Evelyn Reynolds

George Anthony Devolder Santos was born in 1988 with a serious congenital condition which means he is incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment. I’m not sure what the name of the affliction is or whether it’s recognized by the medical establishment – but many of his former colleagues in government seem to suffer from the same thing.Still, the disgraced New York Republican, who was expelled from Congress three weeks ago and pleaded not guilty in October to a total of 23 federal felony charges ranging from wire fraud to money laundering, clearly has an extreme case. Santos, who was elected to represent parts of Long Island and Queens last year, has been dogged by controversy throughout his short political career. It turns out he lied about pretty much everything in his life – including his mother surviving 9/11.Every time he’s been called out on his lies and alleged frauds, however, he’s shrugged his shoulders and acted as if people were making a fuss out of nothing. “It’s the vulnerability of being human,” he said loftily when challenged on his claims to have an extensive property portfolio, for example. “I am not embarrassed by it.”Santos, who is just the sixth person ever to be expelled from Congress, doesn’t seem particularly fazed by his ousting either. I don’t know about you, but if I’d been kicked out of Congress – and was facing a 23-count federal indictment that alleged, inter alia, that I’d stolen campaign donors’ identities and charged thousands of dollars to their credit cards for things like Botox without their knowledge – I’d probably feel a tad sheepish. I’d probably lie low for a bit and try to avoid doing anything that brought undue attention to myself or got me into even more legal trouble.Santos, however? He’s busy trying to reinvent himself. He hasn’t let disgrace bring him down. Instead, Santos, the first non-incumbent gay Republican ever elected to Congress, seems to be busy trying to turn himself into some kind of ironic gay icon and is leaning into his camp and outlandish persona as far as he possibly can.He recently announced an X subscription where he promises to “spill tea” on Congress for just $7 a month, for example. He also signed up as a “former congressional ‘Icon’!” to Cameo, a website that offers access to personalized messages from celebrities. For a mere $200-$500 you can get a video message from him.Are people actually paying for this? I’m afraid they are! A friend of the Nebraska state senator Megan Hunt, who is bisexual and a big supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, hired Santos – who has endorsed several anti-trans policies – to send her a message of support which was widely shared.“Be yourself unapologetically,” Santos said in the video, seemingly oblivious that he had supported laws that would stop people doing just that. “Just love yourself. Just make sure that you don’t buy into the hate and stand your ground and don’t let them force you out. Don’t let them bully you. You do you, girl. I’m cheering for ya.”Then there was this week’s much-anticipated interview with Ziwe Fumudoh, a comedian famous for her deadpan interviews. Santos used drag slang like “boots the house down” (an expression of enthusiasm) multiple times throughout the interview in a seeming attempt to remind us all that he may be a disgrace and a Republican but he’s also gay, so he can’t be all bad, ya know?While he may be familiar with gay slang, Santos doesn’t seem to know much about LGBTQ+ history. Ziwe quizzed Santos on civil rights icons (the former politician once compared himself to Rosa Parks) and he admitted he had no idea who James Baldwin or Harvey Milk were. He also didn’t seem familiar with the transgender activist Marsha P Johnson.What about Santos’s own gay history? Namely allegations that Santos, a supporter of anti-LGBTQ+ policies like Florida’s “don’t say gay” law, had been a drag queen in the past. That was true, Santos said, but only for a day. “If I was a career drag queen then, like everybody likes to claim, then I must be a myth of a drag queen now … I wear far more makeup today.”The most important question Ziwe asked was probably her most earnest. “What could we do to get you to go away?” she demanded towards the end, speaking for a nation. “Stop inviting me to your gigs,” Santos replied quickly. “But you can’t. Because people want the content.”Santos may be fond of fiction but, for once, he was speaking the complete truth. You can be forgiven for pretty much anything in America if you generate entertaining enough content. You can lie, you can cheat, you can commit all manner of sins – but if you draw eyeballs and generate headlines you will probably be forgiven. You might even become president! And you certainly won’t go broke. The talkshow appearances, the book deals, the invitations to Dancing on the Stars will come.That said, there are a few things that do tend to kill your career in America. Espousing pro-Palestinian views being a major one. Ziwe, in fact, joked about that herself. “Do you support a ceasefire or are you afraid of losing your Hollywood representation?” she asked Santos at one point during the 18-minute interview.The former congressman, in case you’re interested, made it very clear that he did not support a ceasefire in Gaza, where more than 20,000 people