More stories

  • in

    ‘Turn the volume up’: Mamdani invokes Trump in fiery speech laying out plan of action

    Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York City, issued a direct call to Donald Trump in his victory speech on Tuesday night, saying he would enter City Hall with a firm plan to counter the politics of division and cronyism that helped elevate him to the White House.Mamdani, speaking to supporters in Brooklyn after a decisive victory over Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, said New York had shown it would be the “light” in a “moment of political darkness”.“Here we believe in standing up for those we love, whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many Black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom still waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with their back against the wall,” Mamdani, who will be the city’s first Muslim mayor, said. “No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.”The mayor-elect then issued a direct message to the president, saying if any city could show the nation how to defeat Trump, it was the “city that gave rise to him”.“So, if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power. This is not only how we stop Trump, it’s how we stop the next one. So, Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: turn the volume up,” Mamdani said, to raucous applause.He was leading Cuomo by more than 8 percentage points, with 91% of the vote counted, around midnight ET. The result capped a stunning surge for the Democratic socialist after he won the June primary, and a dramatic fall from grace for Cuomo, who had waged a well-funded independent bid.Mamdani reiterated a slate of his key policies to supporters on Tuesday night and how they would counter the Trump agenda. They included a plan to hold landlords to account for how they treat tenants; ending a “culture of corruption” that has benefited the billionaire class; and expanding labor protections and standing alongside unions “because we know, just as Donald Trump does, that when working people have ironclad rights, the bosses who seek to extort them become very small indeed”.“New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants, and as of tonight, led by an immigrant,” Mamdani said. “So hear me President Trump when I say this: to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.“When we enter city hall in 58 days, expectations will be high,” he added. “We will meet them.”Mamdani’s projected win was just one of a many for Democrats on Tuesday night. Mikie Sherrill was elected governor of New Jersey in a closely watched race and Abigail Spanberger was elected Virginia’s first female governor.Trump responded to the slate of Democratic victories on Truth Social late Tuesday night, urging lawmakers to immediately move to end the filibuster and pass voting rights reform. That would include, the president wrote, stricter voter ID laws and a ban on mail-in ballots.As Mamdani was speaking, mere moments after telling the president to turn the volume up, Trump also posted a cryptic note on Truth Social: “…AND SO IT BEGINS!” More

