Elections

As Republican candidates enter the race for their party’s 2024 presidential nomination, Times columnists, Opinion writers and others will assess their strengths and weaknesses with a scorecard. We rate the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate will probably drop out before any caucus or primary voting; 10 means the candidate has a very strong chance of receiving the party’s nomination next summer. This entry assesses Vivek Ramaswamy, a hedge fund analyst turned biotech executive. More

Los comicios del domingo estarán marcados tanto por los presentes como por los ausentes en las papeletas, pues las autoridades descalificaron a algunos de los principales contendientes.La primavera pasada, una magistrada guatemalteca entró en una reunión en la embajada estadounidense y sacó una gran cantidad de efectivo. Según dijo, el dinero era un soborno de uno de los aliados más cercanos del presidente.La magistrada, Blanca Alfaro, forma parte del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad que supervisa las elecciones del país. Alfaro dijo que le entregaron el soborno para influir en las elecciones de Guatemala, según un funcionario estadounidense que fue informado sobre el encuentro y una persona que estuvo presente y solicitó mantener su anonimato por no estar autorizada para discutir los detalles de la reunión privada.Los diplomáticos estadounidenses se sorprendieron por la desfachatez del episodio, pero no por los señalamientos. En el volátil clima político que reina en Guatemala en las vísperas de las elecciones presidenciales del domingo ha habido una constante: un bombardeo de ataques continuo contra las instituciones democráticas por parte de quienes están en el poder.En un país que ha pasado de ser un escenario donde se erradicaba la corrupción a otro en el que decenas de altos funcionarios anticorrupción se han visto obligados a exiliarse, la primera vuelta de la votación estará marcada tanto por quienes aparecen en la papeleta como por los ausentes.El organismo electoral del país ha descalificado a todos los candidatos serios que podrían desafiar el statu quo, encarnado por el presidente Alejandro Giammattei, un conservador al que los críticos acusan de llevar el país hacia la autocracia y que no puede contender por un nuevo mandato.Los demás candidatos son personas vinculadas a algún segmento de la élite política o económica. Junto a sus nombres en la papeleta de votación habrá varias casillas en blanco, que representan a cuatro candidatos que fueron excluidos del proceso por la autoridad electoral.La magistrada Alfaro les dijo a los funcionarios estadounidenses que había recibido el soborno de Miguel Martínez, un confidente cercano de Giammattei y funcionario clave de su partido, según afirman tanto la persona que asistió a la reunión como el funcionario estadounidense.Alfaro también dijo que la suma de dinero ascendía a 50.000 quetzales guatemaltecos (el equivalente a más de 6000 dólares), según la persona que estuvo presente en el encuentro. El Times no ha corroborado la afirmación de la magistrada Alfaro sobre el soborno. En una entrevista, Alfaro negó que fuera a la embajada e hiciera esa acusación.“No me he reunido con Miguel Martínez”, le dijo a The New York Times. Y añadió: “Dudo que a la embajada se puedan ingresar 50.000 quetzales porque uno tiene que pasar por muchas medidas de seguridad”.Por su parte, Martínez negó haber sobornado a la magistrada Alfaro y afirmó que nunca se ha reunido con ella. Dijo que estaba al tanto de un esfuerzo por parte de personas que no pudieron participar en las elecciones para involucrarlo “en alguna situación legal” con la Embajada de Estados Unidos.“Ahora nos estamos dando cuenta que en la situación legal que me están tratando a mí de involucrar para afectar al tema del proceso electoral que se está llevando a cabo de una manera limpia y democrática, es esto”, dijo Martínez.Luego, en una declaración grabada en video que circuló ampliamente en las redes sociales, Martínez dijo a unos periodistas que el Times pronto publicaría un relato de la visita de Alfaro a la embajada. “Esto es algo malicioso que ellos quieren hacer para desestabilizar las elecciones”, dijo Martínez en el video.Cuando se le preguntó sobre las acusaciones de Alfaro y la respuesta de la embajada, una portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Christina Tilghman, dijo: “No confirmamos la existencia de supuestas reuniones ni discutimos el contenido de las discusiones diplomáticas”.Tilghman dijo que siempre que el gobierno estadounidense recibe denuncias de corrupción que “cumplen los requisitos probatorios establecidos por la normativa y la legislación de Estados Unidos”, sanciona o castiga de otro modo a los implicados.La actuación de la autoridad electoral ha hecho que grupos de defensa de los derechos civiles cuestionen si la contienda presidencial del domingo en realidad puede considerarse libre y justa.“Legalidad no es lo mismo que legitimidad”, dijo Juan Francisco Sandoval, exfiscal anticorrupción que ahora vive en Estados Unidos y forma parte de las decenas de fiscales y jueces que se han exiliado en los últimos años.Sandoval afirma que la votación se verá empañada tanto por los fallos arbitrarios sobre quién puede postularse, como por el aumento de la financiación ilícita de campañas con fondos públicos.Aunque representan tendencias ideológicas distintas, al menos tres de los candidatos excluidos inquietaron a las élites políticas de Guatemala.Uno de ellos, Carlos Pineda, se posicionó como un empresario independiente que utilizó TikTok para surgir como favorito en las encuestas.