have died. What a strange world we live in, where calling for a ceasefire can get you cancelled faster than using campaign money on shopping sprees and lying your way into Congress.Ziwe is hilarious but, despite the laughs, the interview with Santos ultimately left a bad taste in one’s mouth. You can’t “gotcha” a guy like Santos. You can’t embarrass him. You can’t expose him. You can’t unsettle him. At one point, for example, Ziwe asked: “What advice do you have for young diverse people with personality disorders considering a career in politics?” Most people would get flustered. Santos just paused for a while then said, “You’re cute.”Ultimately, none of this is cute. Platforming a guy like Santos, a bigot who thrives on the oxygen of attention, only helps to rehabilitate him. We may think we’re laughing at the ex-congressman but with every view his interviews rack up, it’s clear that the joke is on us.
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian US columnist More

Donald Trump has the tacit blessing of senior Republican figures as he seeks to put border security front and center of the 2024 election by deploying fascistic language to fire up his support base, political analysts warn.The frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 has called for a sharp crackdown on immigration and asserted at a weekend rally that migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”.The comment drew on words similar to the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in his autobiography and manifesto Mein Kampf.But, despite widespread condemnation of Trump’s remarks, some top Republicans have shied away from criticizing the former US president, who is the overwhelming favorite to win the party’s nod to face off against Joe Biden in the race for the White House.Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC’s Meet the Press: “I could care less what language people use as long as we get it right … I think the president has a way of talking sometimes I disagree with. But he actually delivered on the border.” Nicole Malliotakis, a New York congresswoman, told CNN: “He never said ‘immigrants are poisoning’, though … He didn’t say the word ‘immigrants’.”And this week Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, signed a law that allows police to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally and permits judges to order them to leave the US. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said: “It is very much in line with what many Republicans like to do or tend to do, which is demonise immigrants and also dehumanise immigrants.”Activists note how the Republican party has veered right with Trump. Maria Teresa Kumar, president and chief executive of Voto Latino, a grassroots political organisation, said via email: “Trump may say the quiet parts loud, but he’s far from alone. There were members of the Republican party not long ago who understood the need for bringing the country together. [President George W] Bush, a Texan, sought immigration reform.“Today, we see elected Republicans use rhetoric and policies for political expediency at the cost of unification. There is no doubt that we are living in a multicultural democracy – the first in history. Instead of embracing this superpower that will serve us well on the world stage, they choose division that hurts millions of fellow citizens.”Immigration is one of the most divisive problems in American politics, and bipartisan reform attempts have repeatedly failed over the past two decades. On Tuesday leaders of the Senate said a deal to bolster border security and provide additional aid to Ukraine is unlikely to come together soon.The White House’s willingness to consider concessions, and even a revival of Trump-like policies, has drawn fierce condemnation from progressives in Congress and activists who say the ideas would gut the asylum system and spark fears of deportations from immigrants already living in the US.Kumar warned against policymaking based on fearmongering. “Right now, extremists have taken the issue hostage, and they are making a commonsense solution impossible. The current immigration debate is way out of step with where Americans are on the issue, and I expect this will drive Latinos and moderates to the polls in 2024.”While Trump’s language echoes Nazis in its extremism, it arrives in the context of years of Republicans shifting the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable. Tom Tancredo, a former congressman from Colorado, pushed for strict immigration laws and enforcement and was accused of ties to white nationalist groups.Steve King, a former congressman from Iowa, once compared immigrants to dogs and defended the terms “white nationalism” and “white supremacy”. (King has recently campaigned with the rightwing Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in Iowa.) Nativist dog whistles have now been replaced by a totalitarian bullhorn.Joe Walsh, elected to Congress in the populist Tea Party wave of 2010, said of Trump’s recent comments: “As someone who used to say shit like that too much, I know that this issue animates the Republican party base better than any other issue, so Trump will keep saying shit like this because it works.