the nomination.Backstopping Trump’s projected path to the nomination are rule changes the campaign forced through in several crucial early voting states that dramatically alter the way delegates are awarded.For months last year, the campaign pursued an audacious effort to convince state Republican parties in places like Nevada, Michigan and California to change the rules in a way that favored Trump – and disadvantaged both Haley and DeSantis.In Nevada, Michael McDonald, the chair of the state Republican party, enacted new rules seen as especially damaging to DeSantis, by in effect blocking Super Pacs that the Florida governor relies on from participating in the caucuses.The rules, which came almost immediately after McDonald was among a small group treated to a meal with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club, so disadvantages Trump’s other rivals that they have pulled up stakes entirely. Last month, McDonald was indicted by a Nevada grand jury on charges of forging and submitting fraudulent documents in the 2020 fake-elector scheme.In California, the state party enacted a rule change to award delegates based on a statewide vote instead of congressional districts, doing away with the state’s longstanding system that was seen as more equitable to lesser candidates.The change means Trump now has a shot at claiming all of California’s 169 delegates – more than in any other state – while making it dramatically harder for Haley or DeSantis to challenge him in a two-horse race.Another state that has shifted its rules is Michigan, which this cycle will run a complicated dual primary and caucus in a system where the majority of delegates will be bound in a process also seen as favoring Trump.The moves have been denounced by Trump’s rivals as underhanded and tantamount to rigging the nominating contests; the reality is that Trump has significantly tilted the race to his advantage.Still, even if the backroom dealing by Trump was initially part of a failsafe effort to cover for deficiencies – for instance, in Iowa – rivals like DeSantis have slipped in the polls there, meaning Trump might be in a stronger position that even his campaign has anticipated. More

It’s no great secret. These are the most difficult and challenging times in modern history.We’re dealing with the horrific situation in Gaza, Putin’s war in Ukraine, the existential threat of climate change, obscene and growing levels of income and wealth inequality, attacks on our democracy and women’s rights, increasing levels of bigotry and intolerance, unprecedented threats from artificial intelligence, a dysfunctional healthcare system, huge increases in military spending – and much, much more.And, oh yes, Donald Trump – who is becoming more rightwing and extremist every day and who is ahead in many of the polls to become the next president of the United States. The Donald Trump who recently said migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”. The Donald Trump who uses language echoing Adolf Hitler when he refers to his political opponents as “vermin” and pledges to “root them out”. The Donald Trump who has referred to the January 6 insurrection as “a beautiful day”.The same Donald Trump who wants to give massive tax breaks to the very rich, throw millions off the healthcare they have and refuses to even acknowledge the reality of climate change.So what do we do about all of that? How do we rally the American people to make sure Trump is not elected once again? How do we build for a brighter future?Well, for a start, let’s do something radical: let’s tell the truth. The American people are tired of tweets, empty political rhetoric and 30-second negative ads. More importantly, they are tired of an establishment-supported status quo which, in many cases, leaves them economically worse off than their parents 50 years ago. They are desperate to understand why we are where we are today and how we can move to a better place.We’ve got some very serious problems.So let’s begin there. Where are we today? What is the reality that many Americans are experiencing?Today, more than 60% of our people are living under enormous financial stress as they try to survive paycheck to paycheck on inadequate incomes. These Americans, the majority of our people, are working hard but going nowhere, and they worry that their kids will end up even further behind than they are.In the richest country on Earth, we now have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation, and many of the schools serving lower-income kids are poorly staffed or equipped. Not a great way to create a strong and prosperous future.With housing costs soaring, almost 600,000 Americans are unhoused and millions of working-class families are spending more than they can afford on outrageously high rents. Owning one’s own home is becoming a faraway dream for many, while young people camp out in their parents’ basements.Half of older workers have no savings or pensions as they worry about what happens to them when they retire into their “golden” years. Will they be able to afford prescription drugs or keep their homes warm in the winter? Will they be able to leave their offspring any inheritance?Our healthcare is broken. Despite spending far more per capita than any other country, we don’t have enough doctors, nurses or mental health counselors. Our life expectancy is in decline and 60,000 people die each year because they can’t get to a doctor when they should.Our childcare system, caring for kids in their most formative years, is dysfunctional. Working-class parents can’t find quality slots, tuition is unaffordable and the employees in the