“Quince partidos accionaron en mi contra. Lo hicieron porque íbamos punteando en las encuestas y se determinaba que en primera vuelta íbamos a hacer historia y ganar las elecciones”, dijo Pineda refiriéndose al hecho de que si nadie obtiene más del 50por ciento de los votos, se celebrará una segunda vuelta entre los dos candidatos más votados. “Para mí estas elecciones son ilegítimas”.Carlos Pineda en una protesta contra su exclusión de la campaña presidencialDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra candidata excluida, Thelma Cabrera, es una líder de izquierda proveniente de una familia maya mam que intenta organizar a los pueblos indígenas de Guatemala, que representan aproximadamente la mitad de la población, en una fuerza política unificada. El tercero, Roberto Arzú, es un dirigente de derecha de una familia de políticos que se ha posicionado como una fuerza opositora a las élites del país.Blanca Alfaro, al centro, e Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, de amarillo, magistradas del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad encargada de las elecciones del domingoDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesGiammattei, a quien la ley le prohíbe presentarse a la reelección, ha guardado silencio sobre la exclusión de varios de los principales aspirantes. En gran medida, la campaña se ha convertido en una contienda entre tres candidatos principales que se considera que pueden ofrecer cierta continuidad con el statu quo.Sandra Torres fue primera dama de 2008 a 2011, cuando estaba casada con el presidente Álvaro Colom. Se divorciaron cuando Torres intentó postularse por primera vez como candidata a la presidencia en 2011, en un intento de sortear una ley que prohíbe que los familiares del presidente puedan presentarse como candidatos.Torres fue detenida en 2019 en relación con violaciones de financiación de campaña, pero el caso fue cerrado por un juez en 2022 apenas unas semanas antes de que comenzara oficialmente la campaña, lo que le permitió postularse. Su plataforma destaca las promesas de ampliar los programas sociales, incluidas las transferencias de efectivo para los pobres.Sandra Torres en un evento electoral en Ciudad de GuatemalaDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra de las principales candidatas, Zury Ríos, es hija de Efraín Ríos Montt, quien fue dictador de Guatemala a principios de la década de 1980 y ordenó tácticas extremas contra la insurgencia guerrillera y posteriormente fue condenado por genocidio en una sentencia pionera de 2013 por intentar exterminar a los ixiles, un pueblo maya indígena de Guatemala.Zury Ríos no se ha arrepentido de las acciones de su padre, y este año incluso llegó a negar que un genocidio sucedió. Cristiana evangélica, ha ganado popularidad entre los conservadores tras aliarse con figuras que pretenden frenar las iniciativas anticorrupción. Tras su paso por el Congreso, donde hizo hincapié en temas relacionados con las mujeres, ha centrado su campaña presidencial en la adopción de políticas de seguridad de línea dura para combatir la delincuencia.Edmond Mulet, otro de los principales aspirantes, fue diplomático y generalmente se inclina por puntos de vista conservadores. Mulet, cuyas propuestas incluyen la ampliación del acceso a internet y el suministro de medicamentos gratuitos, ha criticado la persecución de periodistas y fiscales, pero ha forjado vínculos con poderosas figuras políticas tradicionales, evitando el destino de los candidatos excluidos.Los sondeos de las últimas semanas apuntan a que ninguno de los tres podrá obtener una mayoría suficiente el domingo, lo que forzaría a una segunda vuelta el 30 de agosto.La descalificación de varios candidatos de la campaña presidencial ha puesto en duda la legitimidad de la votación del domingo.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLa contienda, según los expertos, revela lo efectiva que han sido los poderosos en erradicar cualquier fuente seria de disenso.“El uso del sistema judicial como un arma está haciendo que se marchen algunas de las mentes más brillantes del país e intimida a quienes se quedan”, dijo Regina Bateson, académica de la Universidad de Ottawa especializada en Guatemala. En su opinión, esa situación ha originado unas “elecciones que socavan la democracia”.Simon Romero es corresponsal nacional y cubre el suroeste de Estados Unidos. Ha sido jefe de las corresponsalías del Times en Brasil, los Andes y corresponsal internacional de energía. @viaSimonRomeroNatalie Kitroeff es la jefa de la corresponsalía del Times para México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. @Nataliekitro More