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMore than seven in 10 Republicans (72%) say newcomers are a threat, compared with a far lower percentage of independents (43%) and Democrats (21%), according to a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington. Two in three Republicans agree with the “great replacement” theory, which posits an elite conspiracy to supplant and disempower white people.Walsh, now a podcast host and outspoken Trump critic, added: “The Republican party base is older and white. You can scare the shit out of them by talking about all these brown and Black people coming from all these different countries into America and it’s going to change America. That scares the white party base more than anything.”But while Democrats abhor Trump’s choice of words, some may be vulnerable to the underlying message. As record numbers cross the US-Mexico border, seven in 10 voters disapprove of the president’s performance on immigration, according to a Monmouth University opinion poll released this week. It is no longer an issue for border states alone as thousands of migrants are bussed to major cities.Walsh commented: “Democrats better watch out because this issue – not Trump’s language – is a huge vulnerability for Joe Biden and the Democrats. There are a lot of people outside of the Maga [Make America Great Again] base who care about our border but are too afraid to say anything. This issue has resonance.”Democrats are on the defensive. At a press conference, Chuck Schumer, the majority leader in the Senate, conceded: “What Donald Trump said and did was despicable, but we do have a problem at the border and Democrats know we have to solve that problem, but in keeping with our principles.”For many it is cause for alarm ahead of next year’s presidential election, expected to be a rematch between Biden and Trump. John Zogby, an author and pollster, said: “What had been evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans on the border and on undocumented workers has shifted now towards Trump.“He is defining the issue. The stance on border security is much more defined and much more the dominant position than the issue behind fairness, equity, even the role of federal government. Those who care about undocumented workers are just not in the mainstream any more.” More

Should there be a political price to pay for a president who refuses to engage in a peaceful transfer of power and incites a violent coup to stay in office?Common sense says yes.As does a majority vote of the Colorado supreme court. But since their stunning ruling this week that Donald Trump may not appear on their state’s primary ballot, many a lawyer and pundit is arguing otherwise.They say, for example, that it’s not the role of a court but of the voters to decide a matter of such import. They don’t seem to recall that the voters did decide in 2020 when they elected Joe Biden, but that Trump refused to accept that decision and did everything in his power to reverse it.Others allow that the constitution does provide that insurrection is disqualifying but they ponder whether Trump – without a legal conviction – really fits that definition. And in some cases, these critics twist themselves into verbal knots to express their doubt.“I generally say that Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York magazine. “Insurrection,” he notes, may be useful shorthand for Trump’s role but it’s too imprecise to accomplish what the Colorado jurists say it does.President Biden sounded sensible when asked by a reporter if Trump is an insurrectionist. “It’s self-evident … he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero.”But even Biden, hardly a disinterested party, admits another obvious factor: the US supreme court will make the ultimate decision.The smart money seems to be on the court’s ruling in Trump’s favor.Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the Nation, predicted that the highest court will overturn Colorado 8-1, that the opinion will be written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, and only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will dissent.“John Roberts is probably standing outside Elena Kagan’s office like [actor John Cusack] with a jukebox right now,” Mystal quipped, alluding to the iconic pleading-for-attention scene in the 1989 movie Say Anything. “He needs her for cover for what he’s about to do … He’s playing a full 80s mixtape.”Other anti-Trumpers remain more hopeful, for some plausible reasons. One is that that conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, before he rose to his current lofty position, once wrote that states may and should protect the integrity of the political process by keeping candidates off the ballot if they are “constitutionally prohibited from assuming office”.I’m no constitutional lawyer but Trump’s post-election actions like inciting an insurrection and pushing a fake-electors scheme seem strong enough to fit that bill. But, of course, there are ways to justify the opposite.“A serious and careful opinion that reaches a reasonable conclusion,” was how the UCLA law professor Rick Hasen characterized the Colorado ruling. But he noted that, whether on the merits or on doctrinal grounds, the supreme court certainly can find grounds to disagree.