  • in

    Nobody likes a sore loser – but Cuomo declines to bow out gracefully

    At least Andrew Cuomo’s last act in politics came at a fancy venue.While Cuomo held his election night party at the Ziegfeld Ballroom, which describes itself in its own words as a “luxury event venue built on Broadway’s golden era”, it didn’t feel like a golden era on Tuesday, when Cuomo didn’t so much bow out of the race as aggressively posture and snort his way out of it.The night started on an ominous tone, with (Sending Out an) SOS by Rhetta Young blaring from Ziegfeld’s speakers. Was the Cuomo campaign sending out plaintive messages through music? If so, it was a confusing message: the next song was Blame It on the Boogie by the Jacksons.Cuomo had been well behind in the polls, but there was a relatively optimistic vibe at the party, as people enjoyed the free bar and watched huge TV screens. Cuomo’s name was displayed on tables, banners and, intriguingly, on little electronic screens above the men’s urinals.But the mood wouldn’t last. Zohran Mamdani’s victory was announced at 9.35pm, prompting dismay in the ballroom.“I feel very disappointed. I’m just staring at the TV hoping that the numbers will change, just in disbelief,” said Tusha Diaz, from the Bronx. She carried on staring at the TV. If anything, the numbers got worse. With 90% of the votes in on Tuesday night, Mamdani had more than 50% of the vote; Cuomo languished at 41%.“I don’t want to cry in front of people, but I feel heartbroken,” Diaz said. She voted for Cuomo because he was a “great governor” who did a lot for the Bronx, she said. She wasn’t optimistic about Mamdani.“I feel I don’t know what’s gonna happen to New York City. I mean, I have two grandchildren. I don’t know what they’re gonna expect with this guy, you know, with all these radical ideas that he had. Will they be safe?”Anthony T Jones was literally in disbelief as Mamdani was announced as the winner.“I feel wonderful. I think hope is still alive,” he said, as the words “Zohran Mamdani wins race for mayor” rolled across the TV screen.Informed by the Guardian that every major news organization had announced Mamdani as the winner, Jones snapped back to reality quickly, but remained defiant.“I’m not disappointed at all. No, because Cuomo ran a great campaign,” he said. Jones added of Cuomo, who is 67 years old: “He’s still a young man.”Jones and Diaz voiced their concerns about Mamdani with more grace than Cuomo did throughout an inflammatory campaign, but in some quarters the mood became unsavory.“I feel excited to be moving to Long Beach, because there’s no fucking way I’m staying in the city with that piece-of-shit jihadi communist as mayor,” a woman called Felice said, combining Islamophobia with inaccuracy.“I already have a real-estate broker. I already got approval for a loan. I already picked out four places I’m gonna go see on Monday.”Felice, who was drinking wine, added that New Yorkers had voted for Mamdani because “there’s a lot of transplants and young people and foreigners who voted, who bought his bullshit”.Unfortunately there wasn’t time to hear much more from Felice, who said she was a teacher, because a full-throated chant broke out.“Shame on Sliwa! Shame on Sliwa!” dozens of people at the front of the room jeered, apparently blaming Sliwa, a Republican, for Cuomo’s loss. At the bar, one man told his friend it was “embarrassing”.It certainly wasn’t good. By 10.30pm Should I Stay or Should I Go by the Clash was blasting over the speakers. Many people were choosing the latter. Waitstaff were packing down the free bar.With people clearly losing interest, campaign staff sprang into action. They hurried the remaining crowd to the front of the stage. It was time for Cuomo to appear, and give a gracious concession speech.Except it wasn’t.Cuomo immediately tried to cast his loss as a success, telling the crowd: “This campaign was to contest the philosophies that are shaping the Democratic party, the future of this city and the future of this country.” He said that 50% of New Yorkers had not voted for Mamdani’s agenda, and claimed his own campaign, which has seen him accused of racism and Islamophobia, was about “unity”.Cuomo then trotted out some misinterpretations of Mamdani’s political positions, concluding: “We are headed down a dangerous, dangerous road.“We will not make the NYPD the enemy,” Cuomo said. “We will not tolerate any behavior that fans the flames of antisemitism,” he added, returning to a familiar theme from his campaign.After 10 minutes of Cuomo claiming Mamdani was going to drive New York into a post-apocalyptic nightmare, it was hardly surprising that there was a round of lusty boos and loud jeers when the former governor finally mentioned his opponent by name.But Cuomo appeared shocked by the anger. He suddenly adopted an air of contrition that was very much absent from his campaign.“No, that is not right, and that is not us,” he told his supporters.And yet.Cuomo recently chuckled along after a radio host said Mamdani would “cheer” another 9/11-style terrorist attack. In October, Cuomo was widely condemned after posting an AI-generated anti-Mamdani ad that featured a slew of racist stereotypes. Cuomo has labelled Mamdani an “extremist”, and claimed New York “will not survive” him as mayor.Perhaps Cuomo meant it when he said “that is not us”. But as he exits New York politics, surely forever, the evidence is stacked against him. More

  • in

    Economic policy is one thing Nigel Farage can’t crib from the Donald Trump playbook | Rafael Behr

