Elections

The economy, and particularly inflation, has soured voters on both leaders, polls indicate, though well in advance of upcoming votes.When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Biden next meet, they will have something to commiserate over: their dismal standings in polls.President Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have seen their poll ratings slump.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesFor months now, Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party has been rapidly sinking in public opinion surveys, while more recent polls suggest that the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre would win any election held now.Similarly, new polls by The New York Times and Siena College have found that Mr. Biden is trailing Donald J. Trump in five of the six most important battleground states.[Read: Trump Leads in 5 Critical States as Voters Blast Biden, Times/Siena Poll Finds][The detailed Times/Siena Poll data]Comparing the political situations in Canada and the United States is a fraught business because of a variety of differences between the countries and their political systems. And, of course, Americans don’t vote for another year, and Canada’s next federal election is likely to be two years off.But disaffected voters in both countries share a major concern: inflation, and the economy in general.“There’s ample evidence that inflation is destructive to an incumbent government’s performance and how people feel about it,” David Coletto, the chairman and chief executive of Abacus Data, told me.Mr. Coletto’s latest poll found that 39 percent of committed voters would vote for the Conservatives and 26 percent would vote Liberal, while the New Democrats were backed by 18 percent of those voters. (In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois was supported by 34 percent of committed voters.)That is a long way down for Mr. Trudeau from his early days as prime minister, when his leadership approval ratings hit an eye-watering 73 percent in one poll. The current Abacus poll found that 53 percent of respondents had a negative view of Mr. Trudeau, with just 29 percent holding a favorable view.Many factors, Mr. Coletto said, contribute to that dissatisfaction, but inflation, higher interest rates, housing costs and a general feeling of ennui about the economy are at the top.Voters polled in the Times/Siena survey, by a 59 percent to 37 percent margin — the largest gap relating to any issue in the survey — said they had more trust in Mr. Trump than Mr. Biden on the economy.Some of the criticism of Mr. Trudeau’s economic record, Mr. Coletto said, is based on perceptions that don’t match reality. In an earlier Abacus survey, Mr. Coletto found that most Canadians incorrectly believed that inflation was higher in Canada than in other countries. International Monetary Fund statistics for October show that Canada’s 3.6 percent rate is well below Germany’s 6.3 percent or France’s 5.6. Similarly, Mr. Biden gets little or no credit for the significant job creation under his watch.“But it doesn’t calm nerves to say, ‘Folks, things are good here relatively speaking,’ when relative to where they were five years ago, things are not better,” Mr. Coletto said. “And that’s how people evaluate their situation because people don’t live in those other countries where inflation still remains very high.”High housing prices, inflation and interest rates are all weighing down Mr. Trudeau’s poll numbers.Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press, via Associated PressThe other big factor for Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Coletto said, is simply that many voters are tiring of a leader like him, who has been around since 2015 and led his party through three successful elections. Mr. Biden may only be in his first term as president, but he has been a national political figure since first being elected to the Senate 50 years ago.Mr. Biden’s age, 80, is also an issue. In the Times/Siena survey, 71 percent of respondents said he was “too old” to be effective as president. Only 39 percent thought that of Mr. Trump, who is 77.“Inflation kills governments plus time kills governments,” Mr. Coletto said.While the standing of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal government has never before dipped this low in the polls, there have been other periods when his popularity has ebbed, only to recover. And relatively few Liberals have publicly suggested it might be time for the prime minister to step aside despite his repeated vow to fight the next election. Similarly, calls for Mr. Biden to retire from prominent Democrats remain limited.“Is the prime minister going to stay, or go?” Mr. Coletto said. “I have no idea. But where his leadership is today is a very different place than it was five months ago.”Trans CanadaNew Zealand’s curling team is living in the Chartwell Colonel Belcher Retirement Residence while it trains in Canada.Todd Korol for The New York TimesThe latest, and youngest, residents of the Chartwell Colonel Belcher Retirement Residence in Calgary are the members of New Zealand’s curling team, who have come to Canada to hone their skills.The trial of David DePape, who the police say broke into Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home and bludgeoned her husband in 2022, when she was still speaker of the House, is underway. Mr. DePape, a Canadian, was living illegally in the United States at the time. His lawyer is not contesting prosecutors’ evidence.Following its bankruptcy filing, WeWork closed four Canadian locations. A Canadian real estate investor told The New York Times that the bankruptcy signified the end of projections that flexible office space would one day account for a significant portion of commercial office rentals.Marcel Dzama, the Winnipeg-born artist, spoke with Julia Halperin about his collection of 250 handmade masks.Kathleen Mansfield, a Toronto pharmacist, is among a group of people who told The Times Magazine about why they wanted space to be their final resting place.A first-class dinner menu from the Titanic dated April 11, 1912, which was found in a photo album from the 1960s that once belonged to a community historian in Dominion, Nova Scotia, is expected to sell for upward of $86,000 at auction.A native of Windsor, Ontario, Ian Austen was educated in Toronto, lives in Ottawa and has reported about Canada for The New York Times for the past 16 years. Follow him on Twitter at @ianrausten.How are we doing?We’re eager to have your thoughts about this newsletter and events in Canada in general. Please send them to [email protected] this email?Forward it to your friends, and let them know they can sign up here. More

Detener la construcción del muro fronterizo, permitir que Medicare negocie el precio de los medicamentos y acabar con la pena de muerte fueron algunos de sus compromisos para llegar a la Casa Blanca.En plena campaña de reelección del presidente Joe Biden, los demócratas han proclamado una serie de logros durante su mandato. En ocasiones, Biden ha recordado que su predecesor, Donald Trump, no cumplió del todo sus promesas.Pero, como todos los políticos, se ha enfrentado a la realidad de que hacer campaña y gobernar son dos cosas muy distintas, sobre todo en un gobierno dividido. Aunque Biden ha cumplido algunas de las promesas que hizo en 2020, no todas se han materializado a tres años de su elección.Por un lado, Biden ratificó el compromiso de Estados Unidos con el Acuerdo de París, un pacto internacional destinado a reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero; revocó el permiso para el oleoducto Keystone XL, que habría transportado petróleo de Canadá a Nebraska, y aumentó los subsidios federales para las personas que compran planes conforme a la Ley de Atención Médica Accesible. Por otra parte, ha sido incapaz de impulsar en el Congreso estadounidense una legislación sobre el derecho al voto o la prohibición de las armas de asalto y su ambicioso plan de condonar la deuda a los estudiantes fue rechazado por completo por la Corte Suprema.A continuación, una muestra de algunos de los compromisos de la campaña presidencial de Biden de 2020 y en qué punto se encuentran.Algunas de las promesas de Biden en 2020:InmigraciónImpuestosAtención médicaEducaciónCambio climáticoJusticia penalPolítica exteriorInmigraciónLO QUE SE DIJO“No se construirá ni un metro más de muro en mi gobierno”.