The ruling from the country’s top court came as President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ramps up his attacks on the judicial system.Mexico’s highest court on Thursday struck down a key piece of a sweeping electoral bill backed by the president that would have undermined the agency that oversees the country’s vote, and that helped shift the nation away from single-party rule.The ruling by the Supreme Court is a major blow to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has argued that the plan would make elections more efficient, save millions of dollars and allow Mexicans living abroad to vote online.The election measures were passed early this year by Congress, which is controlled by the president’s party, and would have applied to next year’s presidential race. Though Mr. López Obrador is barred from seeking re-election, his party’s chosen candidate will most likely be a heavy favorite.The bill would have slashed the National Electoral Institute’s work force, reduced its autonomy and curbed its power to punish politicians for violating election laws. Civil liberty groups said the measures would have hobbled a key pillar of Mexican democracy.“What it sought was to transform the entire electoral system,” said Ernesto Guerra, a political analyst based in Mexico City. “It was a 180-degree turn to the rules of the democratic game.”However relieved some Mexicans were by the ruling, some also worried that Mr. López Obrador might try to turn the legal setback to his advantage and rally his base around the idea that the judiciary is corrupt. During a morning address Thursday in which he anticipated the ruling, he lit into the court.“It is an invasion, an intrusion,” Mr. López Obrador said.He said he would present an initiative “in due time” to have members of the judiciary elected just like the president or senators. “It should be the people who elect them,” he said. “They should not represent an elite.”The court last month had invalidated another part of the bill that, among other things, involved changes to publicity rules in electoral campaigns.Mexicans casting ballots in Ciudad Juárez in 2018.Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesIn throwing out the remaining part of the bill by a vote of nine to two, justices pointed to violations by lawmakers of legislative procedure, saying that the changes had been rushed through in only four hours and that members of Congress had not been given reasonable time to know what they were voting on.“As a whole, they are so serious that they violate the constitutional principles of Mexican democracy,” Justice Luis María Aguilar said during the court’s discussion. “Not respecting the rules of legislative procedure is constitutional disloyalty.”José Ramón Cossío, a lawyer who is a former member of the court, said that Mr. López Obrador and his allies had pushed the changes known as “Plan B” forward “in such an arrogant, violent, rude way that they lost.”Experts described the court’s decision as a major setback for the administration of Mr. López Obrador, who has made overhauling the electoral system a major priority. The government had defended the changes as a needed step to “reduce the bureaucratic costs” of elections and to ensure that “no more frauds occur” in Mexico.“The rule of law has never been threatened with the approval of the reforms,” the president’s legal adviser wrote in a statement in March. “It is false that the fundamental rights of the citizens are at risk.”With Plan B struck down, next year’s elections will be governed by the same rules under which Mr. López Obrador and his party, Morena, came to power, Mr. Guerra said.“This gives me peace of mind,” he said. “We see the burial of this reform emanating from and for the political power.”The Supreme Court building in Mexico City. Marco Ugarte/Associated Press But fears remain that the ruling may be weaponized against the judicial system, which already has come under attack by the president for rejecting a number of his administration’s initiatives, including one that would have transferred the newly created National Guard from civilian to military control. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional.“This defeat was intentionally sought to properly assume the role of victim and erect the perfect enemy,” said Juan Jesús Garza Onofre, an expert in constitutional law and ethics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “Narratively, this defeat becomes more of a victory.”The risk, analysts warn, is long-term damage to the judiciary. “Justice as we know it, with all its shortcomings, could experience a setback,” Mr. Garza Onofre said.The president, he added, would be prudent “to cool heated tempers.”“We know that is not going to happen,” he said. More

Guatemala’s first round of elections on Sunday is as much about who’s not on the ballot as who is, after courts barred leading candidates from running.A Guatemalan judge walked into a meeting at the American Embassy last spring and pulled out a large quantity of cash: The money, she said, was a bribe from one of the president’s closest allies.The judge, Blanca Alfaro, helps lead the authority that oversees the country’s elections. She claimed the money had been given to her to gain influence over the electoral agency, according to a U.S. official briefed on the encounter and a person who was present and requested anonymity to discuss the details of a private meeting.American diplomats were shocked by the brazenness of the episode, but not by the allegations. In the volatile political climate consuming Guatemala in the run-up to presidential elections on Sunday, there has been one constant: a steady drumbeat of attacks on democratic institutions by those in power.In a country that has shifted from a staging ground for rooting out corruption to one where dozens of anticorruption officials have been forced into exile, the first round of voting will