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHasen calls it imperative that the court move quickly: “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for president is eligible.” A later determination of eligibility, especially if it were to involve congressional Democrats, “would be tremendously destabilizing”.For me, it comes down to this. Trump is an anti-democracy candidate, and his actions, over the past eight years, have proven that, time after time.Too many Americans are so inured to his firehose of outrages that they don’t see as clearly as the Colorado jurists do that this man now should not be eligible for the leadership of the free world. Mainstream media’s horserace fixation, and rightwing media’s relentless propaganda, has made that blindness worse. (On Thursday morning, Fox News offered this mind-blowing chyron: “GOP leaders suggest removing Biden from red-state ballots over border crisis.”)Even if the Colorado justices don’t prevail, I am grateful to them for stating some obvious truths: that Trump has gone far beyond the limits of what’s acceptable in a candidate for highest office. That the checks and balances of the branches of government exist for a reason. That Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of insurrection, though he may eventually be, to be disqualified via the 14th amendment of the US constitution.After all he’s done – especially in the shocking wake of the 2020 election – Trump is clearly unfit for office.Whatever the outcome, having that recognized by a well-respected state court is a victory for common sense and integrity.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

Links between the new Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and key Christian nationalist leaders have sparked fears the devout Louisiana congressman might seek to erode elements of the first amendment, which protects key US civil liberties including freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.Long before th eevangelical conservative Johnson became speaker, he had forged close ties with Christian nationalists like David Barton, whose writings claiming the country’s founders intended to create a Christian nation have been widely debunked by religion scholars.Although Barton, a self-styled historian, has been heavily criticized for distorting the first amendment by promoting the flawed idea there should be no separation between church and state, Johnson has hailed him as an important mentor and Barton has returned the praise.Johnson lauded Barton effusively in 2021 at an event sponsored by the Texas-based Christian nationalist group WallBuilders which Barton founded 35 years ago to promote a conservative family values agenda, citing his “profound influence on me, and my work, and my life in everything I do”.Little wonder that a day after Johnson became speaker in October Barton, who has worked closely with the rightwing GOP senator Ted Cruz and conservative legislators, boasted in a podcast that he had already talked with Johnson, about helping find staff for his office.“We have some tools at our disposal now [that] we haven’t had in a long time,” allowed Barton who has dubbed Johnson a “God guy”.A Johnson spokesman said neither “the speaker, nor his office, have had any subsequent conversations with Mr Barton about staff”.Still, the ties and mutual admiration between Johnson and Barton suggest they are now poised to bolster one another politically and in Christian nationalist circles, spurring some scholars to stress they hold dangerous views about America’s founding principles and the first amendment.“Johnson has bought into the malignant cancer about America being a Christian nation which Barton has propagated, ” said Randall Balmer, a Dartmouth historian of religion.“For Barton and Johnson to subvert the first amendment is both dishonest and myopic. Dishonest because the founders were abundantly clear that they intended church and state to be separate entities. Myopic because the lack of a religious establishment – the separation of church and state – has been the best friend that religion ever had.”Other scholars voice alarms at the deep ties between Johnson and Barton, one of whose books was withdrawn by its publisher due to errors.“It is dangerous to the country that the speaker of the House is relying for his understanding of American history on a writer who has zero credibility in the history profession,” said David A Hollinger, an historian of religion at Berkeley and a former president of the Organization of American Historians.Despite such stinging criticism, since Barton founded WallBuilders in 1988 he has helped build a strong Christian nationalist and political network with rightwing state legislators which seems poised to expand its influence with the rise of Johnson to speaker.The wide-ranging missions of WallBuilders are palpable on its website.