—En una entrevista de 2020 en NPRAl postularse a la presidencia, Biden hizo del muro fronterizo de Trump una parte central de su campaña. En su primer día en el cargo, anunció que ponía fin a la declaración de emergencia nacional que se había utilizado para destinar recursos a la construcción del muro.Pero en las últimas semanas, el gobierno de Biden ha manejado con ligereza una serie de leyes para permitir la construcción de nuevas barreras en Texas, a lo largo de la frontera suroeste. La medida se produce en el contexto de un aumento en el número de migrantes que cruzan la frontera sin autorización, lo que altera de manera drástica las presiones políticas sobre Biden.Biden ha sostenido la postura de que un muro fronterizo es ineficaz. Pero declaró que el financiamiento se consignó para el muro fronterizo en 2019 y que el Congreso no reasignaría esos fondos —a pesar de los pedidos públicos del gobierno para que lo hiciera— lo cual quiere decir que el financiamiento tenía que usarse para ese propósito. Una ley de 1974 obliga al presidente a gastar el dinero según las instrucciones del Congreso, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca han dicho que la única manera de evitarlo era presentar una demanda, algo que el gobierno de Biden decidió no hacer.Antes del anuncio reciente, el gobierno autorizó que se completen algunas brechas pequeñas en el muro.LO QUE SE DIJO“Poner fin a las políticas de asilo perjudiciales de Trump”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020.Durante su campaña de 2020, Biden criticó en público la estrategia migratoria del gobierno de Trump y argumentó que había desafiado la tradición estadounidense al tratar de “restringir drásticamente el acceso al asilo en Estados Unidos”. Pero su gobierno también ha intentado limitar el proceso de asilo para disminuir la migración no autorizada.En mayo, el gobierno promulgó una norma que presume que la mayoría de los migrantes que cruzan ilegalmente la frontera desde México entre los puertos de entrada no son elegibles para el asilo. La norma descalifica a la mayoría de los solicitantes si entraron a Estados Unidos sin cita previa en un punto de entrada oficial o no pueden demostrar que buscaron protección legal en otro país por el que cruzaron.Al igual que el gobierno de Trump, Biden ha tratado de limitar el proceso de asilo para desalentar la migración no autorizada.Verónica G. Cárdenas para The New York TimesLa norma tiene sus excepciones: no aplica a los menores no acompañados ni a migrantes que puedan demostrar que su vida estaba en peligro inminente, por ejemplo, pero los críticos dicen que el criterio es similar al de Trump.Respecto a la cuestión de la inmigración en general, los aliados de Biden en el Congreso propusieron un proyecto de ley en 2021 que habría transformado el sistema migratorio, pero en última instancia fracasó. Hasta principios de este año, también se mantuvo en vigor el Título 42, una regla sanitaria de la época de la pandemia que promulgó el gobierno de Trump para expulsar con rapidez a los inmigrantes que cruzaran ilegalmente al país.ImpuestosLO QUE SE DIJO“Les garantizo, palabra de un Biden, que ninguna persona que gane menos de 400.000 dólares pagará un solo centavo de impuestos. Ni un centavo”.—Durante un mitin de campaña en octubre de 2020Biden no les ha aumentado los impuestos a los contribuyentes dentro de ese umbral, como prometió. Pero sí se ha centrado en aumentar los impuestos a las empresas y a quienes ganan más de 400.000 dólares. Por ejemplo, el presupuesto que propuso para el año fiscal 2024, incluye un aumento a la tasa de impuesto para Medicare del 3,8 al 5 por ciento para los ingresos superiores a 400.000 dólares.No obstante, esa “no es la historia completa”, afirmó William McBride, vicepresidente de política fiscal federal de la Tax Foundation, un laboratorio de ideas derechista.McBride señaló que algunos análisis estiman que los aumentos de impuestos a las empresas podrían tener un efecto indirecto en toda la escala de ingresos, ya que la carga suele repercutir, al menos en parte, en los consumidores y los trabajadores, por ejemplo, a través de salarios o valores bursátiles más bajos. Aunque los cálculos difieren, un análisis de la Tax Foundation de 2022 llegó a la conclusión de que, a largo plazo, la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación podría reducir los ingresos después de impuestos en torno a un 0,2 por ciento para la mayoría de los grupos de ingresos, incluidos los que ganan menos de 400.000 dólares.Atención médicaLO QUE SE DIJO“El plan de Biden derogará la legislación existente que le prohíbe de manera explícita a Medicare negociar precios más bajos con las corporaciones farmacéuticas”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Como presidente, Biden sí promulgó una ley que autorizaba al gobierno federal a negociar precios más bajos de algunos medicamentos para los beneficiarios de Medicare, pero sin derogar la ley vigente, sino añadiendo una excepción.Esa medida formaba parte de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación aprobada en 2022. La Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso ha calculado que el programa podría ahorrarle al gobierno unos 100.000 millones de dólares en una década. Los fabricantes de medicamentos han presentado múltiples demandas en un intento por detener el programa de fijación de precios de medicamentos.LO QUE SE DIJO“Lo que voy a hacer es aprobar Obamacare con una opción pública, para convertirla en Bidencare”.—Durante un debate de octubre de 2020Desde que asumió el cargo, Biden no ha tomado medidas formales para hacer realidad esta propuesta. De hecho, desde entonces, ha mencionado muy pocas veces su promesa de una opción pública, lo cual le daría a los estadounidenses la posibilidad de inscribirse a un plan de salud administrado por el gobierno.“Es justo decir que el presidente Biden no ha impulsado con fuerza la idea de una opción pública desde que llegó al cargo”, comentó Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de política sanitaria de KFF, un grupo sin fines de lucro centrado en política sanitaria.La primera propuesta presupuestaria de Biden, para el año fiscal 2022, abordaba su deseo de una opción pública, aunque con pocos detalles. Conseguir que el Congreso apruebe una opción pública sería, como sucede con algunas otras propuestas de campaña, un gran desafío.EducaciónLO QUE SE DIJO“Invertir en nuestras escuelas para eliminar la brecha de financiamiento entre distritos blancos y no blancos, y distritos ricos y pobres”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Para lograr este objetivo, Biden propuso triplicar la financiación del Título I, que proporciona ayuda a las escuelas locales para beneficiar a los estudiantes de bajos ingresos. Durante la presidencia de Biden, el financiamiento de las subvenciones del Título I ha aumentado, pero de manera más modesta: en torno a un 11 por ciento, aunque sus defensores afirman que el impulso se ha visto atenuado por la inflación y el aumento de las inscripciones. Las propuestas del gobierno de aumentos mucho mayores han fracasado en el Congreso.Dado el tamaño del programa Título I —18.400 millones de dólares en el año fiscal 2023— triplicar el financiamiento en tres años mediante el proceso de asignaciones “no es realista”, dijo Sarah Abernathy, directora ejecutiva de Committee for Education Funding.Mientras que la Casa Blanca ha propuesto un aumento adicional en la financiación del Título I, un plan de los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes ha pedido recortes severos.Biden propuso triplicar la financiación del Título I, que proporciona ayuda a las escuelas locales para beneficiar a los estudiantes de bajos ingresos.Logan R. Cyrus para The New York TimesEn su promesa de subsanar las diferencias entre los distritos, la campaña de Biden para 2020 citó a un grupo educativo ya desaparecido, que había evaluado las discrepancias en ese momento. Los expertos no conocían ningún análisis actual que ofreciera una comparación directa.Pero la financiación del Título I por sí sola no puede resolver estas carencias, porque los distritos escolares se financian mayoritariamente a nivel estatal y local, según Noelle Ellerson Ng, directora ejecutiva adjunta de defensa y gobernanza de AASA, la Asociación de Superintendentes de Distritos Escolares.LO QUE SE DIJO“Como presidente, Biden tratará de avanzar en este tema con la promulgación de leyes que garanticen que todas las personas trabajadoras, incluidos los que asisten a la escuela medio tiempo y los ‘dreamers’ (los adultos jóvenes que llegaron a Estados Unidos en la infancia), puedan ir a la universidad comunitaria durante un máximo de dos años de manera gratuita”.“Hacer que los colegios y las universidades públicas sean gratuitas para todas las familias cuyos ingresos son inferiores a 125.000 dólares anuales”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020El gobierno de Biden no ha conseguido hacer realidad estas promesas, aunque sí ha propuesto dedicarles fondos.Por ejemplo, en su plan de presupuesto para el año fiscal 2024, el gobierno solicitó 90.000 millones de dólares a lo largo de 10 años para que los dos primeros años de la universidad comunitaria fueran gratuitos.Además, el gobierno pidió dos años de “matrícula subsidiada” para los estudiantes de familias con ingresos inferiores a 125.000 dólares y, en específico, para los estudiantes que asisten a universidades históricamente negras u otras universidades que reciben a estudiantes de minorías.Cambio climáticoLO QUE SE DIJO“Ya no se perforarán las tierras federales, punto”.—Durante febrero de 2020 en un evento municipalContrario al compromiso de Biden en campaña, su gobierno aprobó formalmente en marzo un proyecto de perforación petrolera en Alaska conocido como Willow. El gobierno hizo hincapié en que limitó el proyecto, ya que rechazó dos de los cinco lugares de perforación propuestos e hizo que la empresa que lo promovía devolviera al gobierno unas 27.518 hectáreas de arrendamientos existentes.Desde entonces, Biden anunció una prohibición a la perforación de más de 5 millones de hectáreas de zonas naturales en la Reserva Nacional de Petróleo de Alaska y canceló los arrendamientos de perforación en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre del Ártico.En cuanto a otras medidas relacionadas con el cambio climático, la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación supuso una gran inversión en energías limpias, incluso mediante lucrativos incentivos fiscales que, según algunos datos, contribuyeron a estimular la inversión privada. Y el gobierno propuso normativas para limitar la contaminación de gases de efecto invernadero de las centrales eléctricas existentes.LO QUE SE DIJO“Como presidente, Biden trabajará con los gobernadores y alcaldes del país para apoyar el despliegue de más de 500.000 nuevos puntos de recarga públicos para finales de 2030”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Con determinación, Biden ha presionado para ayudar a acelerar el cambio del país al uso de vehículos eléctricos, incluso mediante la propuesta de normas ambientales. También firmó leyes para invertir en estaciones de carga. Las leyes bipartidistas de infraestructura del 2021 incluyeron 7500 millones de dólares para construir esas estaciones.La Casa Blanca ha declarado que Estados Unidos está en vías de alcanzar 500.000 cargadores para 2030, aunque no especificó si esa estimación se refiere al total de cargadores públicos o a nuevos cargadores públicos, como decía el objetivo de la campaña.Con determinación, Biden ha presionado para ayudar a acelerar el cambio del país a los vehículos eléctricos.Gabby Jones para The New York TimesAlgunos expertos afirmaron que incluso alcanzar la meta de 500.000 estaciones de carga públicas será un desafío, aunque no imposible. “Es técnicamente factible alcanzar el objetivo, pero no será fácil”, comentó Kenneth Gillingham, profesor de Economía Medioambiental y Energética de la Universidad de Yale.Sin embargo, según algunas estimaciones, alcanzar los 500.000 cargadores públicos en 2030 no es suficiente. Un informe reciente de Alliance for Automotive Innovation, un grupo comercial, afirma que hoy se necesitan más de 530.000 cargadores, antes de que se produzca el aumento previsto en la adopción de vehículos eléctricos.Justicia penalLO QUE SE DIJO“Como no podemos tener la certeza que decidamos correctamente siempre en estos casos, debemos eliminar la pena de muerte”.