Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in US Politics

    Mayor of Newark arrested for trespassing at Ice detention center

    The mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, was arrested for trespass at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention center in New Jersey on Friday as Democratic members of Congress also attempted to conduct what they say was a visit to the controversial facility to conduct “federal oversight”.News of Baraka’s arrest at Delaney Hall was reported on X by Alina Habba, the acting US attorney for the district of New Jersey, and a former personal attorney and adviser to Donald Trump.“The Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon,” Habba wrote.“He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody. No one is above the law.”Kabir Moss, spokesperson for the Baraka for Governor campaign, said in a statement that he was taken to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office a few miles from the facility and remained in detention. Baraka is currently running for the Democratic nomination as New Jersey’s governor in a competitive race. The primary is scheduled for next month.“We are actively monitoring and will provide more details as they become available,” Moss said.The New Jersey Globe published a photograph of him being led away in handcuffs by officers in jackets marked “Police Ice”. The newspaper does not have a reporter at the scene, but said observers at Delaney Hall said there had been “a scuffle”.Baraka, who spoke out against Trump’s immigration policies in January after an immigration raid in Newark he said Ice agents conducted without a warrant, was at Delaney Hall with Democratic New Jersey Congress members Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver and Rob Menendez.The politicians have accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of reopening the detention facility, in contravention of local ordinances and without the necessary permits.It is the largest such facility in the north-eastern US, and was the first to open after Trump’s second term of office began in January, according to the Ice website.Coleman, in a tweet, said the visit was an attempt to establish conditions inside. “We’ve heard stories of what it’s like in other Ice prisons. We’re exercising our oversight authority to see for ourselves,” she wrote.Coleman also told reporters at a press conference outside the facility that the lawmakers had traveled to the facility to see the conditions, according to the Independent.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Ice is out of control,” she said. “Ice thinks it can intimidate all of us. And it cannot intimidate any of us. And we the people will make sure that this administration adheres to the rules that separate us from dictatorships and other third world countries.”Menendez accused Ice agents of having “put their hands on” representatives Coleman and McIver, reported the New York Times. “They feel no restraint on what they should be doing, and that was shown in broad daylight today,” Menendez said at the news conference.Axios reports that Coleman’s office said that they “arrived at Delaney Hall today at about 1pm to exercise their oversight authority as prescribed by law. After a period of explaining the law to the officials at the site they were escorted in.”Video attached to the tweet shows the Congress members inside the grounds of the center talking to employees. Other clips show them being threatened with arrest for trespass by uniformed officials. More

  • 113 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Indiana passes law threatening non-profit status of expensive hospitals

    Indiana’s governor, Mike Braun, has signed a landmark bill that would strip charity hospitals of their non-profit status if they continue to charge high prices.The legislation, the first of its kind in the United States, followed uproar across the state after a Guardian series in October that investigated how one major Indiana non-profit hospital system bought up its competition, then hiked its prices, leaving businesses and patients struggling to pay their medical costs.In the wake of the Guardian investigation, Braun, then the Republican gubernatorial candidate, and his Democratic rival both criticized the hospital system, Parkview Health, for its high prices, and lawmakers vowed to take action against the non-profit chain, which charged some of the highest prices in the country despite being based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the US’s most affordable metro area.Braun signed the legislation into law on Tuesday. It comes at a time of growing concern across the US about healthcare costs and medical debt.To implement the law, the Indiana office of management and budget will first study prices across the state and come up with a price benchmark for non-profit hospitals in consultation with the legislature, according to the bill’s author, Martin Carbaugh, a Republican representative who represents a district that includes Fort Wayne. Non-profit hospitals will then have until 2029 to get their prices under that average, though Carbaugh hopes some will lower their prices before then as they negotiate with insurers.“We’ll start to see the downward pressure put on them right away,” he said. “The hospitals know they can’t just go for broke and raise costs, only to have to lower it again in 2029.”According to data compiled by Hoosiers for Affordable Healthcare, an Indiana advocacy group, the legislation could result in average price reductions as large as 40% for Parkview, and similarly sized cuts for other large state hospital systems.“It’s gonna be beneficial to everybody,” said Doug Allen, a small business owner who has struggled to keep up with Parkview’s healthcare costs for his employees. “Maybe people won’t be hurting so bad. Maybe they won’t think twice before coming to the hospital. Almost everybody around here is on a payment plan with Parkview. Everybody owes money to Parkview.”Parkview Health did not respond to requests for comment but has previously said it is committed to lowering healthcare costs.In a statement, the Indiana Hospital Association said it was “concerned by the potential loss of non-profit status for hospitals based on meeting an unknown statewide average commercial price in the future. This does not take into consideration the uncertainty of rising cost pressures such as tariffs, inflation, and other significant economic factors that will further threaten the financial stability of Indiana’s health care ecosystem.”The group added that it looks forward to “continuing our work with legislators and Gov Braun’s administration on future solutions that strike the right balance of lowering costs while maintaining access for Hoosier patients”.The US spends far more on healthcare than other large, wealthy countries, a trend that has been exacerbated by decades of hospital consolidation limiting competition in the healthcare sector. Carbaugh said he was aware of how high healthcare prices are across the country and said Indiana’s legislation might be a model for other states too.“It’s great to be a leader,” he said. “I’m happy to be part of leading that charge.” More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    White House to take choice of Pentagon chief of staff out of Hegseth’s hands