industry are grossly underpaid.Our younger generation is struggling financially. Many work for inadequate incomes, and more than 40 million Americans have left college and graduate school deeply in debt, sometimes spending decades paying their loans off.In many working-class communities. crime, homelessness, addiction and drug overdoses are growing problems.But it is not all bad news.In the last year, we have seen a major revitalization of the trade union movement as working-class Americans fight back against unprecedented levels of corporate greed. As corporate profits soar and CEOs get outlandish compensation packages, workers are demanding their fair share.Whether it is Teamster and United Auto Worker blue-collar workers, young people at Starbucks, nurses and doctors or graduate students on campuses, Americans are organizing unions at the grassroots level, going out on strikes – and winning major victories.Further, in the past few years, President Biden and those of us who have worked with him have passed some significant pieces of legislation.The $1.9tn-dollar American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) helped revive our economy far faster than anyone could have imagined as we dealt with the worst public health crisis and economic downturn in 100 years. We have made record-breaking investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, in broadband and in renewable energy. We passed a historic expansion of benefits and services for toxic-exposed veterans. We have finally begun to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry. We are rebuilding American manufacturing and have seen the two strongest years of job growth in history.And let’s not forget, Joe Biden was the first president ever to walk a picket line in support of striking workers and to encourage non-union workers to organize.Good stuff. But is it enough?Absolutely not.Far more needs to be done. As progressives, it’s important we lay out an agenda the American people would be eager to vote for – not just someone to vote against.What is that agenda? It is an agenda that acknowledges the pain, stress and despair that the majority of our people are experiencing, and provides a path forward to improve their lives. It is an agenda prepared to take on the greed of the oligarchs and corporate America.It is an agenda that boldly confronts the wealth and power of the 1%, and demands that the rich start paying their fair share of taxes.It is an agenda that uses artificial intelligence to benefit all people, not just the owners of large corporations.It is an agenda that ends starvation wages in America, makes it easier for workers to join unions and provides equal pay for equal work.It is an agenda that makes healthcare a human right and substantially lowers the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country.It is an agenda that will make it possible for all working-class young people to gain a college education without going into debt, and will radically improve our dysfunctional childcare system.It is an agenda that will create millions of good-paying jobs as we lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels.It is an agenda that will take on the systemic racism that prevails throughout our country and fundamentally reform our broken and racist criminal justice system.It is an agenda that cuts military spending, prevents war and supports diplomacy and international cooperation.It is an agenda that will lead to comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship for the undocumented.Now, it goes without saying that this is not the agenda of the Democratic establishment and their wealthy campaign funders. You know that. I know that. So, what do we do? As progressives, what should our political strategy be in 2024?First, we work in coalition with all those who understand that we must do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme rightwing Republican party, not just because he is “worse”, but because nothing less than the future of our democracy is at stake in this election. Not only do we need to re-elect President Biden, we need to give him decent majorities in the House and Senate.Second, we aggressively educate and organize at the grassroots level around our progressive agenda. The American people are deeply unhappy with the economic and political status quo. They want change, real change. That means we must roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of reaching new people. That means we must have uncomfortable conversations and invite people to join us, even if they don’t agree with us on everything. We must inspire people to get involved. This will not be easy but it is what our progressive agenda must be about.Third, we must make it clear to the president and his administration that we expect his second term to be far more progressive than his first. He must, in no uncertain terms, take on the greed of the billionaire class whose actions are causing irreparable damage to our country, and stand up for the needs of the working class. Further, his campaign must reflect those progressive principles.In these difficult times it is easy to become victim to despair and cynicism. It is easy to become paralyzed into inaction when one realizes that there are no magic solutions to the complex political crises we face, and that every step forward has its drawbacks and critics.But we truly have no alternative but to stand up and fight for the country we know we can become. This is a struggle not just for our generation, not just for our kids and grandchildren – but for the future of our democracy and our planet. This is not a time to surrender.
Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and chair of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress More

The top Democrat and Republican in the US Congress on Sunday agreed on a $1.59tn spending deal, setting up a race for bitterly divided lawmakers to pass the bills that would appropriate the money before the government begins to shut down this month.Since early last year, House of Representatives and Senate appropriations committees had been unable to agree on the 12 annual bills needed to fund the government for the fiscal year that began 1 October because of disagreements over the total amount of money to be spent.When lawmakers return on Monday from a holiday break, those panels will launch intensive negotiations over how much various agencies, from the agriculture and transportation departments to Homeland Security and health and human services, get to spend in the fiscal year that runs through 30 September.They face a 19 January deadline for the first set of bills to move through Congress and a 2 February deadline for the remainder of them.There were already some disagreements between the two parties as to what they had agreed to. Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement that the top-line figure includes $886bn for defense and $704bn for non-defense spending. But Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, in a separate statement, said the non-defense spending figure will be $772.7bn.Last month, Congress authorized $886bn for the Department of Defense this fiscal year, which Democratic president Joe Biden signed into law. Appropriators will also now fill in the details on how that will be parceled out.The non-defense discretionary funding will “protect key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, healthcare and nutrition assistance” from cuts sought by some Republicans, Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement.Last spring, Biden and then-House speaker Kevin McCarthy reached a deal on the $1.59tn in fiscal 2024 spending, along with an increase in borrowing authority to avoid an historic US debt default.But immediately after that was enacted, a fight broke out over a separate, private agreement by the two men over additional non-defense spending of around $69bn.One Democratic aide on Sunday said that $69bn in “adjustments” are part of the deal announced on Sunday.Another source briefed on the agreement said Republicans won a $6.1bn “recission” in unspent Covid aid money.The agreement on a top line spending number could amount to little more than a false dawn, if hardline House Republicans make good on threats to block spending legislation unless Democrats agree to restrict the flow of migrants across the US-Mexico border – or if they balk at the deal hammered out by Johnson and Schumer.Biden said on Sunday the deal moved the country one step closer to “preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities”.“It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties,” Biden said in a statement after the deal was announced.Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell said he was encouraged by the agreement.“America faces serious national security challenges, and Congress must act quickly to deliver the full-year resources this moment requires,” he said on Twitter/X.Unless both chambers of Congress – the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-majority Senate – succeed in passing the 12 bills needed to fully fund the government, money will expire on 19 January for federal programs involving transportation, housing, agriculture, energy, veterans and military construction. Funding for other government areas, including defense, will continue through 2 February. More

Leading US House Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik on Sunday declined to commit to certifying the results of the 2024 White House race no matter the outcome, three years and a day after a mob of Donald Trump supporters staged the January 6 Capitol attack while refusing to recognize that he had lost the presidency to Joe Biden.Stefanik – a New York representative who serves as the House’s Republican conference chairwoman – was asked by Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press whether she would “vote to certify the results of the 2024 election, no matter what they show”.The congresswoman replied: “We will see if this is a legal and valid election.”Stefanik went on to criticize the Colorado legal ruling that removed Trump from the state’s ballot under the 14th amendment to the US constitution – which bars insurrectionists from taking office – and urged the federal supreme court to unanimously overturn that decision to let voters determine the former president’s electoral fate.Welker said: “Just to be very clear, I don’t hear you committed to certifying the election results. Will you only commit to certifying the results if former president Trump wins?”Stefanik said: “No, it means if they are constitutional,” before expressing her claim that the 2020 presidential race “was not a fair election” despite multiple legal reviews solicited by Trump and his allies confirming that it was.She also delivered a tirade about how the true threat to democracy was “attempting to remove … Trump from the ballot because Joe Biden knows he can’t win”.The notable