—En X, plataforma antes conocida como Twitter, en julio de 2019Biden no ha eliminado la pena de muerte, para lo cual sería necesaria una ley. Su gobierno ha tomado algunas medidas para reducir el uso de la pena capital, pero algunos que se oponen a ella han dicho que Biden no ha actuado con suficiente agresividad.En 2021, el procurador general Merrick Garland impuso una moratoria a las ejecuciones federales después de que el gobierno de Trump reanudó la práctica tras un lapso de casi dos décadas sin ejecuciones. Durante la gestión de Garland, el Departamento de Justicia no ha solicitado la pena de muerte en nuevos casos.Dicho esto, los fiscales federales también se negaron a cambiar de rumbo en un caso iniciado en el gobierno de Trump que buscaba la pena de muerte para un hombre que mató a ocho personas en un ataque con camión en Manhattan en 2017. El sospechoso, Sayfullo Saipov, fue finalmente sentenciado este año a cadena perpetua después de que un jurado no se pusiera de acuerdo sobre si imponer la pena de muerte.El departamento también ha trabajado para mantener las penas de muerte existentes, como la impuesta a Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, condenado a muerte por su participación en los atentados del maratón de Boston de 2013.LO QUE SE DIJO“Usar el poder de clemencia del presidente para asegurar la liberación de individuos que enfrentan sentencias indebidamente largas por ciertos delitos no violentos y de drogas”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020Biden ha cumplido este compromiso, utilizando por primera vez el poder de clemencia en 2022, ya que conmutó las penas de 75 infractores por delitos de drogas y concedió tres indultos. Meses después, indultó a miles de personas condenadas por posesión de marihuana, según la ley federal.Política exteriorLO QUE SE DIJO“Regresaré a los soldados de combate en Afganistán a casa durante mi primer mandato”.—En respuesta a un cuestionario de 2020 de The New York TimesBiden cumplió este compromiso, ya que retiró a Estados Unidos de Afganistán en agosto de 2021 y dio por concluida la guerra más larga de la historia estadounidense, aunque el final fue caótico y mortal. La retirada ya se estaba gestando desde el gobierno de Trump.LO QUE SE DIJO“Si Teherán regresa al cumplimiento del acuerdo, el presidente Biden volverá a ratificar el acuerdo y utilizará una diplomacia dura y el apoyo de nuestros aliados para fortalecerlo y ampliarlo, al tiempo que presionaría con mayor eficacia contra las otras actividades desestabilizadoras de Irán”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020Biden se refería al acuerdo nuclear iraní de 2015, un acuerdo destinado a limitar el programa nuclear de Irán a cambio de la reducción de las sanciones. El gobierno de Trump se retiró del acuerdo en 2018. A pesar de más de un año de negociaciones tras la elección de Biden, Estados Unidos e Irán no lograron reincorporarse al acuerdo.Hace poco, el gobierno de Biden anunció nuevas sanciones contra Irán. La decisión se produjo al expirar una medida de las Naciones Unidas asociada al acuerdo nuclear, y también tras el ataque sorpresa del 7 de octubre contra Israel por parte de Hamás, que recibe apoyo de Irán. More

A coalition of groups collecting petition signatures for a ballot protecting abortion rights says its fund-raising got a boost after the Ohio results.Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, campaigns to protect abortion rights have galvanized voters in state after state. It has become Democrats’ most successful issue ahead of an uncertain 2024 election cycle — and their biggest hope, especially after voters in Ohio approved on Tuesday a measure to enshrine abortion rights in the State Constitution.That triumphant streak has propelled campaigns for similar abortion measures in swing, or potentially swing, states, including Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. But none might be as tantalizing a prize as Florida, which has moved increasingly out of Democrats’ grasp in electoral contests.But getting a question on next year’s ballot in the state is hardly guaranteed.Like in Ohio, Florida’s government is controlled by Republicans. Also like Ohio, Florida has put in place a six-week abortion ban, with its enactment pending approval by the state’s Supreme Court. (That case centers on Florida’s existing 15-week ban, but affirming that restriction would then trigger the six-week ban approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April.)Abortion rights supporters reacted after the ballot measure in Ohio passed. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe parallels between the two states give Florida organizers hope for success, despite steep obstacles that include a court review of the proposed ballot measure and a costly petition-gathering process. If voters in Florida get to weigh in on the abortion question, organizers say, they too are likely to want to protect their rights.“Florida has always been a deeply libertarian state,” said Anna Hochkammer, executive director of the Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition. “‘Find your tribe, find your people, live your life — we’ll leave you alone.’ It’s part of Floridian culture. And Floridians reject outright that the government should be involved in these decisions. It is deeply offensive to Floridians’ sense of independence and freedom.”Since June 2022, when Roe was overturned, states have given voters a direct say on abortion access, either to protect abortion rights, weaken them or explicitly exclude them from state constitutions. Kansas, Kentucky and Michigan all voted to expand or maintain abortion rights.In Florida, a coalition of groups under the umbrella organization of Floridians Protecting Freedom, including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, has collected a little more than half of the nearly 900,000 petition signatures it needs for a ballot measure that aims to limit “government interference with abortion” before a fetus is considered viable, which is often around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion was legal up to 24 weeks in Florida until last year.The coalition had collected about $9 million by the end of September but says its next report will show that more than $12 million has been raised. Most donations have come from Florida, with limited interest so far from the out-of-state donors who propelled campaigns in Ohio and elsewhere.The coalition raised more than $300,000 on Wednesday after the Ohio victory, Ms. Hochkammer said, with more people clicking through the group’s fund-raising emails or taking calls.State Senator Lori Berman of Florida speaking at a news conference in March to voice her opposition to the state’s near total abortion ban.Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat, via Associated Press“The phones started ringing, and pledges started coming in,” she said. “I think that there were a lot of people that were sitting on their money, waiting to see what happened in Ohio. And we had a great day.”Among the places where volunteers and paid petition-gatherers have found eager supporters are screenings of the “Barbie” movie and the Taylor Swift Eras Tour movie, both of which have feminism as a key theme and strong female leads, said Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.The coalition still needs to collect — and the state must validate — about 400,000 more signatures by Feb. 1, a difficult and expensive task.The ballot language must also be approved by the conservative-leaning Florida Supreme Court. The state’s Republican attorney general, Ashley Moody, announced a challenge to the measure last month.She and several groups that oppose abortion have argued that the measure is too broad, vague and misleading. Florida requires that ballot questions be clear and limited to a single subject.“This effort to hoodwink the Florida electorate should be rebuffed,” Ms. Moody wrote in a legal brief filed Oct. 31.The ballot question, which would include a summary of the amendment that would be added to the State Constitution if the initiative passes, would read in part, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.” The question does not adequately define “viability”; whether “the patient’s health” would include mental health; and who would be considered a “health care provider,” Ms. Moody argued.