    Exasperated by the turmoil that has dogged Pete Hegseth’s office in recent weeks, the White House will block the US defense secretary’s choice of chief of staff and select a candidate of its own, according to two people familiar with the matter.Hegseth had suggested giving the chief of staff position to Marine Col Ricky Buria after the first person in the role, Joe Kasper, left last month in the wake of a contentious leak investigation that brought the ouster of three other senior aides.But the White House has made clear to Hegseth that Buria will not be elevated to become his most senior aide at the Pentagon, the people said, casting Buria as a liability on account of his limited experience as a junior military assistant and his recurring role in internal office drama.“Ricky will not be getting the chief position,” one of the people directly familiar with deliberations said. “He doesn’t have adequate experience, lacks the political chops and is widely disliked by almost everyone in the White House who has been exposed to him.”The White House has always selected political appointees at agencies through the presidential personnel office, but the move to block Hegseth’s choice at this juncture is unusual and reflects Donald Trump’s intent to keep Hegseth by trying to insulate him from any more missteps.The intervention comes at a time when Hegseth’s ability to run the Pentagon has come under scrutiny. It also runs into the belief inside Trump’s orbit that even the president might struggle to justify Hegseth’s survival if the secretary does not have a scandal-free next few months.The secretary is not expected to have to fire Buria after he agreed to a compromise: to accept the White House’s choice for a new chief of staff in exchange for keeping Buria as a senior adviser, the people said. The White House and Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.The internal staffing situation at the Pentagon has outsize consequences because Hegseth’s front office is involved in policy deliberations and sensitive decision-making at the defense department, which has a budget of more than $800bn and oversees more than 2 million troops.Hegseth’s office is currently operating at a fraction of the size it normally does, with roughly five senior advisers. “There’s so much that’s not happening because no one is managing the front office,” an official with knowledge of the situation said.View image in fullscreenThe possibility of Buria becoming chief of staff spooked the White House for multiple reasons. For one, the White House presidential personnel office previously declined Hegseth’s request to make him a political appointee, but Buria has been operating in such a capacity anyway, two officials said.Buria appears to be considered by the career civilian employees in the deputy defense secretary’s office as the acting chief, not least because he recently moved into the chief of staff’s office and has taken steps to redecorate by bringing in new furniture, the officials said.Buria also recently failed to pass a polygraph test that was administered as part of the leak investigation. The polygraph came back as inconclusive, the officials said, a result that would ordinarily require him to retake the test before he could be cleared.In an additional twist, Buria was identified as having sent some of the messages in at least one Signal group chat about sensitive and imminent US missile strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, the officials said. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported on Buria’s access to Hegseth’s personal phone.Buria, a former MV-22 pilot who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, started his ascent at the Pentagon as a junior military assistant (JMA) under Joe Biden’s defense secretary, Lloyd Austin. In the prestigious but unglamorous role, a JMA is something of a personal aide but with access to high-level operations.When Hegseth arrived, Buria continued his role as the JMA and quickly became close with Hegseth and his wife, Jennifer, traveling with the secretary and spending time at the secretary’s residence at Fort McNair.Buria’s influence expanded after Hegseth fired his boss, the air force Lt Gen Jennifer Short, who had been serving as the senior military assistant. Buria stepped into the job, typically held by a three-star officer, and joined bilateral meetings with foreign dignitaries. The National Pulse reported he also attended foreign policy briefings.When Army Lt Gen Christopher LaNeve arrived as Hegseth’s permanent senior military assistant, it was expected that Buria would return to his JMA position. Instead, he told officials he would retire from the military to become a political appointee in Hegseth’s office and took advantage of the power vacuum resulting from Kasper’s departure. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Immigrants set for Libya deportation sat on tarmac for hours, attorney says