be as much about who is not on the ballot as who is.The nation’s electoral agency has disqualified every serious candidate in the race who could challenge the status quo, which is embodied by President Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who critics accuse of pushing the country toward autocracy and who is barred from running for another term.The remaining front-runners are people with links to some segment of the political or economic elite. Alongside their names on the ballot will be several blank boxes, representing four candidates excluded from the process by the electoral authority.Judge Alfaro told American officials that she had received the bribe from Miguel Martínez, a close confidant of Mr. Giammattei’s and a key official in his party, said the person who attended the meeting and the U.S. official.She said the money she had with her amounted to 50,000 Guatemalan quetzales (the equivalent of more than $6,000), according to the person who was present.The Times has not substantiated Judge Alfaro’s claim that she was bribed. In an interview, Ms. Alfaro denied that she went to the embassy and made the allegation.“I have no relationship with Miguel Martínez,” she told The New York Times. “I doubt that 50,000 quetzales can be brought into the embassy because you go through so many security measures.”Mr. Martínez denied giving Judge Alfaro a bribe, saying he had never met with her. He said he was aware of an effort by people who were unable to participate in the elections “to get me involved in some legal situation” with the American Embassy.“Now we are realizing that this is the legal situation they are trying to involve me in,” Mr. Martínez said, “to affect the electoral process that is being carried out in a clean and democratic way.”Later, Mr. Martínez told reporters that The Times would soon publish an account of Ms. Alfaro’s trip to the embassy in a statement captured on video and circulated widely on social media. “This is something malicious they want to do to destabilize the elections,” Mr. Martínez said in the video. When asked about the Ms. Alfaro’s allegations and the embassy’s response, a State Department spokeswoman, Christina Tilghman, said, “We do not confirm the existence of alleged meetings nor discuss the contents of diplomatic discussions.”Ms. Tilghman said that whenever the American government receives allegations of corruption that “meet evidentiary requirements under U.S. regulations and law,” it imposes sanctions or otherwise punishes those involved.The actions of the electoral authority have led civil rights groups to question whether Sunday’s presidential contest can truly be considered free and fair.“Legality is not the same as legitimacy,” said Juan Francisco Sandoval, a former anticorruption prosecutor who now lives in the United States and is among the dozens of prosecutors and judges who have gone into exile in recent years.The vote, he said, will be marred both by “arbitrary rulings” on who was allowed to run, and a surge in illicit campaign financing using public funds.Though from different ideological backgrounds, at least three of the excluded candidates were viewed as unsettling to Guatemala’s political establishment.One of them, Carlos Pineda, positioned himself as an outsider businessman and used TikTok to become a front-runner in the polls.“They went after us because we were climbing so much in the polls that we could make history by winning in the first round,” said Mr. Pineda, referring to the fact that if no one wins more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff will be held between the top two candidates. “This election is illegitimate.”Carlos Pineda at a demonstration protesting his exclusion from the race. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother barred candidate, Thelma Cabrera, is a leftist from a Maya Mam family trying to organize Guatemala’s Indigenous peoples, who account for roughly half the population, into a unified political force. A third, Roberto Arzú, is a right-wing scion of a political family who had positioned himself as an opponent of the country’s elites.Blanca Alfaro, center, and Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, in yellow, magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the authority overseeing Sunday’s election. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesMr. Giammattei, prohibited by law from seeking re-election, has remained silent about the barring of several top contenders. The race has largely become a contest among three leading candidates who are viewed as providing some continuity with the status quo.Sandra Torres was the first lady from 2008 to 2011, when she was married to President Álvaro Colom. They divorced when Ms. Torres first sought to run for president in 2011 (Guatemalan law prohibits a president’s relatives from running for office).Ms. Torres was arrested in 2019 in connection with campaign finance violations, but the case was dismissed by a judge in 2022 just weeks before campaigning officially got underway, allowing her to run. Her platform highlights promises to expand social programs, including cash transfers for the poor.Sandra Torres at a rally in Guatemala City. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother leading candidate, Zury Ríos, is the daughter of Efraín Ríos Montt, a dictator of Guatemala in the early 1980s who ordered extreme tactics against a guerrilla insurgency and was convicted of genocide in 2013 for trying to exterminate the Ixil, a Mayan people indigenous to Guatemala. Ms. Ríos has been unrepentant about her father’s actions, going so far as to deny this year that the genocide happened. An evangelical Christian, she gained popularity among conservatives after allying with figures seeking to blunt anticorruption initiatives. When she served in Congress, she emphasized women’s issues, but on the presidential campaign trail she has stressed adopting hard-line security policies to combat crime.Another top contender, Edmond Mulet, is a former diplomat who generally hews to conservative views. Mr. Mulet, whose proposals include expanding internet access and providing free medicines, has criticized the persecution of journalists and prosecutors, but has also forged ties with powerful entrenched political figures, avoiding the fate of excluded candidates.Polls in recent weeks suggest that none of the three are expected to come close to winning a majority of the votes on Sunday, which would force a runoff on Aug. 30.The disqualification of several candidates from the presidential race has raised question about the legitimacy of Sunday’s vote.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesThe contest, experts said, lays bare how effective Guatemala’s power brokers have been at extinguishing any real source of dissent.“The weaponization of the judicial system is driving some of the brightest minds in the country to leave and intimidating anyone that’s left,” said Regina Bateson, a scholar at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Guatemala. The result, she said, is an “election undermining democracy.” More

If Judge Aileen Cannon sticks to her initial decision to hold the trial in Fort Pierce, Fla., the jury would be drawn largely from counties that Donald Trump won handily in his previous campaigns.When Judge Aileen M. Cannon assumed control of the case stemming from former President Donald J. Trump’s indictment for putting national security secrets at risk, she set the stage for the trial to be held with a regional jury pool made up mostly of counties that Mr. Trump won handily in his two previous campaigns.She signaled that the trial would take place in the federal courthouse where she normally sits, in Fort Pierce, at the northern end of the Southern District of Florida. The region that feeds potential jurors to that courthouse is made up of one swing county and four others that are ruby red in their political leanings and that Mr. Trump won by substantial margins in both 2016 and 2020.She left open the possibility that the trial could be moved — and political leanings are not necessarily indicative of how a jury will decide — but the fact that the trial is expected to draw jurors who live in places that tilt Republican has caught the attention of Mr. Trump’s allies and veterans of Florida courts.“For years, it’s been a very conservative venue for plaintiffs’ lawyers,” said John Morgan, a trial lawyer who founded a large personal injury firm. Describing the various counties that feed into Fort Pierce, he said, “It is solid, solid Trump country.”In Okeechobee County, a rural county where just over 16,000 people voted in the 2020 election, Mr. Trump won 71.5 percent of the vote, according to the county’s election tally. In Highlands County, a rural area where more than 52,000 people voted in that election, Mr. Trump won with 66.8 percent of the vote.In Martin County, where more than 98,000 people voted, Mr. Trump got 61.8 percent of the vote. In Indian River County, which contains Vero Beach and where more than 97,000 votes were cast, Mr. Trump got 60.2 percent of the vote.Only St. Lucie County, where about 172,000 votes were cast, is a swing district. Mr. Trump eked out a victory there over President Biden in 2020 with 50.4 percent of the ballots cast, the data shows, and also won the county narrowly in 2016.Dave Aronberg, an outgoing Florida state attorney in Palm Beach County, said he could recall few major or politically sensitive cases in the Fort Pierce courthouse. He agreed that the Fort Pierce counties provide a “much more conservative jury pool,” although he suggested that a number of prospective jurors could be drawn from St. Lucie, which is more politically diverse.Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2020, disclosed in an order on Tuesday that the trial and all the hearings connected to it would likely be held in Fort Pierce, about 120 miles north of Miami along the east coast of Florida.She left open the possibility of eventually moving the trial, noting in her order that “modifications” could “be made as necessary as this matter proceeds.”The trial of a former president who is also the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination is likely to involve substantial security issues as well as logistical challenges given the crush of interest in the case.When Mr. Trump was arraigned this month, the proceeding took place at the large federal courthouse complex in Miami, likely because the duty magistrate assigned to the initial hearing was based there. But now that Judge Cannon will handle the remainder of the case, it became her prerogative to move it to Fort Pierce, one of four other cities in the Southern District of Florida to have a federal courthouse. (Courthouses in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach sit in counties that Mr. Biden won in 2020.)The Fort Pierce courthouse, which sits on a busy state highway a few blocks from the water, is Judge Cannon’s home base. She is the sole district judge working from the building.First the Justice Department and then the special counsel, Jack Smith, investigated Mr. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents for months in front of a grand jury in Washington. Had the case been prosecuted there, the former president and his allies would have almost certainly raised concerns about the fairness of the jury pool in the city.Many rioters charged in connection with the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, sought to move their trials from Washington by claiming that local residents were largely liberals. But not one of the numerous attempts to move the trials elsewhere was approved by a judge. And Mr. Trump’s advisers are well aware that Florida, which Mr. Trump carried twice, is a more beneficial place for this particular defendant.Mr. Aronberg suggested that Judge Cannon’s order allowing flexibility could be a signal of a change down the road.“I’m not convinced this case is going to go in Fort Pierce,” he said, predicting a potential move to West Palm Beach, which would put it in the county where Mr. Trump lives and where the classified documents in question were stored after he left office. More

“Super King of Diplomacy,” read the ticker placed in bold on top of one news channel. “Long live our friendship,” said another. A third declared, “The Boss in America.”Mainstream Indian news channels — in Hindi, English and some regional languages — covered Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reception in Washington with adulation, praising his diplomatic skills for millions of viewers before a crucial election year for him.The visuals from Washington played into what Mr. Modi has already set as one of his main campaign themes: tying India’s rise as a major economic power with his rise as a global statesman.“The scale, the splendor, the warmth,” one headline enthused. Others, such as “Modi’s breakthrough diplomacy” and “Watch history being made,” flooded Indians’ homes Thursday evening as Mr. Modi walked the red carpet to meet President Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden.“Their body language reflected that they were incomplete without one another,” one news anchor said as visuals of the two leaders shaking hands played on the screen.Mr. Modi has carefully crafted his relationship with traditional news outlets, using a mix of incentives and pressure tactics to get most of them on his side.When uncomfortable issues arise — a state election loss, an ethnic war resulting in weeks of unrest and bloodshed in a northeastern state, a deadly three-way train crash — they are quick to deflect blame away from Mr. Modi.And when a major moment like the state visit to Washington comes, they are happy to join in the cheerleading — a factor that, combined with how Mr. Modi’s party has mastered social media to take his messages viral, helps explain Mr. Modi’s talent for shaping politics to his benefit.The coverage of Mr. Modi’s visit to the United States is a political boon, setting the agenda in his favor before he launches himself full-time into campaign mode for parliamentary elections next year.While many channels showed the White House dinner menu ad nauseam, calling it “dinner for friendship,” some others waxed eloquent about the importance of the gifts Mr. Modi had carried for the Bidens. One anchor declared of a military deal between the two countries: “The biggest defense deal. The hearts of enemies will burn!”And when, at his news conference with Mr. Biden, Mr. Modi skirted a question on India’s grim human rights record and suppression of free speech, one Hindi-language news anchor came to his rescue on her show, saying he had “very bravely” faced the question. More

The Florida governor did say he would “respect the outcome” of the primaries while Donald Trump has refused to commit to backing the party’s 2024 nominee if the former president falls short.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Thursday avoided saying directly that he would endorse Donald J. Trump in 2024 should the former president win the Republican nomination, showing his reluctance to make a benign show of support for the man who is beating him by a wide margin in national polls and insulting him nearly every day.Asked by a reporter at a news conference in Tampa about whether he would endorse Mr. Trump, the governor responded by complaining that Mr. Trump had recently criticized his policies during the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. DeSantis noted in particular that his rival had compared him unfavorably to New York’s former governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat.“So what I would say is this: When you are saying that Cuomo did better on Covid than Florida did, you are revealing yourself to just be full of it,” Mr. DeSantis said. “Nobody believes that.”