exchange between Welker and Stefanik, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House, came after the latter woman played a prominent role in the recent ouster of the presidents of two Ivy League universities.Stefanik quizzed Elizabeth Magill and Claudine Gay – respectively, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard – about whether theoretical calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ code of conduct. Footage of the hearing quickly went viral.Magill resigned in December. Gay, who was also targeted by allegations of academic plagiarism, stepped down on 3 January.Asked about the presidents’ resignations Sunday, Stefanik reiterated an oft-invoked conservative pledge to “look at DEI” – or diversity, equity and inclusion programs that are central to some universities’ operations.Stefanik’s interview with Welker occurred one day after the three-year anniversary of the January 6 2021 attack that Trump supporters aimed at Congress as legislators certified his defeat by Biden during the presidential election weeks earlier.Nine deaths have been linked to the Capitol assault, including law enforcement suicides. More than 1,200 people have been charged with taking part in the riot, and more than 900 have either pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.Stefanik on Sunday became irate at Welker when the host broadcast prior remarks from the congresswoman in which she denounced the Capitol attack as “absolutely unacceptable” and “anti-American”. In those earlier comments, she also advocated for Capitol attackers to be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe congresswoman accused Welker of being a “typical … biased media” member and then made it a point to describe those prosecuted in connection with the Capitol attack as “hostages”.“I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages,” Stefanik said. “And I believe that we’re seeing the weaponization of the federal government … against conservatives.”Stefanik endorsed Trump’s attempts to seek a second presidency in November 2022, before he had even formally announced his campaign.The former president faces 91 pending criminal charges for trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election, illegally retaining government secrets after he left the White House and giving hush-money payments to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels, who has alleged having a sexual encounter with Trump during an earlier time in his marriage to Melania Trump.Trump has also confronted civil litigation over his business practices and a rape allegation which a judge deemed to be “substantially true”.Nonetheless, Trump maintains a substantial lead in the contest for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Stefanik said on Sunday: “I am proud to support President Trump.” More

Joe Biden’s 2024 election campaign has lambasted former president and most likely Republican opponent Donald Trump for failing to sign a loyalty oath in the state of Illinois, in which candidates pledge against advocating an overthrow of the government.The Biden campaign was responding to an investigation by Illinois news outlets WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported that Trump sidestepped signing the McCarthy era voluntary pledge that is part of the midwestern state’s package of ballot-access paperwork submitted by 2024 electoral candidates last week.That omission came days before the third anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, for which Trump has been indicted for his alleged role in efforts to overturn Biden’s 2020 election victory. It’s a departure from 2016 and 2020, when Trump signed the voluntary oath.In a statement, Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler, said: “For the entirety of our nation’s history, presidents have put their hand on the Bible and sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States – and Donald Trump can’t bring himself to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t attempt a coup to overthrow our government … We know he’s deadly serious because three years ago today he tried and failed to do exactly that.”In response, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung did not clarify why the Republican candidate had not signed the oath, but said: “President Trump will once again take the oath of office on January 20th, 2025, and will swear ‘to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”The WBEZ/Chicago Sun-Times analysis of state election records found that Biden and Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis both signed the oath. But some of Trump’s Republican opponents also did not sign, including Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, and Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor.Under Illinois law, presidential candidates wanting to be on the state’s 19 March primary ballot were required to submit nominating petitions to the state board of elections on Thursday or Friday.The so-called loyalty oath, which is part of the ballot-access process, is a remnant of the 1950s communist-bashing era of former US senator Joseph McCarthy. The tradition has been preserved by Illinois lawmakers despite being ruled unconstitutional by federal courts on free speech grounds.In the first part of the oath, candidates swear they are not communists nor affiliated with communist groups. Candidates also confirm that they “do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt’s not clear why Trump did not sign the oath this time round, given that his eligibility to run is already being challenged on the rounds that he is allegedly disqualified by the 14th amendment of the constitution – which bars insurrectionists from seeking public office.On Thursday – the same day Trump submitted his ballot paperwork – five Illinois voters filed a petition to remove him from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the Washington Post reported. More