    Immigrants in Texas who were told they would be deported to Libya sat on a military airfield tarmac for hours on Wednesday, unsure of what would happen next, an attorney for one of the men has said.The attorney, Tin Thanh Nguyen, told the news agency Reuters that his client, a Vietnamese construction worker from Los Angeles, was among the immigrants woken in the early morning hours and bussed from an immigration detention center in Pearsall, Texas, to an airfield where a military aircraft awaited them.After several hours, they were bussed back to the detention center around noon, the attorney said on Thursday.The Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and the state department did not respond to requests for comment.Reuters was first to report that the Trump administration was poised to deport immigrants held in the US to Libya, despite a court order against such a move, in a development that would escalate Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.Officials earlier this week told Reuters the US military could fly the immigrants to the north African country as soon as Wednesday, but stressed that plans could change.A US official said the flight never departed. As of Friday, it was unclear if the administration was still planning to proceed with the deportations.A federal judge in Boston ruled on Wednesday that any effort by the Trump administration to deport non-Libyan immigrants to Libya without adequate screenings for possible persecution or torture would clearly violate a prior court order.Lawyers for a group of immigrants pursuing a class action lawsuit had made an emergency request to the court hours after the news broke of the potential flight to Libya.Nguyen, who declined to name his client, said the man was told on Monday to sign a document agreeing to be deported to Libya. The man, who can not read English well, declined to sign it and was placed in solitary confinement and shackled along with others, the attorney said.The man was never provided an opportunity to express a fear of being deported to Libya as required under federal immigration law and the recent judicial order, Nguyen said.“They said: ‘We’re deporting you to Libya,’ even though he hadn’t signed the form, he didn’t know what the form was,” Nguyen said.Nguyen said his client, originally from Vietnam, has lived in the US since the 1990s but was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) earlier this year during a regular check-in, which is becoming more common.Vietnam declines to accept some deportees and processes deportation paperwork slowly, Nguyen said, making it harder for the US to send deportees there.There have been talks between the US and the east African nation of Rwanda about also deporting people there. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘It’s all very sad’: Trump’s attack on arts funding has a devastating effect