“I remember in 2020 and 2021, when he was praising Florida for being open, saying we did it much better than New York and Michigan and everyone was coming to Florida and that we were one of the great governors in the United States,” he continued, his voice rising. “And he used to say that all the time. Now, all of a sudden, his tune is changing. And I would just tell people, do you find it credible? Do you honestly find it credible?”Mr. Trump himself has not pledged to back the party’s nominee in 2024 if a rival defeats him in the primaries, underscoring the level of division in the Republican field. Mr. Trump’s federal indictment has led some of the other candidates to more openly criticize him, questioning his judgment. But Mr. Trump, who regularly calls Mr. DeSantis “Ron DeSanctimonious” and accuses him of needing a “personality transplant,” retains the support of many Republican voters.At the end of his answer, Mr. DeSantis, who is trailing Mr. Trump by roughly 30 percentage points in national polls as more candidates jump into the race, turned to acknowledge the importance of the nominating contest.“It’s an important process and, you know, you respect the process and you respect the people’s decisions how this goes,” he said. “But I’m very confident that those decisions are going to be positive for us.”On social media, Mr. Trump’s allies quickly pounced on Mr. DeSantis’s refusal to pledge loyalty to his rival if he falls short.“Ron DeSantis just proved once again why he’s a Never Trumper in the mold of Liz Cheney and Jeb Bush, completely disqualifying him for 2024, as well as 2028,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said in a statement.But Mr. Trump, of course, has taken a similar stance.“It would depend,” Mr. Trump said in a radio interview earlier this year when asked if he would support “whoever” won the party’s nomination. He added, “It would have to depend on who the nominee was.”Republicans have generally shown far more grace to Mr. Trump than to his rivals, chastising those challenging the former president for sentiments similar to ones he has also expressed.The Republican National Committee has said that candidates must promise to support the party’s eventual nominee if they want to participate in debates.Later on Thursday, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Mr. DeSantis seemed to backtrack slightly, interrupting a reporter who asked why he had seemed to avoid committing to support Mr. Trump.“I didn’t avoid, no, I was misquoted,” Mr. DeSantis shot back. “Here’s what I said, I said: ‘You run this process. You compete and you respect the outcome of the process.’ And I’ve always said that. And so that’s what I said before. That’s what I’ll do. I think I’m going to be the nominee. No matter what happens, I’m going to work to beat Joe Biden.”Voters at the South Carolina event said they hoped Mr. DeSantis and other Republican candidates would back Mr. Trump, should the former president be the nominee.“I think everybody should unite, whoever gets the nomination,” said Shawn Risseeuw, 57, a mechanical engineer who lives in North Augusta, S.C., and described himself as a strong DeSantis supporter. “They’re fools if they don’t.” More

For someone who wields unimaginable power and exudes utter confidence in his own moral rectitude, Justice Samuel Alito is an exceptionally touchy guy.Exhibit A: His decision to devote time and energy to a newspaper essay defending himself against charges of ethical and legal violations that had not yet been published, and which he considered invalid in the first place. The essay, in both form and substance, epitomizes the bitterness and superciliousness that he has demonstrated in regular doses throughout his years on the Supreme Court.The nature of the charges, detailed in a deeply reported article published by ProPublica on Tuesday evening, will sound familiar after the recent revelations about the casual attitude of several justices regarding the most basic ethical standards.In 2008, Justice Alito accepted a free flight to a luxury fishing resort in Alaska on a private jet owned by Paul Singer, the hugely wealthy hedge-fund owner and major conservative donor. When one of Mr. Singer’s companies later appeared before the court in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the Argentine government, it won its case, eventually netting $2.4 billion. Justice Alito voted in the majority. He neither recused himself from the case nor reported the free flight, which could have cost him up to $100,000 on the open market, and which appears to be a violation of a federal law requiring the disclosure of such gifts.Most judges, whether by temperament or fidelity, avoid the spotlight. They prefer to follow rules and let their opinions do the talking. That has never been Justice Alito’s way. For most of his 17 years on the court, he has appeared to relish playing the role of bare-knuckled partisan soldier, standing athwart history in loyal service to a vengeful, theocratic right-wing movement that elevates religious liberty for some over basic freedoms for all. Remember when he mouthed “not true,” on live national television, in reaction to President Barack Obama’s criticism of the court’s Citizens United decision during the 2010 State of the Union address? Or when he attacked liberals as threatening religious liberty and free speech? Or when he mocked the critics of his majority opinion last year striking down Roe v. Wade and a woman’s constitutional right to abortion? You’d think you were listening to a pugnacious politician rather than a high-minded jurist — and you would not be entirely wrong.On Tuesday evening, hours before the ProPublica report came out, Justice Alito took to the ramparts