Evelyn Reynolds

On Tuesday afternoon, Claudine Gay resigned from her post as president of Harvard University, making her six-month tenure the shortest in university history. In the aftermath of her departure from the position, many argued that the aggressive nature of the campaign against her was motivated not by questions about her academic integrity or about her response to campus controversy, but by her race.Pressure on Gay to resign grew following her 5 December congressional testimony, where she, along with the presidents of MIT and the University of Pennsylvania, answered questions regarding allegations of on-campus antisemitism related to the Israel-Gaza war. Shortly thereafter, plagiarism allegations published on conservative website the Washington Free Beacon mounted against Gay, ultimately leading to her resignation.Janai Nelson, the president and direct-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “Attacks against Claudine Gay have been unrelenting & the biases unmasked. Her resignation on the heels of [UPenn president] Liz Magill’s set dangerous precedent in the academy for political witch hunts. The project isn’t to thwart hate but to foment it thru vicious takedowns. This protects no one.”Ibram X Kendi, the founder of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, wrote: “Racist mobs won’t stop until they topple all Black people from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing the structure of racism. What these racist mobs are doing should be obvious to any reporter who cares about truth or justice as opposed to conflicts and clicks.”In her resignation letter, Gay acknowledged the racism she experienced following her congressional testimony. And though she issued additional citations to her doctoral dissertation and other papers following the backlash, she also used the letter to defend the integrity of her work. “It has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor – two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am – and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus,” she wrote.The Harvard Corporation, the university’s governing body, issued a statement in support of Gay, condemning the racist vitriol she experienced.“While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks,” the statement reads. “While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”The attacks against Gay and the open admission by some rightwing pundits and activists to execute similar plans across higher education could have larger implications. Roopika Risam, an associate professor at Dartmouth, wrote: “While no one owes Harvard pity, we’d be remiss to not see this as an attack on higher ed, like ones in states like Florida and South Dakota (and and and…), laying the groundwork for ongoing dismantling higher ed – especially public higher ed, where states hold the purse strings.”Risam may have been referencing the efforts of people like Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who led the campaign against Gay. Last month, Rufo posted on X: “We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right. The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFollowing Gay’s resignation, Rufo posted: “Today, we celebrate victory. Tomorrow, we get back to the fight. We must not stop until we have abolished DEI ideology from every institution in America.”Elise M Stefanik, a representative from New York and Harvard alum, led one of the most aggressive lines of questioning during the congressional hearing. On 2 January, Stefanik posted on X: “TWO DOWN,” a reference to the resignations of both Gay and the University of Pennsylvania president, Elizabeth Magill.Gay will remain on the Harvard faculty following her resignation. But conservative lawmakers and pundits have indicated that the academic purge that began with efforts to overturn diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and swept up both Gay and Magill, will continue. More

More Americans are now stockpiling abortion pills in case they get pregnant, according to new research published Tuesday.Before Roe v Wade was overturned in June 2022, Aid Access, an organization that mails abortion pills to people across the US, received an average of 25 requests a day from people seeking the pills despite not being pregnant. After the leak of the supreme court decision to overturn Roe, that average shot up to 247 requests each day, the research published on Tuesday found.That number fell after the actual decision, but rose again to 172 a day in April 2023, as US courts signaled a willingness to restrict the availability of a major abortion pill.People have been turning to Aid Access for “advance provision” pills since September 2021, after Texas enacted a six-week abortion ban but long before the US supreme court overturned Roe and abolished the national right to abortion. Now, with wide swathes of the US south and midwest under abortion bans, an online market to request and obtain abortion pills is thriving.The study tracks requests between the beginning of September 2021 and the end of April 2023. In December 2023, the US supreme court announced that it would hear arguments in a case regarding the future of mifepristone, a major abortion pill. That case is expected to be decided by this summer.In total, over the study’s time frame, Aid Access tracked roughly 48,400 advance provision requests. It received more requests for advance provision pills from states that were anticipated to enact bans – even more than the requests from states that did enact bans.