“It’s abortion on demand for any reason,” said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, a conservative Christian group. “It’s not only extreme, but it’s deceptive — and that’s a problem.”Mr. Stemberger said there was “a very good chance” that the State Supreme Court, whose ideological balance has shifted from liberal to conservative, could strike down the amendment. If not, his organization and others have already formed a political committee, Florida Voters Against Extremism, to prepare for a campaign.“Ohio is just a reminder that we still have a lot of work to do,” he said. “We have to go back to the drawing board and explain to people why unborn children are valuable, why adoption is always the better option.”Unlike in Ohio, where protecting abortion rights passed with about 57 percent of the vote, Florida requires citizen-led ballot initiatives to obtain more than 60 percent of the vote to pass. A University of North Florida poll found last year that 60 percent of residents opposed the 15-week ban after they were told that it does not include exceptions for rape or incest.Ms. Hochkammer said the coalition’s polling suggested that more than 70 percent of Floridians supported the abortion rights measure, including 64 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of voters who supported former President Donald J. Trump.Florida voters have tended to support ballot measures championing liberal causes, even while also electing Republican leaders who in many cases later watered down or undermined the implementation of those measures once in office.Until recently, Florida was considered the nation’s largest presidential battleground, with elections decided by tiny margins and former President Barack Obama winning the state twice. But Republicans have been making gains: Mr. Trump won by more than three percentage points in 2020, and Governor DeSantis by 19 points, a landslide, last year.Still, significant citizen-led constitutional measures have done well once they have overcome the hurdles to make it onto the ballot.In 2020, voters backed a $15 hourly minimum wage — and Mr. Trump. In 2018, they voted to restore felons’ voting rights — and for Mr. DeSantis. In 2016, they voted to legalize medical marijuana — and for Mr. Trump.“We are not a deeply conservative, extremist state,” Ms. Hochkammer said. “We are a deeply gerrymandered state, and the fact that our divided election results have been skewing a certain way should not mislead people about what the political appetite is in Florida.” More

Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.The plans would sharply restrict both legal and illegal immigration in a multitude of ways.Mr. Trump wants to revive his first-term border policies, including banning entry by people from certain Muslim-majority nations and reimposing a Covid 19-era policy of refusing asylum claims — though this time he would base that refusal on assertions that migrants carry other infectious diseases like tuberculosis.He plans to scour the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport people by the millions per year.To help speed mass deportations, Mr. Trump is preparing an enormous expansion of a form of removal that does not require due process hearings. To help Immigration and Customs Enforcement carry out sweeping raids, he plans to reassign other federal agents and deputize local police officers and National Guard soldiers voluntarily contributed by Republican-run states.To ease the strain on ICE detention facilities, Mr. Trump wants to build huge camps to detain people while their cases are processed and they await deportation flights. And to get around any refusal by Congress to appropriate the necessary funds, Mr. Trump would redirect money in the military budget, as he did in his first term to spend more on a border wall than Congress had authorized.“Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown,” said Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s former White House aide who was the chief architect of his border control efforts.Cooper Neill for The New York TimesIn a public reference to his plans, Mr. Trump told a crowd in Iowa in September: “Following the Eisenhower model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” The reference was to a 1954 campaign to round up and expel Mexican immigrants that was named for an ethnic slur — “Operation Wetback.”The constellation of Mr. Trump’s 2025 plans amounts to an assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American history. Millions of undocumented immigrants would be barred from the country or uprooted from it years or even decades after settling here.Such a scale of planned removals would raise logistical, financial and diplomatic challenges and would be vigorously challenged in court. But there is no mistaking the breadth and ambition of the shift Mr. Trump is eyeing.In a second Trump presidency, the visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests would be canceled. U.S. consular officials abroad will be directed to expand ideological screening of visa applicants to block people the Trump administration considers to have undesirable attitudes. People who were granted temporary protected status because they are from certain countries deemed unsafe, allowing them to lawfully live and work in the United States, would have that status revoked.Similarly, numerous people who have been allowed to live in the country temporarily for humanitarian reasons would also lose that status and be kicked out, including tens of thousands of the Afghans who were evacuated amid the 2021 Taliban takeover and allowed to enter the United States. Afghans holding special visas granted to people who helped U.S. forces would be revetted to see if they really did.And Mr. Trump would try to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to undocumented parents — by proclaiming that policy to be the new position of the government and by ordering agencies to cease issuing citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards and passports to them. That policy’s legal legitimacy, like nearly all of Mr. Trump’s plans, would be virtually certain to end up before the Supreme Court.In interviews with The New York Times, several Trump advisers gave the most expansive and detailed description yet of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda in a potential second term. In particular, Mr. Trump’s campaign referred questions for this article to Stephen Miller, an architect of Mr. Trump’s first-term immigration policies who remains close to him and is expected to serve in a senior role in a second administration.All of the steps Trump advisers are preparing, Mr. Miller contended in a wide-ranging interview, rely on existing statutes; while the Trump team would likely seek a revamp of immigration laws, the plan was crafted to need no new substantive legislation. And while acknowledging that lawsuits would arise to challenge nearly every one of them, he portrayed the Trump team’s daunting array of tactics as a “blitz” designed to overwhelm immigrant-rights lawyers.“Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown,” Mr. Miller said, adding, “The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”Todd Schulte, the president of FWD.us, an immigration and criminal justice advocacy group that repeatedly fought the Trump administration, said the Trump team’s plans relied on “xenophobic demagoguery” that appeals to his hardest-core political base.“Americans should understand these policy proposals are an authoritarian, often illegal, agenda that would rip apart nearly every aspect of American life — tanking the economy, violating the basic civil rights of millions of immigrants and native-born Americans alike,” Mr. Schulte said.‘Poisoning the Blood’Migrants gather outside the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan in August, waiting to be processed.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesSince Mr. Trump left office, the political environment on immigration has moved in his direction. He is also more capable now of exploiting that environment if he is re-elected than he was when he first won election as an outsider.The ebbing of the Covid-19 pandemic and resumption of travel flows have helped stir a global migrant crisis, with millions of Venezuelans and Central Americans fleeing turmoil and Africans arriving in Latin American countries before continuing their journey north. Amid the record numbers of migrants at the southern border and beyond it in cities like New York and Chicago, voters are frustrated and even some Democrats are calling for tougher action against immigrants and pressuring the White House to better manage the crisis.Mr. Trump and his advisers see the opening, and now know better how to seize it. The aides Mr. Trump relied upon in the chaotic early days of his first term were sometimes at odds and lacked experience in how to manipulate the levers of federal power. By the end of his first term, cabinet officials and lawyers who sought to restrain some of his actions — like his Homeland Security secretary and chief of staff, John F. Kelly — had been fired, and those who stuck with him had learned much.In a second term, Mr. Trump plans to install a team that will not restrain him.Since much of Mr. Trump’s first-term immigration crackdown was tied up in the courts, the legal environment has tilted in his favor: His four years of judicial appointments left behind federal appellate courts and a Supreme Court that are far more conservative than the courts that heard challenges to his first-term policies.The fight over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals provides an illustration.DACA is an Obama-era program that shields from deportation and grants work permits to people who were brought unlawfully to the United States as children. Mr. Trump tried to end it, but the Supreme Court blocked him on procedural