Rightwing US congresswoman Lauren Boebert is denying allegations that she punched her ex-husband in the face in public after police in Colorado were reportedly called out to an encounter involving the pair Saturday night at a restaurant.The incident was first reported by the Daily Beast. The news site said that Jayson Boebert called police claiming that he was a “victim of domestic violence”. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Jayson Boebert alleged that the congresswoman had “punched” him in the face several times. He claimed to have a witness to the events.“I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested,” Boebert said in a statement provided to reporter Kyle Clark of television station KUSA. Calling Saturday night’s events “a sad situation for all that keeps escalating”, she added: “I will be consulting with my lawyer about the false claims he made against me and evaluate all of my legal options.”Denver Gazette reporter Carol McKinley had earlier reported that police in Silt, Colorado, had been called out to a confrontation between Lauren and Jayson Boebert at the local Miner’s Claim restaurant on Saturday evening, citing information from the city’s police chief. The chief, Mike Kite, said there had not been any arrests immediately despite reports that Lauren Boebert had punched Jayson Boebert, but investigators were looking for any relevant video, McKinley reported.In an interview with the Denver Post, Jayson Boebert said he told police he does not want to press charges. “I don’t want nothing to happen,” Jayson Boebert said. “Her and I were working through a difficult conversation.”In her statement, Lauren Boebert reiterated that the situation with her and Jayson Boebert was “another reason” for her 27 December 2023 announcement that she intended to relocate from Colorado’s third congressional district to the fourth and seek a third term in Congress there.Boebert, 37, won a second term in Congress after defeating Democratic challenger Adam Frisch by just 546 votes. Frisch signaled his intent to challenge Boebert again during the 2024 election cycle and had raised $7.7m to his Republican opponent’s $2.4m before she indicated she would seek a new term in another district rather than face a rematch.The congresswoman filed for divorce in May from her husband, with whom she has four sons, citing “irreconcilable differences”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn September, Boebert landed in scandal after she and a man with whom she was on a date were kicked out of a performance of the stage production Beetlejuice in Denver for inappropriate behavior, including vaping, recording and groping each other. She later issued a statement of apology, saying: “I simply fell short of my values.”Boebert’s party has a narrow majority in their chamber and is in the minority in the Senate. Ohio congressman Bill Johnson’s resignation will leave 219 Republicans when it takes effect on 21 January, meaning any measure favored by the party that loses votes from two of its members will not pass. More

Elise Joshi stumped for Joe Biden as a college freshman, motivated in no small part by her sense of urgency about climate change. The environmental policy student campaigned before the 2020 election as part of TikTok for Biden, in hopes of persuading other young people to show up to the polls.The work undertaken by Joshi and her peers paid off for Democrats – youth voter turnout surged in 2020, and has been widely credited as playing a key role in propelling Biden to victory.But as the Israeli bombing of Gaza has killed more than 22,000 Palestinians to date, Joshi is feeling disillusioned with the president she once “happily” voted for. She’s not alone. With US military support for Israel holding steady, Joshi says that the White House’s current handling of the situation in Palestine is alienating young people – the very demographic Biden will need to win re-election in 2024.“My generation is appalled. There’s a lot of people who are not willing to put their votes towards this administration as a result of their actions in Gaza,” she said.And if Democrats think their climate track record will be enough to redeem them, she said, then they’re miscalculating how young people view the current administration’s actions on climate in the first place.Biden has sometimes been described as the “climate president” for signing into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest investment in clean energy in American history. But many young people in Joshi’s cohort are more concerned with the oil and gas provisions within the IRA, as well as Biden’s unwillingness to declare a climate emergency. Joshi also says her peers are frequently disappointed over the Willow Project, an oil-drilling project approved by the Biden administration early last year that’s estimated to emit more climate pollution per year than 99.7% of all single-point sources in the country.Joshi is just one leader connected to the youth climate movement trying to warn the current administration about the potential consequences of its stance on Gaza. She signed an open letter to that effect in her capacity as executive director of Gen-Z for Change – the organization formerly known as TikTok for Biden — alongside leaders from groups like the Sunrise Movement and March for Our Lives this fall.