    Nigel Farage loves a gamble. In his 2015 memoir, The Purple Revolution, a whole chapter is dedicated to the then Ukip leader’s appetite for risk, how he indulged it in the City and how that prepared him for a career in politics.He boasts of the time he “lost a seven-figure sum of money in the course of a morning on the zinc market” before breezing off to the pub. He waxes nostalgic about the halcyon days of freewheeling finance, before “ghastly regulators” spoiled the fun; when “terrible cock-ups” could be written off because “decimal points and all those zeros can be tricky after a three-hour lunch”.Farage the commodities trader was not a details guy. Farage the politician isn’t famously punctilious either, but the stakes are higher. He’s backing himself to be prime minister and it isn’t going to happen if voters see him as the kind of gambler who might blow the nation’s budget on a boozy bet.Dispelling that notion was the purpose of a speech by the Reform UK leader on Monday. Farage disposed of his party’s 2024 election manifesto and its promise of tax cuts worth £90bn because it was a tissue of fiscal fantasy. He didn’t put it quite like that. He observed that Britain’s sluggish growth and high debt demand sober management of public finances. He hinted that Treasury savings could one day be made by unpicking the sacred “triple lock” that guarantees perpetual real-terms rises in the state pension.Liz Truss was not named, but the new, parsimonious Farageonomics has been formulated to silence comparisons between Reform’s agenda and the budget misadventure of the Tory prime minister whose unfunded tax giveaway incinerated the nation’s financial credibility.By dabbling in macroeconomics, Farage also wants to show that he has range; that the policy repertoire extends beyond complaining about migrants. He can also complain about the Bank of England (too cautious over cryptocurrencies), the Financial Conduct Authority (captured by a “diversity agenda”), public sector pensions (“a massive liability”) and net zero (a burden on energy bills).Europe can’t be the scapegoat it once was, but the old moan can be retuned to a post-Brexit key: the opportunity of deregulation from Brussels red tape has been “squandered”. Killjoy regulators tame the animal spirits of the market. The bureaucratic state lavishes welfare on work-shy malingerers and banishes enterprising wealth-creators. The remedy is to slash disability benefits and use tax breaks to entice self-exiled non-doms back from Dubai. The fiscal details of how that might all add up – the decimal points and zeros – remain shrouded in post-prandial haze.View image in fullscreenThe trademark colour and name of Farage’s party has changed since The Purple Revolution, but the argument hasn’t evolved. The biggest difference is in his delivery, which has become less hectoring, more weary. Maybe Farage was deliberately sounding leaden to emphasise his commitment to fiscal responsibility, but he came across as a man who is boring even himself with the usual shtick.This may be why he regularly asserts that the next general election will come in 2027. There is no reason why Keir Starmer would choose to go to the country two years before the constitutional deadline, but Farage needs the vote to come as soon as possible. To complete the transition from protest vehicle to plausible prime minister, the Reform leader needs to woo uncertain voters who think he could be dangerous. That reassurance has a cost in radicalism.Momentum depends on the keenest supporters staying whipped up in a state of visceral outrage, while respectability means keeping a lid on Reform MPs’ and councillors’ most luridly racist, outlandish and violent opinions. Affecting mainstream seriousness and cultivating insurrection at the same time is a chore. The strain is showing.Economic policy poses a particular challenge because the US rightwing populist model, Farage’s inspiration in most areas, resists adaptation to British financial circumstances. Not that it hasn’t been tried. Kent county council, Reform UK’s flagship local authority, promised to implement Doge-style cuts to administrative waste, inspired by Elon Musk’s maverick assault on the US federal budgets. The result was a chaotic display of unprofessional political dysfunction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDoge was no triumph in Washington either, but the US context is very different. Normal rules of fiscal rectitude don’t apply – at least, not yet – to the country that issues the planet’s reserve currency and can always find buyers for its debt.This “exorbitant privilege” extended to the world’s richest and most powerful state is what allowed Donald Trump earlier this year to implement tax cuts that will drive the US deficit up into the region of $3tn-$4tn by the end of the decade. The White House claims the budget will be self-repairing with money generated by newly stimulated growth. That’s also what Truss said. The bond market was not convinced.Trump also thinks tariffs imposed on other countries will be a substitute for domestic tax revenue. He’s wrong both conceptually and arithmetically. Tariffs are an import tax paid ultimately by US consumers, not foreigners, and the Treasury income hardly dents the deficit. But for now the absurdity of it just hangs in the air, defying economic gravity.That trick is not available to a UK prime minister. Nor is Trump’s habit of shaking down US corporate giants for equity and cash. If Reform so much as flirted with Trumponomics in an election manifesto, markets would convulse at every opinion poll putting it in the lead. Labour would correctly warn that a vote for Reform is a vote to bankrupt Britain.Farage is a gambler, not a fool. He knows he has to moderate his tone and get across some budget details. But attention to detail has never been his thing and responsibility bores him. Maybe he can win without it. He might fancy the odds on Labour continuing to flounder, the Tories failing to get their act together and that combination being enough to put him in Downing Street. And yet it is revealing how vulnerable the Reform leader obviously feels on the economy. His old script is stale, and without the Maga playbook to crib from, he really has nothing new to say – and a long time to be exposed not saying it.

    Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist More

  • in

    ‘A historic victory’: our panel reacts to Zohran Mamdani’s triumph | Panel

    Osita Nwanevu: ‘a historic victory of the American left’Set aside for a moment the interminable back and forth over whether Zohran Mamdani represents the future of the Democratic party. This much is beyond dispute: Mamdani represents the immediate future of New York City, America’s largest town and the financial capital of the world.His win, just as indisputably, is a historic victory for the American left, which has been buoyed in spirit and resolve since Mamdani’s underdog victory in the mayoral primary. In New York, it will have a measure of the governing power its own pessimists and its dogged opponents within the Democratic party alike have doubted it was capable of winning.And the country at large will be watching the city closely ⁠– less out of a belief in the coming apocalypse only Republicans are convinced the city is in for than out of curiosity as to whether Mamdani can actually deliver on the promise of his campaign and manage the city at least as well as an ordinary Democrat could.But the challenges sure to face him as he works to prove himself shouldn’t overshadow the significance of what he’s already done. An organizing effort that will be studied for many years to come, highly disciplined messaging, a moral stand on the genocide in Gaza that has shaken up the Democratic party’s internal politics on confronting Israel, a level of charisma and creativity unseen on the American political scene since at least Barack Obama, a conceptual bridge between the material politics of affordability and a politics of values, speaking to what it means to be a New Yorker and an American ⁠– Mamdani’s run has offered us lessons that ought to be put to work well beyond New York City’s limits.

    Osita Nwanevu is a columnist at Guardian US and the author of The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding
    Judith Levine: why are Democrats running from Mamdani?The last door on my canvassing turf, a Brooklyn brownstone, looked like a gut renovation: minimalist plantings, spot lighting. The woman welcomed me. Her vote for Mamdani “felt historic”, she said. And her husband? “Are you voting for Zohran?” she shouted into the house. The reply: “Just don’t raise my taxes.”There it was. Israel and Islamophobia moved voters one way or another. But in the end, it was pure class warfare.The city’s richest man donated $8m to defeat Mamdani. The New York Post predicted that Wall Street would move to Dallas if the democratic socialist won. “This election is a choice between capitalism and socialism,” Cuomo declared.Mamdani’s platform, “affordability”, is hardly radical. Indeed, Americans support what he promises: free childcare and raising taxes on millionaires. Gallup recently found that Democrats view socialism more positively than capitalism – 66 to 42%.Still, if not quite socialist, the spirit of city hall will be different: pro-immigrant, pro-tenant, pro-government, anti-billionaire. Last week, three Democratic leaders told the press they wouldn’t let the Republicans use 42 million hungry food stamp beneficiaries to force an end to the shutdown, letting healthcare subsidies lapse to bankroll tax giveaways to the rich. Then Chuck Schumer hurried out, ducking a question about whether he supported Mamdani.“A city where everyone can live with security and dignity.” Mamdani’s message, applied nationally, was the same as the message Democrats were trying to push at their press conference. In New York, it prevailed. Why are Democrats running from this gifted messenger, who embodies the only vital future for a moribund party?

    Judith Levine is Brooklyn-based journalist, essayist and author of five books. Her Substack is Today in Fascism
    Malaika Jabali: ‘flicker of hope amid the gloom’If conservatives wanted to fearmonger about the specter of socialism to keep Mamdani from winning New York City’s mayoral race, it couldn’t have come at a worse time.Donald Trump, billionaire president and self-appointed foil to the new mayor-elect of New York City, has been playing games with the country’s food stamp program as families show up in droves to food bank lines. Authoritarianism, expensive healthcare and unaffordable housing have threatened the average American household, and the country’s elites have cruelly mocked them.New York City residents have felt this acutely. The city’s voters cited cost of living, and housing in particular, as the top concern as they exited the voting booths Tuesday.Mamdani’s popularity will be attributed to his social media savvy and connection with young voters. But the bigger factor is that Mamdani tapped into their economic anxieties in ways the Democratic establishment has failed to while it stubbornly commits to a neoliberal agenda.In the years ahead, Mamdani will not only face antagonism from Trump but the antipathy of his own party, home to Democratic leaders such as Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, none of whom endorsed him in the race. But for one night at least, New Yorkers can celebrate this flicker of hope amid the gloom.