again. In a lengthy screed on The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page, he absolved himself of any wrongdoing, flatly rejecting any suggestion that he should have recused himself or reported Mr. Singer’s gift. Recusal is required only when “an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties,” he wrote, quoting the court’s recently adopted statement of ethics and principles. “No such person,” he concluded, “would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard.”One of the hazards of an unelected lifetime gig is that you have little idea of what regular people actually think. Contrary to Justice Alito’s cosseted worldview, the real reason “no such person” would doubt his impartiality is that no such person exists. The justice never disclosed the existence of the trip, so no one was aware of “all relevant facts” besides himself, Mr. Singer and the other people on the plane.But even if the relationship had been known, can anyone say with a straight face that no “unbiased and reasonable person” would question the justice’s impartiality when he votes for someone who gave him a valuable gift? Isn’t there at least the appearance that something other than the strict application of the rule of law is at work? And appearances count, perhaps nowhere more than at the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of many of the most fraught issues of American life.Justice Alito is hardly the first member of the current court to face charges of serious ethical lapses. Nearly all the other justices, conservative and liberal, have accepted free travel and other gifts over the years, although these have rarely involved such a clear connection to cases that have come before the court. Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for, among other things, failing to recuse himself from cases involving the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, even though his wife, Ginni, was in regular communication with the Trump White House in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election. More recently, ProPublica has reported on Justice Thomas’s ties to Harlan Crow, another conservative billionaire who has lavished gifts on him and his wife over the years, and who has been connected to at least one business with a case before the court.Justice Thomas has mostly kept his mouth shut, though he did issue a brief statement after the ProPublica article about him. Justice Alito, by choosing to speak up at length and in a forum that he knew would be both friendly and prominent, muscled his opinion into public view. In doing so, he illustrated how flimsy even a Supreme Court justice’s reasoning can be when he attempts to be a judge in his own cause.For instance, Justice Alito defended his decision not to report Mr. Singer’s freebie because it was “personal hospitality,” which he believed, like his colleague Justice Thomas, did not need to be reported. And yet he also claimed he barely knew Mr. Singer. So which is it? “If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” one legal-ethics expert said to ProPublica. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?”Rather than try to square that circle and admit he’d been caught doing something ethically wrong and arguably illegal, Justice Alito went to laughable lengths to lawyer his way out. As far as he was aware, he wrote, the seat he occupied on his private-jet jaunt to Alaska “would have otherwise been vacant” — by which he presumably means to say the gift was valueless. Remind me to try that one out the next time I walk past an empty first-class seat on a Delta flight. Seriously, though: do these guys listen to themselves?Justice Alito doesn’t like these sorts of questions. In fact, he doesn’t seem to like any criticism of the court. In addition to getting his back up about ethical complaints, he is aggrieved about challenges to the court’s blatantly partisan decisions and its increasing reliance on the secretive “shadow docket” to issue rulings without oral arguments or written opinions.“We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us,” he said in an interview in April with The Wall Street Journal.If Justice Alito doesn’t appreciate being called out for taking lavish trips on litigants’ dimes, or for overturning precedent to impose his personal ideology, then he might consider not doing those things in the first place. Instead, he chooses to shoot the messenger.It is this odor of impunity, this mockery of legitimate critique, this disregard for the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans — this “stench” of politicization, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it during oral arguments in the case that eventually overturned Roe v. Wade — that defines today’s Supreme Court. That should concern Chief Justice John Roberts above all, because his name and legacy will be forever attached to this court.And that is why, if the justices are confused as to the reason public trust in the court is in free fall, they need look no further than Justice Alito’s smug, defensive reaction to a very fair criticism. As long as the court refuses to accept significantly stricter ethics rules, either adopted by themselves or imposed by Congress, that trust — and with it the court’s legitimacy — will continue to erode until it’s not worth a seat on a private jet.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More