grounds in June 2020.Mr. Miller said Mr. Trump would try again to end DACA. And the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that blocked the last attempt no longer exists: A few months after the DACA ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Mr. Trump replaced her with a sixth conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.Mr. Trump’s rhetoric has more than kept up with his increasingly extreme agenda on immigration.His stoking of fear and anger toward immigrants — pushing for a border wall and calling Mexicans rapists — fueled his 2016 takeover of the Republican Party. As president, he privately mused about developing a militarized border like Israel’s, asked whether migrants crossing the border could be shot in the legs and wanted a proposed border wall topped with flesh-piercing spikes and painted black to burn migrants’ skin.As he has campaigned for the party’s third straight presidential nomination, his anti-immigrant tone has only grown harsher. In a recent interview with a right-wing website, Mr. Trump claimed without evidence that foreign leaders were deliberately emptying their “insane asylums” to send the patients across America’s southern border as migrants. He said migrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” And at a rally on Wednesday in Florida, he compared them to the fictional serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter, saying, “That’s what’s coming into our country right now.”Mr. Trump had similarly vowed to carry out mass deportations when running for office in 2016, but the government only managed several hundred thousand removals per year under his presidency, on par with other recent administrations. If they get another opportunity, Mr. Trump and his team are determined to achieve annual numbers in the millions.Keeping People OutMigrants wait to be escorted by Border Patrol agents to a processing area in September. Mr. Trump’s stoking of fear and anger toward immigrants fueled his 2016 takeover of the Republican Party. Mark Abramson for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s immigration plan is to pick up where he left off and then go much farther. He would not only revive some of the policies that were criticized as draconian during his presidency, many of which the Biden White House ended, but also expand and toughen them.One example centers on expanding first-term policies aimed at keeping people out of the country. Mr. Trump plans to suspend the nation’s refugee program and once again categorically bar visitors from troubled countries, reinstating a version of his ban on travel from several mostly Muslim-majority countries, which President Biden called discriminatory and ended on his first day in office.Mr. Trump would also use coercive diplomacy to induce other nations to help, including by making cooperation a condition of any other bilateral engagement, Mr. Miller said. For example, a second Trump administration would seek to re-establish an agreement with Mexico that asylum seekers remain there while their claims are processed. (It is not clear that Mexico would agree; a Mexican court has said that deal violated human rights.)Mr. Trump would also push to revive “safe third country” agreements with several nations in Central America, and try to expand them to Africa, Asia and South America. Under such deals, countries agree to take would-be asylum seekers from specific other nations and let them apply for asylum there instead.While such arrangements have traditionally only covered migrants who had previously passed through a third country, federal law does not require that limit and a second Trump administration would seek to make those deals without it, in part as a deterrent to migrants making what the Trump team views as illegitimate asylum claims.At the same time, Mr. Miller said, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would invoke the public health emergency powers law known as Title 42 to again refuse to hear any asylum claims by people arriving at the southern border. The Trump administration had internally discussed that idea early in Mr. Trump’s term, but some cabinet secretaries pushed back, arguing that there was no public health emergency that would legally justify it. The administration ultimately implemented it during the coronavirus pandemic.Saying the idea has since gained acceptance in practice — Mr. Biden initially kept the policy — Mr. Miller said Mr. Trump would invoke Title 42, citing “severe strains of the flu, tuberculosis, scabies, other respiratory illnesses like R.S.V. and so on, or just a general issue of mass migration being a public health threat and conveying a variety of communicable diseases.”Mr. Trump and his aides have not yet said whether they would re-enact one of the most contentious deterrents to unauthorized immigration that he pursued as president: separating children from their parents, which led to trauma among migrants and difficulties in reuniting families. When pressed, Mr. Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out reviving the policy. After an outcry over the practice, Mr. Trump ended it in 2018 and a judge later blocked the government from putting it back into effect.Mass DeportationsFederal immigration-enforcement officers gathered for an arrest operation in May in Pompano Beach, Fla.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesSoon after Mr. Trump announced his 2024 campaign for president last November, he met with Tom Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and was an early proponent of separating families to deter migrants.In an interview, Mr. Homan recalled that in that meeting, he “agreed to come back” in a second term and would “help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.”Trump advisers’ vision of abrupt mass deportations would be a recipe for social and economic turmoil, disrupting the housing market and major industries including agriculture and the service sector.Mr. Miller cast such disruption in a favorable light.“Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs,” he said. “Americans will also celebrate the fact that our nation’s laws are now being applied equally, and that one select group is no longer magically exempt.”One planned step to overcome the legal and logistical hurdles would be to significantly expand a form of fast-track deportations known as “expedited removal.” It denies undocumented immigrants the opportunity to seek asylum hearings and file appeals, which can take months or years — especially when people are not in custody — and has led to a large backlog. A 1996 law says people can be subject to expedited removal for up to two years after arriving, but to date the executive branch has used it more cautiously, swiftly expelling people picked up near the border soon after crossing.The Trump administration tried to expand the use of expedited removal, but a court blocked it and then the Biden team canceled the expansion. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will rule that it is constitutional to use the law against people who have been living for a significant period in the United States and express fear of persecution if sent home.Mr. Trump has also said he would invoke an archaic law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process. That law allows for summary deportation of people from countries with which the United States is at war, that have invaded the United States or that have engaged in “predatory incursions.”Tom Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration, said he told Mr. Trump he would “help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.”Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesThe Supreme Court has upheld past uses of that law in wartime. But its text seems to require a link to the actions of a foreign government, so it is not clear whether the justices will allow a president to stretch it to encompass drug cartel activity.More broadly, Mr. Miller said a new Trump administration would shift from the ICE practice of arresting specific people to carrying out workplace raids and other sweeps in public places aimed at arresting scores of unauthorized immigrants at once. While every administration has used detention facilities, because of the magnitude of deportations being contemplated, the Trump team plans to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for migrants waiting to be flown to other countries, Mr. Miller said. Such an undertaking would be fast-tracked, he said, “by bringing in the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy thinkers” — taking what is typically a methodical process “and making it radically more quick and efficient.”Mr. Miller said the new camps would likely be built “on open land in Texas near the border.” He said the military would construct them under the authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security. While he cautioned that there were no specific blueprints yet, he said the camps would look professional and similar to other facilities for migrants that have been built near the border.The use of these camps, he said, would likely be focused more on single adults because the government cannot indefinitely hold children under a longstanding court order known as the Flores settlement. So any families brought to the facilities would have to be moved in and out more quickly, Mr. Miller said.The Trump administration tried to overturn the Flores settlement, but the Supreme Court did not resolve the matter before Mr. Trump’s term ended. Mr. Miller said the Trump team would try again.To increase the number of agents available for ICE sweeps, Mr. Miller said, officials from other federal law enforcement agencies would be temporarily reassigned, and state National Guard troops and local police officers, at least from willing Republican-led states, would be deputized for immigration control efforts.While a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act generally forbids the use of the armed forces for law enforcement purposes, another law called the Insurrection Act creates an exception. Mr. Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act at the border, enabling the use of federal troops to apprehend migrants, Mr. Miller said.“Bottom line,” he said, “President Trump will do whatever it takes.”Zolan Kanno-Youngs More