    On the afternoon of 3 May, arts organizations around the US began receiving cryptic emails from a previously unknown government email account. The missives declared that these organizations’ missions were no longer in line with new governmental arts priorities, which included helping to “foster AI competency”, “empower houses of worship” and “make America healthy again”.Chad Post, a publisher at Open Letter Books, a program of the University of Rochester that specializes in publishing translated literature, got his email just before entering a screening of Thunderbolts*. He put a quick post on Instagram, and when he came out of the movie his phone was full of responses. “I seemed to be the first one to receive this,” he recounted. “But then, all of a sudden, everyone was getting these letters.”Post told me that he had been in touch with 45 publishers who had had their NEA grants terminated, and he suspected that all 51 publishers receiving grants for 2025 supporting the publication of books and magazines had now received the letter. Although Open Letter expects to still receive funding for 2025, Post is convinced that no further money will be forthcoming from the National Endowment for the Arts.“According to rules of the email, we should get the money, although if you come back in two months and they never sent it, I wouldn’t be shocked,” he said. “The chilling part of that email is that they’re eliminating the NEA entirely. It lists all these insane things that are the new priority, and says our venture is not in line with the new priority, so we can’t ever apply again.”The grant termination won’t deal a lethal blow to Open Letter Books, but it will alter the kinds of literature that they are able to publish. Post said that he would have to give preference to books from nations that can offer funding – which tends to favor books from European languages and from wealthier countries.This sentiment was echoed by other arts organizations, who see the loss of NEA money as a significant blow, but not a deadly one. Kristi Maiselman, the executive director and curator of CulturalDC, which platforms artists that often are not programed at larger institutions, shared that NEA grants account for $65,000 of a roughly $1.1m budget. Thanks to proactive work between her team and the NEA, Maiselman received her grant this year, but does not expect any further such money. “It’s a pretty significant chunk of the budget for us,” she told me. “What has been hard for us this year is that we really do provide a platform for artists to respond to what’s going on in the world.” Continuing to promulgate those kinds of artists would be more difficult in future.View image in fullscreenAllegra Madsen, the executive director of the LGBTQ+-focused Frameline film festival, said that her grant funding had been in limbo ever since the inauguration of Donald Trump, and was ultimately terminated last week. “I think we could all kind of sense that it was going to go away,” she told me. “I think these blows that came this week are going to be felt very intensely by a lot of different organizations.”Frameline is housed in the same building as a number of other arts organizations dedicated to film, including the Jewish Film Institute, the Center for Asian American Media and BAVC Media, and it also sits adjacent to SF Film and the Independent Television Service, all of which Madsen says were affected by the termination of NEA grants. “We’ve all been hit, and we’re all just sort of figuring out what our next steps are.”One fear that Madsen raised was that many private funders take cues from the Federal government, and now with NEA grants terminated – and possibly the NEA itself getting axed – she is unsure if other donors will get cold feet. “This year we have a cohort of sponsors that are very much sticking by us, and I am incredibly thankful for those organizations standing up. But it is a bigger ask now, it’s a bigger risk for them.”Despite the often seemingly indiscriminate cuts made to the federal government by the unofficial “department of government efficiency”, the organizations the Guardian spoke with all believed that they had been targeted in some way because of the programming that they offer. “Just because it’s being done in mass, I don’t think that takes away from the idea that this is pointed and intentional,” Madsen told me. “Governments like this try to attack the populations that seem to have the least power, and right now they are mistakenly thinking that’s going to be our trans and gender-nonconforming siblings.”Taking a similar perspective, Maiselman sees these cuts as perpetuating a broader cultural turn away from arts programs, in particular those that significantly represent people of color and the queer community. “Prior to losing the NEA, we had lost about $100,000 in sponsorships this year,” she said. “We’re hearing from our sponsors that there are a lot of eyes on them. They’re not exactly saying no, but they are saying saying, ‘not right now’.”View image in fullscreenPost sees private money as a possible way to make up some of the lost NEA funding but fears that there will be a stampede of indie presses all toward the same few donors. “Everyone is feeling a little more broke and a little more strapped right now,” he said. “Arts orgs writ large are going to be competing for funds from the same few individuals and that just scares me.”He also argued that, while a press like Open Letter will be able to continue functioning without NEA money, organizations that only publish literary magazines may fold without significant infusions of private cash. “Those literary magazines don’t have the opportunity to rely on a book breaking out,” he said. “They’re not suddenly going to have an issue of the magazine take off. This might be a massive blow to literary magazines.”Although some arts organizations appear poised to survive the loss of NEA money, they nonetheless feel existentially frightened by the general turn of the political culture away from diversity and toward authoritarianism. “It’s hard right now to see any light at the end of the tunnel,” said Maiselman. “With the rate at which things are changing, it’s going to take years to course correct – that is, if and when the administration changes.”Maiselman further argued that the cultural shift brought in by the aggressive moves of the Trump administration had the potential to profoundly transform the landscape of the arts world. “There’s going to be a reckoning,” she told me. “A lot of organizations won’t survive this.”For her own part, Madsen struck a defiant tone, placing the current repressive political atmosphere in the context of other such threats to the LGBTQ+ community. “We will survive, we have the privilege of being an almost 50-year-old org,” Madsen said. “The LGBTQ+ community has been down this road before. We got through McCarthyism, we got through the Aids crisis, we’ll survive this.”In hopes of surviving, arts organizations are again turning toward one another, finding a community sentiment that many of the people I spoke to called reminiscent of the Covid years. “There are a lot of conversations right now about how we can help one another,” Maiselman told me. Post echoed that, positioning this as a time of collective grieving. “It feels like the end of something,” he said. “It’s sad, it’s all very sad, but we have to keep going somehow. We are damaged but not defeated.” More