“It seems to suggest that what people are reacting to is the threat of reduced access, the threat of curtailment of reproductive rights,” said Dr Abigail Aiken, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin and a co-author of the study. “When you think about what advanced provision is, that makes sense, right? Advanced provision is getting out ahead of things. Advanced provision is advanced planning. Advanced provision is a way to protect a potential need you might have in the future if you think access to the service that would fulfill that need is going away.”Over the study period, Aid Access also received more than 147,00 requests from people seeking to end their existing pregnancies. Medical experts widely agree that it is safe to “self-manage” your own abortion, or perform an abortion outside of the formal US healthcare system, using pills within the first trimester of pregnancy.Compared with the people who wanted to terminate their existing pregnancies, people who sought advance provision pills were more likely to be white, child-free and living in urban areas. Choosing from a list of reasons, they most frequently told Aid Access that they wanted the pills to “ensure personal health and choice” and to “prepare for possible abortion restrictions”.Aid Access was launched in 2018 by Dr Rebecca Gomperts, a Dutch physician and one of the most visible abortion providers in the world. Gomperts, who co-authored the study published Tuesday, previously founded Women on Web, an organization that, like Aid Access, shipped abortion pills. However, Women on Web didn’t provide pills to the United States. Ultimately, Gomperts decided that the state of abortion access in the country was too dire to ignore.Advance provision pills cost $150 and should arrive within a few days of ordering, according to Aid Access’s website. During the time frame of the study, most of the pills were being shipped by overseas pharmacies, Aiken said.Now, to send abortion pills, US-based physicians associated with Aid Access have begun to rely on what are known as “shield laws”: protections in Democratic states for abortion providers who prescribe pills for patients in abortion-hostile states. This transition to focusing on using US providers was part of the reason for the study’s conclusion in April, Aiken said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It made sense to look at a time period where the service was entirely outside of the formal US healthcare setting,” Aiken said. “Now, I think a lot of people would argue that it’s happening within the formal healthcare setting, because it’s US provider-led and -based.”But while the US providers in blue states may be operating with the formal healthcare system, their patients in red states are not necessarily afforded the system’s protections and guidance. Someone who wants to get a check-up after an abortion, or even just talk to their doctor about their experience, may not feel able to.“In terms of the experience of the person actually using the pills, it may still look a lot more like a self-managed abortion,” Aiken said. “What that means for the nature of the service is an ongoing, interesting question that we’re thinking about now in the research field.”There was not much data available on what people ended up doing with the advance provision pills, Aiken said, since only a fraction followed up with Aid Access. However, of that fraction, most people still had the pills on standby months later.Last year, Gompertstold the Guardian that she wanted people to stock up on pills to protect themselves.“Don’t wait for the decision. Just get the medication now, get it in your house, get it in your hands,” she said. “If you’re in a war zone and the war is coming, you also make sure you have enough food in your house. This is how it feels. It really is a war. It’s a war on women.” More

US House Republicans will seek to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden’s secretary of homeland security, alleging “egregious misconduct and refusal to enforce the law” in relation to immigration policy and the southern border.In a statement to CNN on Wednesday, a spokesperson said the House homeland security committee had conducted “a comprehensive investigation into Secretary Mayorkas’s handling of, and role in, the unprecedented crisis at the south-west border.“Following the bipartisan vote in the House to refer articles of impeachment against the secretary to our committee, we will be conducting hearings and taking up those articles in the coming weeks.”A spokesperson told Reuters the first hearing would be next Wednesday, 10 January.In November, a resolution to impeach Mayorkas was blocked, and referred to the committee, when eight Republicans sided with Democrats against a measure introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Trump supporter from Georgia.Conditions at the border with Mexico have worsened and Biden officials acknowledge a backlog of 3m asylum cases. Seeking draconian reforms, Republicans have made the issue central to talks over federal government funding and aid to Ukraine.On Wednesday, the House Republican spokesperson told CNN impeachment would “ensure that the public is aware of the scope of Secretary Mayorkas’s egregious misconduct and refusal to enforce the law”.In return, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson accused Republicans of “wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise that has been rejected by members of both parties and already failed on a bipartisan vote.