    Malaika Jabali is a columnist at Guardian US
    Bhaskar Sunkara: don’t chalk this up to ‘viral moments’I spent most of tonight thinking about how improbable this once seemed. Mamdani – a democratic socialist – is the next mayor of New York City.Zohran is an incredibly gifted communicator and he built a campaign team that matched that talent. But it would be a mistake to chalk up his victory to charisma or viral moments. It was built on knocking on doors, talking about rent, wages and the everyday costs that define people’s lives. It was a reminder that the left wins when it shows that democratic socialists are laser-focused on meeting human needs, not fighting culture wars.They tried to make the race about Israel. They tried to paint Mamdani as an extremist or a threat. But he refused the bait, staying disciplined and universal in his appeal – talking about housing, transit and affordability with the same clarity to every audience. It was politics rooted in working-class issues, not posture.Does this victory matter beyond New York? Absolutely. The style will differ in deep red districts, but the lesson is the same: build politics around the pocketbook issues workers care about most.

    Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, the founding editor of Jacobin, and the author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in An Era of Extreme Inequalities More

  • in

    A cultural revolution? Trump’s America feels oddly familiar to those watching from China

    When Vickie Wang, a budding standup comedian, gets on stage in New York, she’s not just thinking about what jokes to crack. She’s also thinking about which ones to avoid. “I don’t criticise the administration directly,” she said. Or if she does, she makes sure it’s not recorded for social media. “I would never publicly publish something where I directly criticise the government … I think it’s a learned behaviour from China”.Wang, 39, lived in Shanghai for nearly a decade, leaving in 2022. In 2025 she relocated to the US. When she arrived, she went on a frenzy of “revenge bingeing on democracy”, going to talks, protests and diving into New York’s public library.But in the year since Donald Trump was elected as US president for the second time, there has been a “palpable change” in the atmosphere, she says. “In China, I knew where the line was, whereas in the US I’m standing on shifting sands.”Wang’s fears reflect a new political reality in the US which many Chinese people, or people who have lived in China, find eerily familiar. Enemies are ostracised. The president demands absolute loyalty. Journalists are targeted. Institutions are attacked.Trump has not been shy about his admiration for Xi Jinping, China’s strongman leader. He has described Xi as a “great guy”. As they agreed a temporary truce in the trade war on Thursday, the bonhomie between the two leaders of countries with diametrically opposed political systems was evident. And after decades of hope in the US that closer ties with China may help the rising power to liberalise, under Trump 2.0, it seems as if the US is being pulled in the Chinese direction, rather than the other way around.“The United States is undergoing a period of cultural revolution,” said Zhang Qianfan, a professor of constitutional law at Peking University. “The top leader, Donald Trump, is trying to mobilise the grassroots in order to sideline or undermine the elite … similar to what happened in China half a century ago”.View image in fullscreenEver since Trump unleashed the so-called Department for Government Efficiency, or Doge, on the Washington bureaucracy at the start of his term, many in China have viewed US politics through the lens of the Cultural Revolution. Whether it is the mobilisation of the youth to execute the leader’s will, or purging institutions of perceived enemies, Trump as viewed from China has delivered Mao-style chaos to the US, albeit without the same levels of violence.But since the upheaval of the early months of the new administration has calmed, a new, different kind of political atmosphere has settled in the US, which in different ways also feels familiar to many Chinese people.‘The lighthouse has become dimmer’The most profound similarity between Trump’s America and China is the crackdown on free speech.Deng Haiyan, a police officer turned Chinese Communist party (CCP) critic, found himself in the eye of a storm this year, the likes of which he’d only previously experienced in China. Deng has lived in the US since 2019, having fled China because of harassment from the authorities.In September, after the death of Charlie Kirk, Deng tweeted that Kirk was a “scumbag”. Like people across the US – many of whom lost their jobs as a result of making negative comments about Kirk – Deng faced a huge backlash. His family was doxed and he was accused of being a Chinese spy seeking to divide the US.“This incident was a real shock to me. I never imagined that something like this could happen in the United States – something that should only happen in an authoritarian country,” Deng said.Deng’s pile on came from fellow social media users, rather than the state, but that kind of social surveillance also has similarities with China.“In terms of going after those who disagree with you and starting to surveil public speech about issues that are sensitive … That’s starting to emerge here,” said Maria Repnikova, an associate professor at Georgia State University. “That’s something that you see in China today as well,” she said, adding that there were now fears in the US of students reporting on teachers, a type of surveillance that has been encouraged by the CCP.Zhang, the Peking University law professor, said that liberal Chinese intellectuals like himself used to look to the US for political inspiration, in part because openly discussing domestic politics in China is dangerous. But now, “America is no longer some kind of god for Chinese liberals. America’s image has declined across the board”.