  • 163 Shares139 Views

    in US Politics

    Why is Trump so fixated on toys for little girls? | Moira Donegan

    Donald Trump has found a new target for his trademark mockery and dismissal: little girls.In comments at a 30 April cabinet meeting, the president seemed to dismiss the economic impact of his chaotic tariff regime on American consumers by citing girls as the primary complainants. “Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open,” Trump said. “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.”Trump is prone to odd non-sequiturs, but the dolls have become something of a sticking point. Onboard Air Force One on 4 May, he doubled down on his insistence that American girls should have fewer toys. “All I’m saying is that a young lady, a 10-year-old girl, nine-year-old girl, 15-year-old girl, doesn’t need 37 dolls,” he told reporters. “She could be very happy with two or three or four or five.”In an interview with Kristen Welker of Meet the Press that same day, Trump again mentioned the dolls. “I don’t think a beautiful baby girl needs – that’s 11 years old – needs 30 dolls,” Trump said. “I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable.” He went on to assert that American children also have too many pencils. “They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.”In some respects, the comments seem like a rare bit of honesty from the president: an acknowledgment of the reality that his tariffs will hurt consumers and lower the American their standard of living. With steep tariffs on many consumer goods, particularly those made in China, and supply chain issues caused by retailers and producers frantic attempts to offset the costs of the new tariffs, many common products – yes, including children’s toys – will become shorter in supply and steeper in cost. Because of Trump’s policies, it is indeed true that there will be fewer presents for children underneath American Christmas trees this year – a trend that is likely to continue for years to come if Trump’s trade war triggers an economic recession, as is widely expected. Americans themselves don’t have much say in this, but Donald Trump wants us all to know that he’s comfortable with us, and our children, having less.But the selection of dolls, in particular, as Trump’s stand-in for consumer prices reflects the gendered ideas about work, money and purchasing that animate Trump’s chaotic economic policy. After all, Trump did not talk about the impact of his trade regime on toy trucks or GI Joe action figures – and he certainly didn’t mention its likely impact on things like video games, basketballs, squat racks or protein powders. The tariffs will increase prices across economic sectors and hurt consumers of all kinds of goods. But Trump did not speak in general terms about those who might like to buy a house one day, or about who will be hurt by his tariffs on Canadian lumber, or about those who would like to be treated for their illnesses but who have to pay steeper prices for the medicines they need when tariffs hit pharmaceuticals. He didn’t talk about any of the consumption that Americans are uniformly agreed to think of as reasonable, dignified or aspirational. He chose, instead, something seen as trivial, childlike, and only for girls.The comments aim to cast the pain that consumers will face as ultimately feminine and frivolous, their complaints petulant and childlike. In this respect, Trump is drawing on a long tradition of economic rhetoric that aims to cast consumption as feminine, decadent and morally suspect – and to contrast it with the supposedly more manly and virtuous productive side of the economy. It’s a laughably stupid symbolism, one that only works for those deeply committed to their ignorance about how the economy actually works: in truth, everyone consumes, and people of all genders participate in the productive economy. But Trump does not argue based on the facts: he asserts dominance. And here, he casts those Americans who would complain about the economic pain that he is inflicting on them as feminine and hence as contemptible, deserving no more respect than spoiled children.The project of masculinizing the economy – perhaps especially at children’s expense – is one that the Trump administration seems to be pushing more broadly. Trump claims, despite the near-universal assertions of economists to the contrary, that his tariffs will shift the US away from the primarily female service sector industries that have dominated the American economy since the 1970s back to a more masculine manufacturing base.To this end, his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, a billionaire former CEO, went on MSNBC late last month to describe his vision for the future of the American worker. “It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past but to do the great jobs of the future,” Lutnick said, arguing that fewer people should be aspiring to bachelor’s degrees and should expect to occupy themselves in lower-skill factory work instead. “This is the new model, where you work in these kind of plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”This is the vision for your children’s future that the Trump administration wants to put forward: deprived of material comforts and joy in childhood, then deprived of the hope for upward mobility in adulthood. They want you, and your kids, to be poor, desperate and ignorant. They want you to work in repetitive, dangerous, back-breakingly physical jobs, and they want you to have no aspiration to anything better. They want you to imagine your future, and your children’s futures, not as an open horizon of freedom and potential, but as a dark and desperate struggle, devoid of the notion that we might be anything more than useful instruments for the needs of capital. What do they offer Americans as compensation for this loss? Virtually nothing, aside from misogynist contempt, and the assurance that as our living standards sink and our prospects disappear, in our suffering, at least, we are masculine.On Fox News this past Tuesday, the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, tried to put this spin on things. Describing what he would say to a little girl who would be denied dolls because of Trump’s tariff policy, Bessent insisted that it was for her own good. “I would tell that young girl that you would have a better life than your parents,” Bessent said. But the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to ensure that America’s children – and in particular, its little girls – have it worse.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    Protecting democracy is not enough: five things Americans must fight for | Huck Gutman