“There is no valid basis to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, as senior members of the House majority have attested, and this extreme impeachment push is a harmful distraction from our critical national security priorities.”Mayorkas told NBC he would “most certainly” cooperate with impeachment proceedings, adding: “And I’m going to continue to do my work, as well.”That work, he said, involved “join[ing] the bipartisan group of senators to work on a legislative solution to a broken immigration system. I was on the Hill yesterday to provide technical advice in those ongoing negotiations. Before I headed to the Hill, I was in the office working on solutions. After my visit to the Hill, I was back in my office, working on solutions.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSpeaking to CNN, Mayorkas said his department did not have the resources to “perform our jobs as fully and completely as we could”.“We need additional personnel to advance our security at the border. We need technology to advance our fight against fentanyl [coming into the US]. We need additional asylum officers to really accelerate the asylum adjudication process.”The House speaker, Mike Johnson, was due on Wednesday to visit the border as part of a 60-strong Republican delegation. The visit underlined the political nature of immigration battles in a presidential election year.The deputy White House press secretary, Andrew Bates, said: “After voting in 2023 to eliminate over 2,000 border patrol agents and erode our capacity to seize fentanyl, House Republicans left Washington in mid-December even as President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate remained to forge ahead on a bipartisan agreement.”House Republicans, Bates added, had “obstructed [Biden’s] reform proposal and consistently voted against his unprecedented border security funding year after year, hamstringing our border security in the name of extreme, partisan demands”. More

A little over nine months after he was sworn in to his first term in Congress, Jeff Jackson, a freshman US representative for North Carolina, announced he would leave the body at the end of his term.To an outsider, that might seem like a surprising decision. In just his first few months in Congress, Jackson had become well-known for smart, short videos explaining what was going on at the Capitol. By April, he had more followers on TikTok than any other member of Congress, the Washington Post reported (as of mid-December he had 2.5 million). By all accounts, he was a rising star.But the reason for his planned departure was simple – it was impossible for him to win re-election. In October, Republicans enacted a new congressional map that reconfigured the boundaries of his district. They cracked the district near Charlotte, which Jackson won by more than 15 points in 2022, and divided voters into two districts that heavily favor GOP voters. It was an effort made possible by the new Republican majority on the North Carolina supreme court, which reversed a key ruling limiting extreme partisan gerrymandering it issued just months ago. Jackson announced he would run for attorney general in the state instead.The Guardian spoke to Jackson about gerrymandering, what he’s learned in Congress, and his decision to leave. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.You get that phone call – and you have no chance of winning re-election. What’s that like?To be honest, we knew it was very likely to end up that way. I was not shocked. They had absolute power to draw almost any map they wanted. And we all know what absolute power does to politicians. Frankly, it would have been a shock if we hadn’t seen this level of corruption from them.So you sort of knew that this was coming.I didn’t know it to a certainty. And I didn’t have any advance information. I just knew the legal freedom that our court was going to grant them and I knew what their incentives were. So if you have that information you can predict the outcome.Can I ask you what happened with the supreme court in North Carolina. Obviously, they switched their rulings on the districts within a matter of months after control of the court flipped. And some people might look at that and say that’s not surprising, the partisan makeup changes, the rulings change. Is there something there that you think people should pay more attention to?On its face it’s deeply concerning. I don’t think you have to know much about the court or politics to see exactly what happened here. This is one of those instances where one of the most obvious explanations is simply the right one. The court was elected with a different partisan composition and they acted in a partisan way to accommodate their party. I think the simple read here is the right one.And do you think people pay