Days after a raid at Mr. Adams’s chief fund-raiser’s home, federal agents took the mayor’s phones and iPad, two people with knowledge of the matter said.F.B.I. agents seized Mayor Eric Adams’s electronic devices early this week in what appeared to be a dramatic escalation of a criminal inquiry into whether his 2021 campaign conspired with the Turkish government and others to funnel money into its coffers.The agents approached the mayor after an event in Manhattan on Monday evening and asked his security detail to step away, a person with knowledge of the matter said. They climbed into his S.U.V. with him and, pursuant to a court-authorized warrant, took his devices, the person said.The devices — at least two cellphones and an iPad — were returned to the mayor within a matter of days, according to that person and another person familiar with the situation. Law enforcement investigators with a search warrant can make copies of the data on devices after they seize them.A lawyer for Mr. Adams and his campaign said in a statement that the mayor was cooperating with federal authorities, and had already “proactively reported” at least one instance of improper behavior.“After learning of the federal investigation, it was discovered that an individual had recently acted improperly,” said the lawyer, Boyd Johnson. “In the spirit of transparency and cooperation, this behavior was immediately and proactively reported to investigators.”Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Adams has not been accused of wrongdoing and had “immediately complied with the F.B.I.’s request and provided them with electronic devices.” Mr. Adams had attended an anniversary celebration for an education initiative at New York University.The statement did not identify the individual, detail the conduct reported to authorities or make clear whether the reported misconduct was related to the seizure of the mayor’s devices. It was also not immediately clear whether the agents referred to the fund-raising investigation when they took the mayor’s devices.Mr. Adams, in his own statement, said that “as a former member of law enforcement, I expect all members of my staff to follow the law and fully cooperate with any sort of investigation — and I will continue to do exactly that.” He added that he had “nothing to hide.”The surprise seizure of Mr. Adams’s devices was an extraordinary development and appeared to be the first direct instance of the campaign contribution investigation touching the mayor. Mr. Adams, a retired police captain, said on Wednesday that he is so strident in urging his staff to “follow the law” that he can be almost “annoying.” He laughed at the notion that he had any potential criminal exposure.Spokesmen for the F.B.I. and the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, whose prosecutors are also investigating the matter, declined to comment.The federal investigation into Mr. Adams’s campaign burst into public view on Nov. 2, when F.B.I. agents searched the home of the mayor’s chief fund-raiser and seized two laptop computers, three iPhones and a manila folder labeled “Eric Adams.”The fund-raiser, a 25-year-old former intern named Brianna Suggs, has not spoken publicly since the raid.Mr. Adams responded to news of the raid by abruptly returning from Washington, D.C., where he had only just arrived for a day of meetings with White House and congressional leaders regarding the migrant influx, an issue he has said threatens to “destroy New York City.”On Wednesday, he said his abrupt return was driven by his desire to be present for his team, and out of concern for Ms. Suggs, who he said had gone through a “traumatic experience.”“Although I am mayor, I have not stopped being a man and a human,” he said.But he also said he did not speak with Ms. Suggs on the day of the raid, to avoid any appearance of interfering in an ongoing investigation.The seizure of Mr. Adams’s devices took place days after the F.B.I. raided the Brooklyn home of his chief fund-raiser, Brianna Suggs.Stephanie Keith for The New York TimesThe warrant obtained by the F.B.I. to search Ms. Suggs’s home sought evidence of a conspiracy to violate campaign finance law between members of Mr. Adams’s campaign, the Turkish government or Turkish nationals, and a Brooklyn-based construction company, KSK Construction, whose owners are originally from Turkey. The warrant also sought records about donations from Bay Atlantic University, a Washington, D.C., college whose founder is Turkish and is affiliated with a school Mr. Adams visited when he went to Turkey as Brooklyn borough president in 2015.The warrant, reviewed by The New York Times, indicated authorities were looking at whether the Turkish government or Turkish nationals funneled donations to Mr. Adams using a so-called straw donor scheme, in which the contributors listed were not the actual source of the money. The warrant also inquired about Mr. Adams’s campaign’s use of New York City’s generous public matching program, in which New York City offers an eight-to-one match of the first $250 of a resident’s donation.The federal authorities also sought evidence of whether any Adams campaign member provided any benefit to Turkey or the construction company in exchange for campaign donations.The Turkish Consulate in Manhattan on Thursday.Sara Hylton for The New York TimesThis is not the first time Mr. Adams or people in his orbit have attracted law enforcement scrutiny. In September, Eric Ulrich, Mr. Adams’s former buildings commissioner and senior adviser, was indicted by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, on 16 felony charges, including counts of bribetaking and conspiracy.In July, Mr. Bragg indicted six people, including a retired police inspector who once worked and socialized with Mr. Adams, on charges of conspiring to funnel illegal donations to the mayor’s 2021 campaign.Separately, the city’s Department of Investigation was investigating the role of Timothy Pearson, one of the mayor’s closest advisers, in a violent altercation at a migrant center in Manhattan.Mr. Adams has also had skirmishes with the law before becoming mayor. Soon after he was elected Brooklyn borough president, he organized an event to raise money for a new nonprofit, One Brooklyn, which had not yet registered with the state. The invitation list was based on donor rolls for nonprofits run by his predecessor, records show.A city Department of Investigation inquiry concluded Mr. Adams and his nonprofit appeared to have improperly solicited funding from groups that either had or would soon have matters pending before his office. Mr. Adams’s office emphasized to investigators that the slip-ups had occurred early in his administration and promised to comply with the law going forward.Earlier, while Mr. Adams was a New York state senator, the state inspector general found that he and other Senate Democrats had fraternized with lobbyists and accepted significant campaign contributions from people affiliated with contenders for a video lottery contract at Aqueduct Racetrack.In response to a Times examination of his fund-raising record in 2021, Mr. Adams attributed the scrutiny in part to his race.“Black candidates for office are often held to a higher, unfair standard — especially those from lower-income backgrounds such as myself,” he said in a statement then. “No campaign of mine has ever been charged with a serious fund-raising violation, and no contribution has ever affected my decision-making as a public official.” He added: “I did not go from being a person that enforced the law to become one that breaks the law.”Mr. Adams is not the first city mayor whose fund-raising has attracted federal scrutiny. In 2017, federal prosecutors examined episodes in which Bill de Blasio, who was then the mayor, or his surrogates sought donations from people seeking favors from the city, and then made inquiries to city agencies on their behalf.In deciding not to bring charges, the acting United States attorney, Joon H. Kim, cited “the particular difficulty in proving criminal intent in corruption schemes where there is no evidence of personal profit.” Mr. de Blasio received a warning letter about those activities from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. More