    A recent dinner was peaceable until it was just about over, when a friend’s son spoke up in praise of a middle-of-the-road columnist and how his opposition to Donald Trump’s attack on democracy revealed that we were all on the progressive left now.“Not true,” I responded with more vehemence than I expected. “Wanting democratic norms is not sufficient; it is merely a precondition for meaningful change.” Making sure the US’s plumbing was secure did not mean that anything of importance would pass through the pipes.There has been a great outcry about the erosion of democratic practices during these first hundred days of the second Trump presidency. Many Americans, probably a solid majority, are appalled at the attack on our courts and judges, at the willful ignoring of habeas corpus, at the intrusion of unelected figures – not just Elon Musk, but his whole “department of government efficiency” (Doge) team – into the privacy of American lives, at the undoing of the independence of agencies intended to protect the public.But protecting democracy is not enough. It is a rearguard action, one that fights against incursions that would transform the United States into an oligarchic state serving special interests. It does not address the needs of the larger public. Fighting for procedures and not substance is insufficient.Those who fight for the future of our nation need to fight not just against threats, but for a just and equitable future. Too often the well-deserved plaudits for those who fight against do not extend to articulating a program of what the American nation needs, in addition to democratic institutions.Here are five specific suggestions for what we should be fighting for. Without these reforms, defenses of democracy ring hollow, elevating a defense of form while denying any attention to substance.First, the nation needs a new minimum wage, a living wage, not the residue of 1938 legislation called the Fair Labor Standards Act. No one can live on $7.25 an hour, which translates to about $15,000 a year.Second, Americans deserve healthcare as a right. A Medicare for All system would extend healthcare to every person. Its cost would be more than offset by eliminating the 25% of healthcare spending that goes for overhead in our private-insurance-dominated system. Cutting $1tn of needless bureaucratic expenses and bill-keeping would ensure that we have the money to provide healthcare to everyone.Third, Americans should find it easy to join unions if they wish. The decline in unionization is a major reason why, as the wealthy get ever wealthier, wages have been flat or declining for almost 50 years. As it stands, the table is tilted toward management. Corporations regulate all employee concerns, from wages to healthcare to retirement benefits, leaving workers little to no chance to say what they actually want. We must level that playing field so that workers together can fight for their needs.Fourth, we need to increase taxes on the wealthy. There is no reason that Warren Buffett, as he has said, should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Increasing the marginal tax rate for the highest earners, limiting the exorbitant pass-throughs of the inheritance tax, and ending the unhealthy practice of taxing paper gains in wealth, or capital gains, less than the money earned by workers would diminish the federal deficit and at the same time fund many needed services to Americans. Removing the cap on income subject to social security taxes would ensure the solvency of the nation’s pension program for generations.Fifth, we should reverse the deeply damaging Citizens United decision, which enabled the wealthy and their special interests to buy elections. Currently, money and not votes determines the priorities of the United States. If the supreme court does not reverse this decision, a constitutional amendment limiting contributions – one person, one vote, with a low limit on individual contributions and no contributions by corporations – would fix this loophole, which has corrupted all of American politics.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere is, rightly, much concern about the undemocratic moves made by the Trump administration. But unless we demand changes in what the United States does, unless we do more than just defending the practices of democracy, our society will remain dysfunctional. Those who focus only on the process of maintaining the pipes required for quenching our thirst, without giving us actual water to drink, are fighting only a small part of the battle.What’s giving me hope nowWe need to fight for democracy, but we also need to fight for the achievable goals democracy can bring us, particularly economic justice for all Americans. Raising wages, providing healthcare to all, fostering unions, taxing the wealthy and corporations, preventing big money from buying elections: these are the things the renewal of democracy can and should bring us.