close enough attention to what’s happening in supreme court races? I mean, there was one in North Carolina that was decided by 400 votes.I am absolutely positive that they do not. Just with my conversations with voters over the years, the judicial races are the ones furthest from people’s radar.Why do you think that is and how do you get people to pay more attention to them?We haven’t had partisan judicial races for a really long time in North Carolina. That’s a recent development. We’re the first state in a long time, many decades, to go from non-partisan judicial races to partisan judicial races.So I think most people in North Carolina just grew up with an understanding that these judicial races were not partisan and were probably between judges and lawyers who wanted to be a judge. But now that’s not the case. Now these offices come with prepackaged partisan agendas as we saw with redistricting in North Carolina.Is there any hope of fixing this problem in North Carolina?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe gerrymandering fix in North Carolina is a long-term fix. There are no immediate prospects for this because of the hurdles that you cited. The only way to mitigate it is by doubling down on our effort to get people to the polls. The only way you overcome the seawall of gerrymandering is through an energetic approach to turning out the vote, and that’s what we’re gonna do.Going back to your district, what do you think the consequences are going to be for voters?That’s a good question, particularly when it’s a brutal gerrymander. The state legislature basically used redistricting to take as much power away from voters as they possibly could. They found the true ceiling of how much electoral power they should shift from the voters to themselves. I don’t care which party you’re in, you really shouldn’t appreciate elections being decided for you for the rest of the decade by the state legislature drawing the map, which is exactly what happened.Walk me through your decision to not run for this new district and to run for attorney general?I’ve appreciated the opportunity to serve in Congress. I’ve found it highly educational and [there have been] moments where I felt really productive but I also appreciate the opportunity to serve as attorney general. The job is to protect people. It’s our state’s top prosecutor. I started my career at the district attorney’s office and it’s about guarding against consumer fraud and keeping kids safe online and combatting the fentanyl epidemic and protecting clean air and water.One thing about the job that’s really great is that it’s really not about the type of jobs you see in Congress. It’s not so much about left versus right. It’s just about doing what’s right. Having been in a highly charged partisan environment like Congress, serving as attorney general would be completely different in a really refreshing way.You were in Congress for a relatively short time – what are your takeaways from what you learned there? Your videos about what it’s like to be a congressman I think really struck a chord with a lot of people.There are a lot of serious people here who want to do good work and they tend to be the people whose names you might not know. And getting to know a lot of those people and find ways to work with them has been a rewarding part of the experience.Another rewarding part, to your point, has been learning that there’s enormous appetite by the American public for being spoken to in a calm, reasonable, sensible way about politics. That wasn’t necessarily what I expected. They’re so used to being screamed at that I sort of thought what I was offering wasn’t going to gain much traction beyond my district, beyond people who personally knew me. But as it turns out there’s huge demand for being spoken to in a normal tone of voice about what’s happening in Congress. I think that’s really encouraging.Can I also ask you one more question about this new law that messes with the composition of local boards of elections? There’s concerns that could be used to interfere with certifying election results in other matters. Is that something that you’re concerned about and that you would be focused on as attorney general?Any time the same group of people who just gerrymandered the heck out of the whole state say that they have some ideas about tinkering with the state board of elections, it should make the hair on the back of everyone’s neck stand up. These people are flatly not to be trusted when it comes to taking power away from the voters. More