Judge Aileen M. Cannon said she would meet with prosecutors and defense lawyers in March to settle on a schedule for the former president’s trial in federal court in Florida.A federal judge on Friday put off until at least March the fraught and consequential decision of whether to delay the start of former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of illegally holding on to a trove of highly classified national security secrets after he left office.But acknowledging “the evolving complexities” in the proceeding, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, also said it would be “prudent” to push back several deadlines she had set for pretrial motions to be filed, especially those involving the classified materials at the heart of the case.While Judge Cannon’s ruling left the question of the trial’s timing unresolved, it staked out a temporary middle ground between Mr. Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith.Mr. Trump’s legal team, pursuing a persistent strategy of delay, has repeatedly asked the judge to postpone the trial until after the 2024 election. Prosecutors under Mr. Smith have admitted that the case is complicated, but have asked Judge Cannon to hold the line and stick to the current trial date of May 20.At a hearing last week in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, signaled that she was ready to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing of the case. She expressed concern in particular that her trial in Florida might “collide” with Mr. Trump’s other federal trial, a Washington-based proceeding on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election that is set to begin in early March.In an order on Friday explaining her decision, Judge Cannon reiterated her concern that the schedules for the two federal trials “as they currently stand overlap substantially.” That, she noted, could make it difficult to ensure that Mr. Trump had “adequate time to prepare for trial and to assist in his defense.”But Judge Cannon also said that Mr. Trump’s legal calendar — he is facing a total of four criminal cases — was “less important at this stage” than the challenges presented by the large volume of discovery evidence that the defense needs to digest. It was also less significant, she said, than the various difficulties involved in handling the sensitive materials at the center of the case under a law known as the Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA.Judge Cannon’s ruling left open the chance that the very sort of collision she has worried about might eventually take place. As part of her decision, she set a hearing on March 1 to determine the schedule for her case in Fort Pierce. That is only three days before Mr. Trump’s election subversion case is supposed to begin in Washington.Her ruling also did not foreclose the possibility that she might at some point delay the trial until after the election — a move that would be a major victory for Mr. Trump. Were that to happen, and were Mr. Trump to win the race, he could have the case thrown out entirely simply by ordering his attorney general to drop the charges.Notably absent from Judge Cannon’s ruling was any mention of how the trial calendar might intersect with Mr. Trump’s increasingly busy campaign schedule. It has been a challenge to find ample time for each of Mr. Trump’s four trials not merely in relation to one another, but also against the backdrop of a rapidly approaching set of primary elections and the Republican Party’s nominating convention in July.Judge Cannon chose to ignore Mr. Trump’s political calendar and to focus instead on logistical matters related to the nuts and bolts of the case. She pushed back several of her initial filing deadlines because of delays in constructing a secure facility in which she could review classified materials and because at least one lawyer in the case only recently obtained a full security clearance.She also said she was anticipating that the legal battles between the defense and the prosecution over how many — and precisely which — classified materials should be handed over as part of the discovery process would be “more robust than initially forecasted.”These fights, conducted under CIPA, she said, would require her to conduct a review of a “significant volume of information,” conduct more hearings and consider motions by the defense for additional disclosures. More

While the party will be on defense in every competitive race, Republicans face some messy primaries and a recent history of nominating extreme candidates who have lost key contests.Senator Joe Manchin III said he decided to forgo re-election because he’d accomplished all his goals. But for the Democrats he’s leaving behind in Washington, the work to hold the party’s already slim Senate majority is just beginning.While there are no guarantees in politics, West Virginia is now a virtual lock to flip Republican. The state has become so conservative that only Wyoming delivered a wider Republican margin in the 2020 presidential race. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Manchin’s announcement, several well-placed Democratic operatives said they couldn’t name a single West Virginian who could take his place on the ballot and be even remotely competitive, particularly if Gov. Jim Justice wins the Republican nomination.“This is a huge impact,” said Ward Baker, a former executive director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that oversees Senate races. “Manchin not running will save Republicans a ton of money — and it takes a seat off the board early.”The path to holding power was always going to be rocky for the Democrats’ current 51-seat majority, with or without Mr. Manchin.Two incumbents are running for re-election in red states, Montana and Ohio. A third senator, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who was elected as a Democrat but has since switched her party affiliation to independent, has yet to declare her plans — leaving open the prospect of an unusually competitive three-way race. And the party must also defend four Senate seats in four of the most contested presidential battlegrounds: Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Michigan.But Republicans face some potentially divisive primaries and a recent history of nominating extreme candidates who have lost key contests.With West Virginia off the Senate chessboard next year, Democrats must win every race they are defending — and depend on President Biden to win the White House — in order to maintain a majority. In a 50-50 Senate, the vice president casts the tiebreaking vote. But that’s a risky bet considering a plurality of Americans haven’t approved of President Biden since August 2021, according to Gallup polls.The bad news for Senate Democrats is that they are on defense in each of the seven seats that both parties view as most competitive this year. The good news is that in five of those seven, the party has incumbents running for re-election, which has historically been a huge advantage.At least 83 percent of Senate incumbents have won re-election in 18 of the past 21 election cycles, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. Last year, 100 percent of Senate incumbents were re-elected. “Given Democratic success in 2020 and 2022, it’d be malpractice to write Democrats off at this stage,” said Justin Goodman, a former top aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader. “Candidates matter,” he said, as well as the ongoing contrast that Democrats have sought to strike against the “extreme MAGA agenda.”The Democratic incumbents in Montana and Ohio — the top two targets for Republicans with West Virginia off the map — are seeking re-election in states former President Donald J. Trump easily won twice. Both Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio have exceeded expectations before, but never with such an unpopular presidential candidate at the top of the ticket. And unlike most incumbents, whose victories tend to become easier over time, Mr. Tester has always had close races. Mr. Brown’s margins have narrowed.But close victories count just as much as easy ones, and Democrats maintain that the personal brands of both Mr. Brown and Mr. Tester matter more in their states than national political winds.Republicans, who are also facing headwinds because of the unpopularity of Mr. Trump and the party’s role in rolling back abortion rights, are attempting to follow suit. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is putting a heavy emphasis on candidate recruitment this cycle to find contenders who can appeal to both conservatives and moderates in the party.The strategy has already paid off in West Virginia.One of the first calls this year from Senator Steve Daines, a Montana Republican overseeing his party’s Senate races, was to Mr. Justice in West Virginia, believing that the popular governor’s presence in the race would help persuade Mr. Manchin to retire.The second part of Mr. Daines’s strategy in West Virginia was persistently lobbying to secure a Trump endorsement for Mr. Justice, with the aim of not just forcing out Mr. Manchin but also the hope that it would convince him to run for president as an independent. Mr. Trump endorsed Mr. Justice last month.Mr. Manchin, meanwhile, furthered speculation of a potential presidential bid by saying Thursday he planned to gauge “interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle and bring Americans together.”In 2018, Democrats and Republicans combined spent about $53 million on the West Virginia Senate race. With no competitive race there in 2024, both parties will have tens of millions of dollars to spend on a second tier of battleground races. Last year, candidates, parties and outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion on 36 Senate races, including $737 million in just five states — Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — that are also on the ballot again next year.