    Huck Gutman is a former chief of staff to Senator Bernie Sanders and an emeritus professor at the University of Vermont More

  • 213 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    An American has become pope. Will he be the moral leader we desperately need? | Arwa Mahdawi

    America is back, baby. Not only has the Gulf of Mexico been successfully Americanized, the Vatican is now officially US territory. OK, fine, not officially, but, on Thursday, the Chicago-born Robert Francis Prevost was announced as pope. The 69-year-old, who has taken the papal name Leo XIV, is the first clergyman from the United States to lead the Roman Catholic church.While Prevost was a frontrunner for the papacy, his victory seems to have taken many experts by surprise. There has long been resistance to an American pope for a number of reasons, including the fact that it might make it appear as if the Vatican is aligned with the world’s strongest economic and military power.“If the Catholic church were also run by an American, the global dominance of the US would be simply pervasive and overwhelming,” Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, a watchdog group that tracks clergy child abuse cases in the Catholic church worldwide, told ABC News recently.I’ll tell you who doesn’t seem particularly overwhelmed by the first American pope: Donald Trump. The president has spent the last few days posting AI-generated pictures of himself as the pope and generally mocking the Catholic church. Still, Trump was on his best behaviour when the official announcement came through, and posted a fairly restrained message on Truth Social, congratulating the pope and saying it was a “Great Honor for our Country”.Just give it a few days, though, and I’m sure Trump will be on Fox News taking credit for the new pope and announcing that the Vatican is going to get rid of all their dusty old Bibles and replace them with the Trump God Bless the USA Bible. Only $99.99 for the platinum edition and a bargain $74.99 for the pink and gold edition!Vice-President JD Vance, one of the last people to see Pope Francis alive, also posted a diplomatic message of congratulations, saying he was “sure millions of American Catholics and other Christians will pray for [Pope Leo’s] successful work leading the Church”.I am not an American Catholic. Nor am I Protestant, Episcopalian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or anything else. I am an atheist, although not a terribly devout one. But I am certainly praying as hard as I can that Pope Leo will be the moral leader that the world so desperately needs at this moment.For most of my life I have not been particularly interested in who the pope is. And I have had very little faith that the Vatican, which covered up systemic sexual abuse, could ever be a real force for good. But – and I know I am not alone when I say this – the past 19 months has fundamentally changed how I see the world. I used to believe in things like international human rights law. I used to believe that while the arc of the moral universe may be extremely long, it bends toward justice. I used to believe that universities would stand up for free speech. And I used to believe that no matter how craven western world leaders might be, they wouldn’t go so far as to enable the livestreamed genocide unfolding in Gaza. That western leaders wouldn’t stand by and cheer as Israel, whose total blockade on Gaza has entered its third month, starves children to death.During a time when international law has been dealt a deadly blow, when might is right and decades of progress seem to be unravelling, the late Pope Francis made an impression on non-Catholics like me for his moral clarity towards many marginalized groups and his advocacy for peace everywhere from “martyred Ukraine” to Gaza. Of course, his legacy is not perfect: many abuse victims have questioned whether he went far enough in acknowledging children sexually abused by clergy. But Pope Francis undoubtedly fought for the most vulnerable in society.Pope Francis also understood what many newspaper editors and politicians don’t seem to be able to comprehend: that there is no “both-sidesing” atrocities. That there are times where you must take sides because, as Desmond Tutu said, “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”In 2023, for example, Pope Francis went on a historic trip to South Sudan and told churches in the region that they “cannot remain neutral” but must speak up against injustice and abuse of power.Pope Francis also visited the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2023, where he criticized the “poison of greed” driving conflict in the region. “Hands off the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hands off Africa. Stop choking Africa: it is not a mine to be stripped or a terrain to be plundered,” Francis said.When it came to Gaza, Pope Francis spoke clearly and powerfully. He would call the only Roman Catholic church in Gaza almost nightly after this iteration of the conflict broke out. When so much of the world seems to have turned away from Gaza’s suffering, Pope Francis let anguished civilians know he cared. One of his last wishes was that his popemobile be turned into a mobile health clinic for children in the Gaza Strip.And Pope Francis was not shy about criticizing the US – consistently speaking up for immigrants and refugees. “We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories,” he told the US Congress in September 2015.We do not yet know how Pope Leo will undertake his duties but he is widely considered a centrist who was aligned with Francis on a number of social issues. Notably, in February Leo tweeted an article that disagreed with Vance’s views on immigration, headlined “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others”. In April, he also retweeted commentary criticizing Trump deporting a US resident to El Salvador.Whether Pope Leo will remain outspoken, whether he will continue Francis’s demands for a ceasefire in Gaza, remains to be seen. But the world desperately needs strong moral leadership at the moment. May Leo be the light we need in the current darkness. And, for his own sake, may he stay away from Vance.

    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More