“We used to see America as the beacon of constitutional democracy, but after Trump took power, this lighthouse seems to have become dimmer”.Chinese liberals, who are often, at least in private, critical of China’s political system, are increasingly finding it less objectionable than America’s, Zhang said. “It’s sort of painful to accept this … but after the pandemic the government seems to be doing the right thing in improving the environment and developing electric cars and investing in hi-tech,” Zhang said, while “the West, as represented by the United States, seems to be declining”.The Trump administration’s acquisition of stakes in US companies has also drawn comparisons with China, where the line between government and private industry is often blurred.On Monday the US government announced it would become a shareholder in a startup specialising in rare earth processing, after taking similar stakes in other companies it considers vital to national security. The deals have left some investors nervous that the US is entering a new era of government meddling in private industry.There are still major differences between Trump’s America and China. In October, several news organisations including the Guardian refused to sign to a Pentagon policy that demanded they only report on government-authorised news. US courts have blocked or overturned many of Trump’s actions, something that would be unthinkable in China’s CCP-controlled judiciary.Isaac Stone Fish, the founder of Strategy Risks, a China-focused advisory firm, said: “The United States could descend into the worst crisis of its history, orders of magnitudes worse than it is now, and it will still be freer, more open, and more liberal than China under Xi.”Zhang notes that while many intellectuals in China were shocked to see US universities capitulate to government demands regarding diversity and inclusion practices and free speech on campus, in China, the top universities are all state-owned by default. University leaders, which are appointed by the government, “have no liberty of saying no. They can’t afford to be disobedient”.Still, people in the US are starting to take precautions that were once confined to more authoritarian countries. One professor at a US university who was previously outspoken on US-China issues declined to be interviewed for this article. He said: “The truth is that I am scared of the censorship here: I actually feel less afraid to criticise Xi these days than say anything bad about Trump.”Additional research by Lillian Yang More

  • in

    US Senate rejects funding package for 14th time with shutdown in 35th day

    The US federal government shutdown was poised to move into record-breaking territory on Tuesday after the Senate rejected for the 14th time a funding package already passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.With the shutdown now in its record-equalling 35th day, frantic behind-the-scenes talks were under way to bring the standoff to a close amid expressions of alarm from Democrats and Republicans alike about its disruptive effects on millions of Americans.The shutdown threatened services such as the federal food stamps program and has seen employees furloughed or working unpaid. It will exceed the 35-day closure that occurred during Donald Trump’s first presidency, in 2018, if it continues past midnight tonight.With concerns over its impact mounting, the Trump administration moved on Monday to provide emergency funds that would keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) operating at 50% capacity following court rulings stating that it could not legally withhold financial backing. The program provides food aid to 42 million Americans and costs around $9bn a month.But Trump, who has hitherto made little effort to end the impasse, reopened the fears over Snap on Tuesday, by threatening to hold the program hostage until Democrats capitulate and vote in favour of the government funding package.He wrote on social media that Snap benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”While the Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, Democrats are able to block the bill’s passage thanks to the filibuster, which needs the votes of 60 senators for passage. Trump has urged Republicans to use their majority to scrap the filibuster.The president’s latest threat over Snap seemed to be a sign of growing edginess over a shutdown that he has sought to blame on Democrats but which polls indicate a majority of the public believe is the responsibility of the Republicans and his administration.Unlike the earlier shutdown during his first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the US-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.Republican and Democratic senators are quietly negotiating the terms of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators are seeking a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise a resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs across the country.“Enough is enough,” said John Thune, the Senate majority leader and a South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.Labour unions have stepped up pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.“We’re not asking for anything radical,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”With the House speaker, Mike Johnson, having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate, where party leaders have outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties.Central to any solution will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House and the White House.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSenators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the appropriations committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.“The pace of talks have increased,” said Gary Peters, a Democratic senator from Michigan.A substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.However, the White House is demanding that Democrats vote to fund the government before talks over healthcare can begin. White House officials are said to be in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats.The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the healthcare program, also known as Obamacare. However, Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a future date, as part of any deal to reopen government.That’s not enough for some senators, who see the healthcare deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the “department of government efficiency”. More