“I think Wisconsin and Michigan are about to get a bunch of Republican money they weren’t going to get otherwise,” said Brad Todd, a Republican strategist who has worked on Senate races.The most interesting of the second-tier races may be in Arizona, where the state may have a competitive three-way race — a rarity in American politics. The wild-card is Ms. Sinema.If she runs for a second term, she will most likely face Representative Ruben Gallego, a well-liked progressive Democrat who has already spent $6.2 million on the race this year, and Kari Lake, the firebrand conservative Republican and one of her party’s best-known election deniers who is favored in her party’s primary.A competitive three-way general election would add a riveting dynamic to what could be the most expensive Senate race in the country next year. The state’s Senate contest last year, which pitted Senator Mark Kelly against Blake Masters, the Republican nominee, cost more than $225 million.There is no top-flight Republican challenging Senator Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, but the party has been pushing for Eric Hovde, a businessman who ran for Senate in 2012. In Pennsylvania, Republicans have cleared a path for David McCormick with the aim of avoiding a bruising primary and strengthening their bid against Senator Bob Casey, who is seeking a fourth six-year term.Republicans haven’t been as lucky in Michigan or Nevada.In Michigan — the only competitive Senate race without an incumbent — Democrats so far have mostly aligned behind Representative Elissa Slotkin, a former C.I.A. analyst who represents a divided district. Mr. Daines recruited former Representative Mike Rogers, who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. But James Craig, a former Detroit police chief, and former Representative Peter Meijer, who lost his seat after voting to impeach Mr. Trump, have also entered the Republican race.The Republican establishment pick in Nevada is Sam Brown, a retired Army captain who lost a Senate primary last year. But he’s facing a primary against Jim Marchant, a Trump loyalist and election denier who lost a race for secretary of state last year. The winner would take on Senator Jacky Rosen, a Democrat who is seeking her second term.With West Virginia scotched, the Democratic Senate map is undeniably constricting. But the party will look to go on the offensive in Florida and Texas. Both states have been reliable Republican strongholds in recent years, but Democrats realistically have no better options to flip a Republican seat this year.In Florida, Senator Rick Scott, the state’s former governor, is seeking a second term. He’s never won an election by more than 1.2 percentage points, and he’s also never run in a presidential election year — when Democrats typically fare better in Florida.But the state lurched to the right last year when Republicans won five statewide races on the ballot by an average of 18.9 percentage points. The leading Democratic challenger in the Florida Senate race this year is former Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who was unseated from her Miami-based seat after one term.In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz has been a constant target for Democrats — and survived each time. This year, his top challenger appears to be Representative Colin Allred, a Dallas-area Democrat who defeated an incumbent Republican in 2018.“Cruz’s vulnerability means there’s an opportunity there, and Cruz can be beat no matter the presidential result,” said J.B. Poersch, president of the Senate Majority PAC, which has spent more than $140 million in the past four years supporting Democratic Senate candidates.The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been testing campaign messages in both states, and the party has dedicated communications and research staff in each location.But to win in Florida and Texas, Democrats will need stars to align in a way they did not in West Virginia.“Quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard,” Mr. Baker, the former N.R.S.C. director, said of Democratic hopes to take Florida or Texas. “They just lost a Senate seat. No way to spin that.” More

Justice Arthur Engoron imposed a narrow gag order on Donald Trump. Right-wing allies are going after the judge on his behalf, through official channels and online.Representative Elise Stefanik, a member of the House Republican leadership and an ally of former President Donald J. Trump, filed an ethics complaint Friday attacking the judge presiding over Mr. Trump’s civil fraud trial, the latest salvo in a right-wing war against the case.Echoing the courtroom rhetoric of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, the letter complains that the Democratic judge, Arthur F. Engoron, has been biased against the former president, who testified this week in New York State Supreme Court. The New York attorney general, Letitia James, has accused Mr. Trump of fraudulent business practices, and in a pretrial ruling Justice Engoron agreed, validating the heart of her case.The letter, to a judicial conduct commission, is unlikely to have any immediate repercussions in the trial, which will determine the consequences Mr. Trump and his company will face as a result of the fraud. But it represents the latest Republican attempt to tar Justice Engoron, and to meddle with Ms. James’s case. The judge has placed narrow gag orders on both the former president and his lawyers, but nothing bars Mr. Trump’s allies from their criticism.They have taken up the effort with gusto.“I filed an official judicial complaint against Judge Arthur Engoron for his inappropriate bias and judicial intemperance in New York’s disgraceful lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization,” Ms. Stefanik said in a statement Friday.“Judge Engoron’s actions and rulings in this matter are all part of the public record and speak for themselves,” Al Baker, a spokesman for the New York court system, said in an email. “It is inappropriate to comment further.”Robert H. Tembeckjian, the administrator of the state commission on judicial misconduct, noted in a statement that all matters before the body are confidential unless a judge is found to have committed misconduct and a decision is issued.Mr. Trump, 77, has repeatedly implored his allies to fight on his behalf. And Ms. Stefanik, who has close ties to Mr. Trump’s team, has portrayed herself as one of his chief defenders, thrusting herself into the former president’s controversies dating back to the first impeachment he faced while president.The civil fraud trial, which is separate from the four criminal cases against Mr. Trump, began early last month and is at its halfway point. After the former president and his daughter, Ivanka, testified this week, the attorney general’s office rested its case, which accuses Mr. Trump and his company of filling annual financial statements with fraudulent asset values in order to receive favorable treatment from banks and insurers. The defense case will start on Monday, with Donald Trump Jr. scheduled to return to the stand, and is expected to last into December.Justice Engoron, 74, has not responded to the attacks outside the courtroom, though at one point this week he lost his temper when a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, suggested, as he has throughout the trial, that the judge had been biased.“I object now, and I continue to object, to your constant insinuations that I have some sort of double standard here. That is just not true,” the judge said, adding, “I just make the rulings as I see them. You know, like the umpire says, call them as I see them.”Representative Elise Stefanik of New York has become one of the former president’s paladins, vociferously attacking those he sees as enemies. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesStatements like those are unlikely to satisfy Mr. Trump’s allies, and Ms. Stefanik’s attack is just one of many hurled at the judge this week. Laura Loomer, a far-right activist whom Mr. Trump considered hiring to work on his third presidential campaign and has since praised, has targeted the judge and his family in numerous social media posts. Commentators on Fox News and elsewhere in right-wing media have attacked him for shirtless photos that appeared in an alumni newsletter.Ms. Stefanik and others have also attacked the judge’s principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, who has experience as a trial attorney and whom the judge consults during proceedings when considering rules of evidence and other trial matters.Mr. Trump attacked Ms. Greenfield on the second day of the trial, saying that she was a partisan and was running the case against him. Justice Engoron placed a gag order on the former president barring him from discussing the court staff; Mr. Trump has twice violated that order, incurring $15,000 in fines.After the former president was barred from speaking about Ms. Greenfield, his lawyers took up the cause, continuing to complain about the judge’s practice of consulting her during the trial. Justice Engoron barred the lawyers from commenting on his private communications with Ms. Greenfield. He expressed concern about the safety of his staff and noted that his office had received “hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters and packages.”Republican critics have taken particular issue with donations that Ms. Greenfield, who is also a Democrat, has made over the past several years, accusing her of violating rules governing the conduct of judicial staff members. But Ms. Greenfield has been campaigning for a judgeship and New York’s judicial ethics rules allow candidates to make certain donations, such as purchasing tickets to political functions.Mr. Trump’s congressional allies have taken on a number of the law enforcement officials who have brought cases against the former president. After the former president was criminally indicted in Manhattan in March, Representative Jim Jordan, who has worked closely with Mr. Trump, demanded information about the case from the prosecutor, the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. Mr. Jordan also subpoenaed Mark F. Pomerantz, a prosecutor who had worked on the criminal case, compelling Mr. Pomerantz to testify in a closed-door congressional session.Mr. Jordan has also said he would investigate a Georgia prosecutor who also indicted Mr. Trump, accusing him of interfering with the 2020 election results in the state. The prosecutor, Fani Willis, fired back, writing in a letter that Mr. Jordan’s “attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.” More