During 2023, the shape of politics to come appeared in a video. In it, Hillary Clinton – the former Democratic party presidential candidate and secretary of state – says: “You know, people might be surprised to hear me saying this, but I actually like Ron DeSantis a lot. Yeah, I know. I’d say he’s just the kind of guy this country needs.”It seems odd that Clinton would warmly endorse a Republican presidential hopeful. And it is. Further investigations found the video was produced using generative artificial intelligence (AI).The Clinton video is only one small example of how generative AI could profoundly reshape politics in the near future. Experts have pointed out the consequences for elections. These include the possibility of false information being created at little or no cost and highly personalised advertising being produced to manipulate voters. The results could be so-called “October surprises” – ie a piece of news that breaks just before the US elections in November, where misinformation is circulated and there is insufficient time to refute it – and the generation of misleading information about electoral administration, such as where polling stations are.Concerns about the impact of generative AI on elections have become urgent as we enter a year in which billions of people across the planet will vote. During 2024, it is projected that there will be elections in Taiwan, India, Russia, South Africa, Mexico, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, the European Union, the US and the UK. Many of these elections will not determine just the future of nation states; they will also shape how we tackle global challenges such as geopolitical tensions and the climate crisis. It is likely that each of these elections will be influenced by new generative AI technologies in the same way the elections of the 2010s were shaped by social media.While politicians spent millions harnessing the power of social media to shape elections during the 2010s, generative AI effectively reduces the cost of producing empty and misleading information to zero. This is particularly concerning because during the past decade, we have witnessed the role that so-called “bullshit” can play in politics. In a short book on the topic, the late Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined bullshit specifically as speech intended to persuade without regard to the truth. Throughout the 2010s this appeared to become an increasingly common practice among political leaders. With the rise of generative AI and technologies such as ChatGPT, we could see the rise of a phenomenon my colleagues and I label “botshit”.In a recent paper, Tim Hannigan, Ian McCarthy and I sought to understand what exactly botshit is and how it works. It is well known that generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT can produce what are called “hallucinations”. This is because generative AI answers questions by making statistically informed guesses. Often these guesses are correct, but sometimes they are wildly off. The result can be artificially generated “hallucinations” that bear little relationship to reality, such as explanations or images that seem superficially plausible, but aren’t actually the correct answer to whatever the question was.Humans might use untrue material created by generative AI in an uncritical and thoughtless way. And that could make it harder for people to know what is true and false in the world. In some cases, these risks might be relatively low, for example if generative AI were used for a task that was not very important (such as to come up with some ideas for a birthday party speech), or if the truth of the output were easily verifiable using another source (such as when did the battle of Waterloo happen). The real problems arise when the outputs of generative AI have important consequences and the outputs can’t easily be verified.If AI-produced hallucinations are used to answer important but difficult to verify questions, such as the state of the economy or the war in Ukraine, there is a real danger it could create an environment where some people start to make important voting decisions based on an entirely illusory universe of information. There is a danger that voters could end up living in generated online realities that are based on a toxic mixture of AI hallucinations and political expediency.Although AI technologies pose dangers, there are measures that could be taken to limit them. Technology companies could continue to use watermarking, which allows users to easily identify AI-generated content. They could also ensure AIs are trained on authoritative information sources. Journalists could take extra precautions to avoid covering AI-generated stories during an election cycle. Political parties could develop policies to prevent the use of deceptive AI-generated information. Most importantly, voters could exercise their critical judgment by reality-checking important pieces of information they are unsure about.The rise of generative AI has already started to fundamentally change many professions and industries. Politics is likely to be at the forefront of this change. The Brookings Institution points out that there are many positive ways generative AI could be used in politics. But at the moment its negative uses are most obvious, and more likely to affect us imminently. It is vital we strive to ensure that generative AI is used for beneficial purposes and does not simply lead to more botshit.
André Spicer is professor of organisational behaviour at the Bayes Business School at City, University of London. He is the author of the book Business Bullshit More