  • in

    House Democrat accuses Trump’s DoJ of ‘gigantic cover-up’ over shut Epstein inquiry

    A top Democrat has demanded to know why the Trump administration “inexplicably killed” a criminal investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators as he accused the justice department of a “shameful and gigantic cover-up”.Jamie Raskin, a House judiciary committee ranking member and congressman from Maryland, claimed the decision to end the investigation in July had shielded an alleged network of “powerful individuals accused of enabling and engaging in the massive billion-dollar sex trafficking operation” while ignoring the accounts of women exploited by Epstein.In a letter to the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, on Monday, Raskin asked: “Why would the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) kill an ongoing criminal investigation into a massive and decades-long criminal sex trafficking ring that preyed on girls and young women? Who exactly are you intending to protect by this action?”Raskin demanded to know why the investigation had abruptly ended despite the fact that nearly 50 women had provided information to prosecutors and the FBI as part of the years-long investigation into Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who was jailed in 2022. He claimed the women had identified to investigators at least 20 co-conspirators.“The information provided by this huge group of women was precise and detailed: they described how Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell, and their co-conspirators orchestrated a sophisticated and clandestine sex trafficking conspiracy that trafficked them to at least 20 men,” Raskin wrote.“These survivors shared with the DOJ and FBI the specific identities of many of these co-conspirators, how this operation was structured and financed, and which individuals facilitated these crimes.”Efforts to pursue these leads appear to have been halted when Trump came into office, a press release from the committee claimed.The Epstein case has been under renewed scrutiny since the justice department and the FBI concluded in a memo in July that no secret client list of Epstein existed and no further charges were expected as investigators “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. The memo contradicted previous claims made by Trump and Bondi, as well as conspiracy theories alleging Epstein was at the center of a larger plot.Raskin said the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York had been running an investigation into the disgraced financier’s alleged co-conspirators until January 2025, when prosecutors were ordered to transfer the case files to the justice department’s headquarters in Washington DC.Since then, “the investigation into co-conspirators has inexplicably ceased, and no further investigative steps appear to have been taken”, Raskin wrote, citing information provided by lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers.He said the women had made clear to the justice department and the FBI that Epstein and Maxwell did not act alone. “Yet, the Trump Administration has inexplicably killed this investigation, declared these survivors ‘not credible,’ and falsely claimed no evidence exists to support charges against additional co-conspirators,” Raskin added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe accused the justice department of abandoning promises made under the Biden administration to coordinate with victims in its pursuit of Epstein’s co-conspirators. “Your DOJ has abandoned those promises in pursuit of a shameful and gigantic cover-up,” he wrote.Raskin has asked Bondi for details of investigative steps relating to the case undertaken by the justice department since January 2025.In an email response, justice department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre blamed Democrats and the shutdown.“The Democrats have shut down the government and Congressional correspondence during a lapse in appropriations is limited. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Committee in pursuit of transparency, as we have already provided 33,000 pages to the House Oversight Committee – more than was ever requested by the committee when the Ranking Member’s party was in the majority, once the Democrats stop playing games with taxpayer dollars and vote to re-open the government.” More