“American liberty is being eroded, and our Biblical foundation is under attack. Here at WallBuilders, we provide education, training, and resources to equip people to know and defend the truth to protect our freedom.”The group’s mission includes “providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values”.WallBuilders expanded its ties with conservative state legislators by launching the “ProFamily Legislative Network” in 1998 to help push bills on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and other hot button issues for the religious right, and host a yearly conference with legislators.When Cruz sought the GOP nomination for president in 2016, Barton did a stint leading a Cruz Super Pac. Barton has also served as vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party, and been a consultant to the Republican National Committee.To spur its growth, WallBuilders has lured some big checks from mega-donors including $3.2m from the Thirteen Foundation helmed by fracking billionaire and pastor Farris Wilks who has railed against homosexuality and equated the climate crisis with God’s will. Wilks, his brother Dan and their wives also donated $15m to a Cruz Super Pac during his run for president.WallBuilders, which now boasts Barton’s son Tim as president, has been on a fundraising roll with its annual revenues reaching $5.9m in 2021 versus $1.9m in 2017.Despite his powerful rightwing network, Barton’s career has been dogged by big headaches due to multiple inaccuracies in his book The Jefferson Lies.The nation’s largest religious book publisher, Thomas Nelson, in 2012 pulled back Barton’s book due to mounting criticism of its errors.Nonetheless, WallBuilders sells sizable quantities of Barton’s books and writings espousing his views. Barton’s messages have also been boosted in recent years via the rightwing Patriot Academy led by the evangelist and ex-Texas legislator Rick Green.Barton has also been a star attraction on the American Restoration tour, a far-right project that espouses the Christian nationalist view there should be no separation between church and state, according to a book on American evangelicals by the journalist Tim Alberta entitled The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHowever, Barton’s influence and brand of Christian nationalism has drawn fire from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked his attacks on some minorities. The center has noted that “Barton has also demonized LGBTQ persons and communities, arguing that HIV and Aids are god-given consequences for living out one’s LGBTQ life”.Balmer, an Episcopal priest, added: “Johnson’s and Barton’s brand of Christian nationalism tends to go hand in hand with calls for draconian Old Testament punishment for what he regards as deviant behavior.”Barton did not respond to calls seeking an interview.Barton is hardly alone among Christian nationalist leaders in banking on Johnson’s new clout in Washington and the ties he forged with the religious right before he was elected to Congress in 2016 and since then.Before Congress, Johnson worked for about two decades as a lawyer for the Christian-right Alliance Defending Freedom, and Johnson also built close ties to the far-right Family Research Council and its leader, Tony Perkins.Johnson has developed good ties too with other influential Christian bigshots including the Christian-right Pastor Jim Garlow, who hosts regular World Prayer Network live streams where Johnson has been a guest.On an 9 August broadcast, Garlow said Johnson has “worked with us very closely”.Johnson, in turn, praised Garlow. “I’m so grateful for the ministry and your faithfulness. It’s a great encouragement to me and others who are serving in these sometimes rocky corners of the Lord’s vineyard.”Significantly, Johnson’s far-right Christian credentials are also proving helpful to Donald Trump. Soon after becoming speaker, Johnson endorsed Trump’s bid to be the Republican nominee for the presidency.Johnson’s fast Trump endorsement fits with his role in 2020 when he helped enable Trump’s false claims that fraud cost him the election. Johnson took the lead in writing a brief for a lawsuit that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s win, and he rounded up fellow members to sign it too.“I see Speaker Johnson and many others in the vanguard of the GOP aiding and abetting Trump, including his more increasingly authoritarian rhetoric and plans,” said Adam Russell Taylor, president of the Christian social justice group Sojourners.Taylor stressed: “Many white Christian nationalists see the need to elect someone like Trump as president because he is willing to bend the rules or even break the rules in order to keep themselves in power and further their ideologies.”Scholars say Johnson’s rise to House speaker is result of a decades-long drive for political clout by the religious right in which WallBuilders and other key Christian nationalist groups played important parts.“Johnson’s ascent is a capstone victory for a culture-warring religious conservatism that has leveraged legal strategies meant to bolster white Christian hegemony,” said the Notre Dame university historian Darren Dochuk.“With monies generated by Christian allies, fiercely ‘libertarian’ ones in business sectors ranging from oil and gas to the service industry, and an increasingly theocratic ambition to take over the Capitol for God, they built their alternative infrastructure.”In Dochuk’s eyes, “Johnson is the product and culmination of a decades-long quest by rightwing religionists to assert themselves politically through backchannels not always visible to the uninitiated. Ronald Reagan’s evangelical allies could not have imagined such a swift, no-holds-barred rise to power.” More

The Politics Weekly America team are taking a break. So for the next two weeks, we’re looking back at a couple of our favourite episodes of the year.