“The vast majority of young people in this country are rightfully horrified by the atrocities committed with our tax dollars, with your support,” the letter read. “The position of your administration is badly out of step with young people and the positions of Democratic voters, whom have been shown to support a ceasefire by supermajorities in multiple polls.”Numerous polls have indeed shown Biden trailing Trump among young voters, in stark contrast to their overwhelming preference for Biden in 2020. Recent polling by the New York Times suggests that young people’s support of Biden is wavering in light of his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The young Biden ’20 voters with anti-Israel views are the likeliest to report switching to Mr Trump,” the Times’ analysis read.That prospect would be extremely concerning to the youth climate vote, who understand the risk Trump poses to the environment.War as environmental injusticeWhile many big green groups and climate-focused news organizations in the US have been slow to address Israeli attacks on Gaza, the youth climate movement globally has overwhelmingly expressed solidarity with Palestinians, and staunchly rejected the idea that criticizing the actions of the Israeli government is inherently antisemitic. From Greta Thunberg posting a picture of herself holding a “Stand with Gaza” sign to activists at COP28 staging pro-Palestine rallies, climate-focused youth have made clear that they see the war as an environmental justice issue.For climate activists used to raising the alarm about the ways that climate change is causing displacement and forced migration, increasing food and water insecurity and ravaging beloved landscapes and ecosystems, it’s not hard to draw a parallel to the way that Israel’s bombing is having the same impacts on Gaza and its inhabitants. That’s not to mention the emissions associated with military operations, nor the symbolic connection many environmentalists, whom some call “tree huggers”, might feel to Palestinians who have been photographed hugging olive trees after their orchards were attacked by Israeli settlers.“Many of these people that are from global south countries had an unwavering support for Palestine,” said Isaias Hernandez of his experience meeting other young people at the UN climate conference in Dubai. Hernandez, who posts environmental content under the username @queerbrownvegan, is one of more than 120 content creators with a combined audience of millions who signed onto an open letter of their own in support of a “free Palestine”.Youth climate activists are often close with their peers in other countries, connecting via social media, meeting up and working together to stage actions at global conferences multiple times a year. That sense of global solidarity is helping bolster US youth in their convictions about Gaza.“We are a nonviolent movement that is fighting for the safety and well-being of all people in their communities,” said Michele Weindling, the political director of the Sunrise Movement. “We feel a direct link and a stake in what’s happening in Gaza in that we believe that no people should lose access to life-sustaining resources like water.”Even for young people who might be hesitant to weigh in on a geopolitical conflict with a long, complex and painful history, the simple math of US spending is enough to spark outrage.“Our president has, time and time again, told us we don’t have the money or the resources to implement climate solutions at the scale that we’re asking for; that we can’t forgive student debt at the scale that we need; but that we have the resources to send more bombs to the Israeli military,” Weindling said. “And young people are really upset about that.”The road to NovemberBoth Weindling and Joshi want to make clear that they’re not asking their movement to withhold votes in the primary election. On the contrary, they want young people to vote.“I really hope young people don’t become apathetic to voting in the first place and stop showing up to the polls, because the president is an important job,” Joshi said. “I’m incredibly worried about that.”But both organizers want to warn the current administration about where the youth vote is currently headed. What’s more, they argue that the administration’s reluctance to call for a ceasefire in Gaza will make it increasingly challenging for grassroots groups to mobilize youth voters who are disillusioned with Biden’s “pro-war” stance.