Chalk up 2023 as Rudy Giuliani’s annus horribilis. On the other hand, 2024 may even be worse. The man once known as “America’s mayor” faces financial ruin and criminal prosecution with no end in sight to his woes. The hair-dye dripping down his face at a 2020 press conference ominously presaged what would eventually follow. It took less than two decades for the former federal prosecutor and contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination to morph into a punchline, full-time defendant and deadbeat.Back in the day, Giuliani garnered a reputation for crime-busting – perp-walking Wall Street bankers and sending mobsters to jail. In summer 2023, a Fulton county, Georgia, grand jury indicted him on state-law racketeering charges along with the 45th president and a host of supporting characters.As the year closed, Donald Trump’s henchman-in-chief lost a $148m defamation verdict in federal court for sliming two Georgia election workers. Days later, he filed for bankruptcy. Yet even before that he was banging a tin cup.Reports repeatedly surfaced of Giuliani personally begging his godfather to pick up his legal tab. Long story short, that didn’t happen. Instead, Trump threw a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser to help pay his legal bills, but apparently little else.Giuliani’s sell-by date had long expired. Then again, Trump had already done plenty for – and to – his sometime sidekick.Depressed and drinking to excess after his failed-presidential run, Giuliani secretly recovered at Trump’s Palm Beach home years earlier. “We moved into Mar-a-Lago and Donald kept our secret,” Giuliani’s third wife, Judith Giuliani, said in Andrew Kirtzman’s 2022 book, Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor.Even knowing Giuliani’s capacity to go off the rails, Trump had considered him for a cabinet position, then effectively deputized him as his personal emissary to dig for dirt in Ukraine on Hunter Biden and subsequently tapped him as counsel in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.In a word, Giuliani isn’t the only one with seemingly addled judgment. As luck would have it, Rudy’s relationship with alcohol has gained the attention of federal prosecutors. His conduct and possible inebriation on election night 2020, could undermine a Trump defense based upon reliance on counsel.“The mayor was definitely intoxicated,” Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser and a veteran of Giuliani’s presidential campaign, told the House special committee last year. “But I do not know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president.” For the record, Giuliani excoriated Miller and denied his contentions.Rudy’s bankruptcy filing lists his assets as between $1m and $10m, his debts between $100m and $500m. Under the category of “Taxes and certain other debts you owe the government”, he is on the hook to the IRS for more than $720,000 and to New York state for over $260,000.Beyond that, he is fighting over legal bills that amount to millions, and lists Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, the plaintiffs in the $148m defamation case, as creditors. Other cameos include Smartmatic USA Corp; US Dominion, Inc; Robert Hunter Biden, the president’s wayward son; and Noelle Dunphy.Freeman and Moss are not alone. Giuliani also allegedly defamed Smartmatic, Dominion and their respective voting machines in connection with the 2020 election. As for Hunter Biden, think of it as a cage match.Dunphy’s claims, however, offer another window into Rudy’s strange universe. In May 2023, Dunphy, a former Giuliani associate, sued him for $10m, alleging “abuses of power, wide-ranging sexual assault and harassment, wage theft and other misconduct” including “alcohol-drenched rants that included sexist, racist and antisemitic remarks”.Her pleadings add, “Many of these comments were recorded.” According to Dunphy, he chugged Viagra non-stop. “Giuliani would look to Ms Dunphy, point to his erect penis, and tell her that he could not do any work until ‘you take care of this’.”Dunphy’s complaint also alleges that Giuliani asked Dunphy “if she knew anyone in need of a pardon” because “he was selling pardons for $2m, which he and President Trump would split”.She also asserts that she was “given access to emails from, to, or concerning President Trump, the Trump family … and other notable figures including … President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey …” With the Middle East on fire, that thread may prove more than simply interesting.In 2017, in the early days of the Trump administration, Giuliani represented Reza Zarrab, a Turkish-Iranian gold trader charged with helping Iran to dodge US sanctions and launder hundreds of millions.During a “contentious” Oval Office meeting, Giuliani pressed for the release of Zarrab as part of a potential prisoner swap with Turkey. In turn, Trump reportedly urged the US Department of Justice to drop its case. Eventually, Zarrab accepted a plea deal and emerged as a cooperating witness.Recently, Erdoğan has defended Hamas and compared Hitler favorably to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Meanwhile, Iran is now trying to take credit for the horrors of 7 October.Giuliani is “used to willing people to do his bidding, the same way Trump is”, Ken Frydman, a former Giuliani campaign press secretary, told CNN earlier in December. “And it’s not working any more. So he’s just flailing around … desperately trying to stay out of jail.”There’s family history there. Rudy’s father, Harold Giuliani, was a stick-up man and leg-breaker for the mob. He also did prison time at Sing Sing, a correctional facility in upstate New York.
Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More

Ailing in opinion polls, Joe Biden will aim to jump-start his re-election campaign in the coming week with events designed to symbolise the fight for democracy and racial justice against Donald Trump.The Biden-Harris campaign announced the plans in a conference call with reporters that mentioned Trump by name 28 times in just 24 minutes, a sign of its determination to draw a sharp contrast between the US president and his likely Republican challenger.On Saturday Biden will deliver a major address laying out the stakes of the election at Valley Forge, near Philadelphia, the site of a 1777-1778 winter encampment of the Continental Army led by George Washington during the American revolutionary war.It was at Valley Forge that a disorganised alliance of colonial militias was transformed into a cohesive coalition united in the battle for democracy, the Biden-Harris campaign told reporters, noting that Washington became president but then relinquished power.“There the president will make the case directly that democracy and freedom – two powerful ideas that united the 13 colonies and that generations throughout our nation’s history have fought and died for a stone’s throw from where he’ll be Saturday – remain central to the fight we’re in today,” said the principal deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks.Then, on Monday, Biden will speak at Mother Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina, where in 2015 nine African American worshippers were killed by a white supremacist while they were praying at the end of Bible study.Fulks described it as “a historic venue that embodies the stakes of our nation at this moment because whether it is white supremacists descending on the historic American city or Charlottesville, the assault on our nation’s capital on January 6 or white supremacists murdering churchgoers at Mother Emanuel nearly nine years ago, America is worried about the rise in political violence and determined to stand against it”.The vice-president, Kamala Harris, will also travel to South Carolina on Saturday to address the 7th Episcopal District AME church Women’s Missionary Society annual retreat and, later this month, launch a “reproductive freedoms tour” in Wisconsin, highlighting the “chaos and cruelty” unleashed by the overturning of the constitutional right to abortion.Speaking from the campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, Fulks told reporters: “You can expect the entirety of our campaign to be out in full force later this month on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, making crystal clear to every American to that the freedom for women to make their own healthcare decisions is on the ballot this November.”But the conference call made no mention of Biden’s leadership during the war in Ukraine, where Congress now threatens to cut off funding, nor the war in Gaza, which has been the most divisive foreign policy issue of his presidency. The campaign team also avoided the subject of Biden’s age – at 81 he is the oldest president in American history.The call did dwell on the January 6 insurrection, however, underlining how the Biden campaign is intent on making the election less a referendum on his presidency than a choice between the incumbent and Trump, who has been twice impeached and indicted in four separate cases and is facing 91 criminal counts.Julie Chávez Rodríguez, the campaign manager, said: “When Joe Biden ran for president four years ago, he said, ‘We are in the battle for the soul of America’ and as we look towards November 2024, we still are. The threat Donald Trump posed in 2020 to American democracy has only grown more dire in the years since.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Biden enters the new year with the lowest approval rating of any modern-day president seeking re-election. Voters have expressed concerns over crime, immigration and inflation, which hit 40-year highs in 2022. Branding exercises such as “Bidenomics” appear to have fallen flat.Polls show the president losing support among voters of colour in particular. On Monday a USA Today and Suffolk University survey showed Trump on 39% support among Latino voters, ahead of Biden on 34%, a dramatic reversal from 2020 when Biden enjoyed 65% support from Latino voters.Fulks said voters of color have most at stake in the election and denied that there is cause for panic. “Our campaign has been putting in the work to do everything we need to do to communicate with communities of color next fall to make sure that they turn out,” he said, noting that the campaign has made the “biggest and earliest ever investment for a re-election campaign into constituency media”.He added: “We started by doing early organizing efforts targeting the voters that make up the Biden-Harris coalition and that sends a clear signal that we’re not going to wait and parachute into these communities at the last minute and ask them for their vote. We’re going to earn their vote.“We know that we have to communicate to these constituencies about what this administration has done; we have to communicate with these constituencies about the dangers that the other side poses; and we’re going to do both.” More

There are big election years and then there is 2024. In the US that means a full primary season in which Donald Trump looks set to be confirmed as the Republican party’s presidential nominee before an election expected to be an extremely tight re-run of the race in 2020. Meanwhile in the UK, polls show Labour is favourite to return to power after an absence from government of 14 years. But as Jonathan Freedland tells Michael Safi, nothing is predictable – and even more so when these elections collide. This last happened in 1992, when John Major held on as prime minister in the UK and Bill Clinton came to power in the US. But much has changed since then: now candidates must contend with a wild west of social media as well as the new influence of AI-assisted disinformation campaigns. That and an increasingly polarised electorate and economies still reeling from the Covid crisis. If there is one certainty it’s this: it won’t be boring. More