From August: Jonathan Freedland and Amanda Marcotte try to figure it out why rightwing politicians and pundits took such a disliking to Barbie, Greta Gerwig’s summer blockbuster. They look at what the outrage can tell us about how the Republicans will campaign in 2024

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

Actor John Schneider called for the executions of Joe Biden as well as the president’s son, Hunter, in a now-deleted social media post that drew ridicule and questions about whether he should be criminally charged.Schneider, perhaps best known for his role as Bo Duke on the TV series Dukes of Hazzard as well his recent runner-up finish on the Masked Singer, fired off the post on X at 2am local time Thursday.“Mr President, I believe you are guilty of treason and should be publicly hung,” Schneider wrote to Biden. “Your son too.”The comment was a reply to a post from Biden which said Donald Trump – who is facing more than 90 criminal charges as he seeks a second presidency in 2024 – “poses many threats to our country”.“But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy,” Biden’s X post continued, in part. “If we lose that, we lose everything.”Schneider’s response to Biden’s post drew thousands of replies before it was deleted.As Newsweek first noted, among those to reply was investigative journalist Victoria Brownworth, who wrote: “Just here for the ratio and to let you know that it’s ‘hanged,’ not ‘hung’.” Brownworth added: “There’s zero evidence of ‘treason.’ Step out of the Fox News bubble.”Another user added: “Wow! You’re calling for the execution of a sitting president. May the secret service show up at your door with a reply.”Other commenters maintained Schneider’s remark fell short of constituting a death threat. Under federal law, threatening “to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States” could carry a fine and up to five years in prison.Schneider’s comment came as conservatives and media outlets who are friendly to them – including Fox News – support Republican efforts to hold a formal vote to launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden.Republicans have spent months investigating business dealings by Biden and his son, Hunter, in hopes of finding improprieties that could form a basis for an impeachment. But some Republicans have been vocal about their worries that investigators have not found misconduct by the president, whose son is facing federal tax charges.Schneider was on the Dukes of Hazzard from 1979 to 1985. In 2015, the television channel TV Land announced it would pull reruns of the action-comedy series because the car which the main characters drove around displayed the Confederate battle flag, a symbol adopted by white supremacist hate groups.The fictional car itself was also named after Robert E Lee, the Confederate general who inherited the ownership of enslaved people upon the death of his mother.Schneider – whose character’s full first name, Beauregard, is identical to the surname of a famous general in the Confederate army – protested TV Land’s decision by remarking “the whole politically correct generation has gotten way out of hand”, as Today.com reported.A second-place finish in Wednesday’s season finale of the Masked Singer had earned Schneider – also a country musician – some favorable celebrity media coverage. So had a new interview with Fox News in which he described how difficult he expected this Christmas to be after his wife, producer and actor Alicia Allain Schneider, died from breast cancer in February.“It’s going to be rough,” Schneider had said in that interview. “Grief will never go away.” More

The growing number of book bans in the US are using a so-called parental rights movement as cover for a wide-ranging attack on civil rights in America, a Democratic congressman has warned.Earlier this month, a new study by PEN America revealed that there had been at least 5,894 book bans in US public schools from July 2021 to June 2023, with more than 40% of them in Florida, birthplace of a rightwing parents group called Moms for Liberty.The books targeted are frequently those which tackle issues like racism, gender or LGBTQ+ rights.“Book bans are a baseless attack on our civil rights and civil liberties under the guise of parental rights,” warned the Florida congressman Maxwell Frost, who introduced the Fight Banned Books Act earlier this month.“If the arts and literature our students read are getting attacked, what will happen next?” Frost told the Guardian in an interview.On 5 December, alongside Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and Congressman Jamie Raskin, he unveiled the planned legislation and vowed to take a stand against censorship by providing grants to school districts to fight them.