“This is not only a morally problematic direction of leadership, but it’s also politically a very risky one,” said Weindling. “We cannot explain [Biden’s] position to our generation, and that will have significant effects, not just on how young people turn out in 2024 to vote, but also on whether or not they volunteer and get their friends and family out to vote.”Still, the alternative – potentially four more years of Trump – is “frightening”, according to Joshi. Not only did Trump make the US dirtier and the planet warmer in his four years in office, weakening environmental regulations, pulling the nation out of international climate agreements and more, but he recently promised to expand oil drilling on day one of the presidency if he’s re-elected.This – along with the havoc Trump wreaked on immigration rights, voting rights and the democratic process, among other things – is why Hernandez said he plans to vote. He sympathizes with his peers who plan to opt out, but he wants “to help reduce harm and violence throughout the world”.If Biden wants to lure more young people back to the voting booth come November, he may still have time to course-correct, the young activists said, but he needs to act decisively, and soon.“The first step toward preventing a Trump administration is calling for a ceasefire right now,” said Joshi. “Climate voters and voters that care about Palestinians – they’re one and the same.” More

The timing is right for a 14th amendment renaissance, says Sherrilyn Ifill.The 14th amendment, created during the Reconstruction era, carries the promise of equality for Black people and accountability for people engaged in insurrection and white supremacy, though its provisions have never been enforced fully.Pro-democracy advocacy groups are using the amendment’s third section to keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot for engaging in insurrection, a high-profile and novel approach for a presidential candidate. So far, a court in Colorado and a Maine elections official have used these arguments to say Trump can’t appear on the ballot in those states. The cases, which Trump has appealed, are expected to go to the US supreme court.Ifill, a longtime civil rights lawyer, wants a generation of attorneys to be trained on the amendment and for it to enter into Americans’ understanding of their rights. In Washington DC in 2024, she will launch a center focused on the 14th amendment at the Howard University law school, a historically Black university.As a former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Ifill has sued Trump before, alleging that his presidential campaign disfranchised Black voters in 2020. Since she left the NAACP in 2022, she has repeatedly sounded the alarm about US democracy in peril, saying the country is in a “moment of existential crisis”.If Trump returns to the White House in 2024, “we will cease to be a democracy”, she said.The Guardian spoke to Ifill about the stakes of this year’s election, and how to protect civil rights at a critical time. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.Are we in a crisis point for democracy, unlike we’ve seen in our lifetimes?Absolutely. No question about it. We are in a crisis. Any time members of Congress say, as many apparently told Senator Mitt Romney, that they’re afraid to cast the vote they believe they should cast on impeachment because they worry about their children and their wives, we have a problem. We are in an authoritarian moment. Unfortunately, it’s a global authoritarian moment, which makes it even more challenging.What can we do about it?All the things that we’re doing. When litigating, we’re trying to hold people accountable to the rule of law, which is critical. We have to be educated ourselves about the tools that are available for us. We can stop telling fairy stories about this country. That’s what I find so beautiful about the architecture of the 14th amendment is that recognition, even amid the soaring promises, that the stubbornness of white supremacy and insurrection will remain and that we will need to confront it with power.Tell me about the idea behind the 14th Amendment Center. Why the 14th amendment?The first constitution obviously left a lot of things unsolved, kicked the can down the road on slavery and is deeply flawed without question. The second constitution, which is the one created after the civil war, is really bound up first and foremost in the civil war amendments: the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments reimagined a new America precipitated by, of course, the civil war and the need to finally fulfill the promise of equality, of Black people becoming full citizens of this country.It’s a powerful, powerful amendment. And yet, most of us, even as lawyers in law school, study only a fraction of it. Most citizens in our country don’t even know about it. I always say that if you walk up to a guy who’s got an AR-15 on his back in a McDonald’s, and you ask him, why do you have that long gun on your back just to get a quarter-pounder? He’s gonna say, because it’s my second amendment right. We’re having a conversation right now about what people can say on college campuses, and people feel very comfortable articulating their first amendment rights. We don’t talk about “my 14th amendment rights”, even those of us who are civil rights lawyers and litigate predominantly under the 14th amendment or statutes that come from the 14th amendment.As a result, we tend to talk about discrimination in terms of feelings or morality or the goodness of a person or whether they have a racist bone in their body or whether they see race, not that equality is a constitutional imperative. We talk about it as though it is optional, depending on how good the person is. That is not the spirit of the 14th amendment. I think it has been, I’ll go as far as to say, hijacked. At this time in our country, I think we need to re-engage it, particularly because the 14th amendment was created by a group of legislators and those who influenced them who had stared into the face of insurrection and into the face of violent white supremacy. Both of those very dangerous elements are elements that we are confronting today.Do you believe that the US has ever really met the full promise and strength of the 14th amendment?I don’t. That’s not even my opinion, it’s objectively true. The supreme court set about cutting back the promise of the 14th amendment pretty early on in the 19th century, in US v Cruikshank, in the civil rights cases and in Plessy v Ferguson. Even though the 14th amendment, section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the guarantees, Congress is silent for the first half of the 20th century until forced to begin legislating by a grassroots activist wave that we call the civil rights movement.What kind of work do you envision the center will do? Training other lawyers on the 14th amendment, scholarly work, taking on cases?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionI see the goal of the center, first and foremost, to train a generation of lawyers who are fully conversant with and equipped to utilize the 14th amendment as advocates – whether they are legislative advocates, whether they are litigators, whether they are educators, whatever they choose to do with their law degree.We’re seeing it right now with the section 3 challenges to Trump appearing on the ballot, which I find very exciting. The finest lawyers in our country did not learn about section 3 of the 14th amendment in law school. One of the reasons you’re seeing the controversies between different law scholars about whether Trump can be on the ballot is because it’s not been tried before. Fortunately for us, we have not faced an insurrection at the national level of this sort.You mentioned the section 3 cases. Why do you think there is this reluctance on the part of judges to intervene on this specific section in some instances?It hasn’t been done at this level, certainly at the presidential level. I think that judges are afraid. They’re afraid because of the political consequences, but I think given the particular nature of this candidate, it would not surprise me if judges were not at least pausing to consider personal consequences for them and their families. That is a sure sign that we are a democracy in peril. Mostly, it is fear.You hear people say all the time, let the voters decide. You don’t just ignore sections of the constitution because the voters can decide. That isn’t how it works. It isn’t that we could have state-sanctioned racial segregation in our schools because we put it to a vote. That’s not how it works. It’s trying to offload what was clearly an obligation that the framers of the 14th amendment believed had to be undertaken.What happens if Trump returns to the presidency?In very short order, we will cease to be a democracy. Trump has made clear what his plans are – a country in which the Department of Justice is weaponized against the perceived enemies of the president, a country in which the guarantees of civil service are destroyed, a country in which favors of governmental largesse and support are handed out based on personal allegiance to the president, the hijacking of the courts, and the encouragement of random political violence. It’s not a recipe for democracy.If he does win, then how do you and others who are engaged in all of this work try to rein him in, keep him accountable?You fight. It’s not even a question at that point of me and other people who do this work; it’s a question of every American who wants to live in a free democracy. What do you do? Do you acquiesce? Or do you resist? You show up, and you resist. Just as it’s happened in countries around the world, some of whom we admire tremendously. We are not immune and we have allowed too many guardrails to be breached. If we all ultimately end up having to pay that price, then we go back to the drawing board and we keep pushing to make this country a democracy again.What are you most concerned about in 2024?People checking out, deciding they don’t want to vote. It’s just not the time for that. People need to be all in and need to understand what the stakes are and need to get comfortable with what it means to vote for president, which is not that you’re necessarily voting for the perfect candidate or the candidate that you love. You’re voting for a candidate who is responsible, mature, who is sane, who is not merely using the government for their own ends, who understands government and who is prepared to actually govern and implement policies that are in the best interests of the people in this country, who is prepared to use the levers of power in ways that are democratic, open, transparent, that allow for dissent without retaliation.Those choices seem very clear to me. More