“We found that one of the real problems in Florida after the book gets officially taken off the shelves is that school boards do not have the resources necessary to battle the book bans and get the books back on the shelves,” Frost said.The proposed legislation, if passed, would counter this issue on a national level; with a $15m budget, the Department of Education would provide $100,00 to school districts fighting bans in their communities.According to recent PEN America data, the past two school years have highlighted a mounting censorship crisis with a sustained focus on books written for young adults. Frequently, titles focusing on “difficult topics” like violence or racism or including historically marginalized identities are being targeted.“Books are one of the last places of refuge that we have as students, as students of color, as queer students, and now that’s being taken away from us too,” Frost said.“Last year, 70% of Gen Z voted for Democrats in the midterms, so I guess these young people don’t like their rights being taken away.”Frost added: “There’s still an opportunity to mold and change the way a generation thinks.”Far-right pressure has been one of the leading causes of book banning in the US over the last two years. These bans are pushed locally, by parents or parent-led groups, or by politicians through broader state-level laws.The Fight Book Bans Act, which already has the support of 50 members of Congress, would try to stop these pressures. The grants would cover expenses like legal representation or the travel to hearings and would also provide school districts with expert research and advice when trying to fight off book bans in their local libraries.Frost describes himself as a “product of public education” and says that without access to essential books growing up, he probably wouldn’t be a member of Congress right now. As a Gen Z politician appealing to young voters across the country, he also uses his position to bring awareness to crucial issues in unique and engaging ways.“We rarely do just a press conference,” he said. “We’ve got to add a little spice.”After a recent press event, Frost held a banned book reading in his office. Community leaders and students gathered to share excerpts of literature banned in their state. He said he wasn’t expecting it to be as emotional as it was, but that people started crying.“You hear these beautiful words of literature, of poetry, of art, and you’re sitting there surrounded by a lot of people you might not know, and the whole time you’re listening, in the back of your head, you’re thinking, wow, this is banned, this is banned in a school.”Frost chose to read excerpts from Amanda Gorman’s poem The Hill We Climb, which is restricted in schools across his home state.“After I finished, I told everyone there, just a second ago, when one of our speakers was reading, I closed my eyes and decided to recommit myself to this fight.” More

Jack Smith has urged speed for the supreme court to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump is, as the former president claims, immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.On Thursday the US special counsel submitted a new file to the supreme court in Washington DC, reiterating his argument for urgency in their consideration of such a key element of the federal election interference case, in response to Trump’s latest move the day before.On Wednesday, Trump’s team asked the highest court in the US to stay out of the argument about whether he has immunity from federal criminal prosecution, after Smith asked the court last week to take up review of the matter.On Thursday, Smith submitted to the supreme court that in the public interest it should make an “immediate, definitive decision” on the “important constitutional question” of Trump’s immunity or lack of it in the federal election interference case.“The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves – for the first time in our nation’s history – criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office,” the latest submission said.Smith’s filing added: “Enforcing federal criminal laws that prohibit such conduct is vital to protecting our constitutional processes and democracy itself.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSmith is the veteran prosecutor appointed as special counsel by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in November 2022, to lead two federal investigations of Trump, the election interference case and the alleged mishandling of classified documents that were discovered at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after he left office. More