Elections

Alexandre de Moraes, Ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, foi crucial para a transição de poder no Brasil. Mas suas táticas agressivas estão provocando um debate: É possível ir longe demais para combater a extrema-direita?Quando a Polícia Rodoviária Federal começou a impedir a passagem de ônibus cheios de eleitores no dia da eleição, ele ordenou que parassem.Quando vozes da direita espalharam a alegação infundada de que a eleição no Brasil foi roubada, ele ordenou que fossem banidas das redes sociais.E quando milhares de manifestantes da direita invadiram as sedes dos três poderes neste mês, ele ordenou que autoridades responsáveis pela segurança fossem presas.Alexandre de Moraes, Ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, assumiu o papel de principal defensor da democracia brasileira. Usando uma interpretação ampla dos poderes do Tribunal, Moraes impulsionou investigações e processos, bem como o silenciamento nas redes sociais, de qualquer pessoa considerada por ele uma ameaça às instituições brasileiras.Como resultado, diante dos ataques antidemocráticos do ex-presidente de extrema direita do Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, e de seus apoiadores, Moraes abriu caminho para a transição de poder. Para muitos da esquerda brasileira, isso fez dele o homem que salvou a jovem democracia brasileira.No entanto, para muitos outros no Brasil, ele a ameaça. A abordagem agressiva e a expansão da autoridade de Moraes fizeram dele uma das pessoas mais poderosas do país, e também o colocaram no centro de um debate complicado no Brasil sobre até que ponto se pode ir para lutar contra a extrema-direita.Danos causados ao Supremo Tribunal Federal por manifestantes da direita. Alexandre de Moraes ordenou a prisão de autoridades responsáveis pela segurança.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesAlexandre de Moraes já ordenou prisões sem julgamento por ameaças postadas em redes sociais; liderou o voto que sentenciou um deputado federal a quase nove anos de prisão por ameaçar o Tribunal; ordenou busca e apreensão contra empresários com poucas evidências de irregularidades; suspendeu um governador eleito de seu cargo; e bloqueou monocraticamente dezenas de contas e milhares de publicações nas redes sociais, praticamente sem transparência ou espaço para recurso.Na sua caça em nome da justiça após o tumulto deste mês, Moraes se tornou mais audacioso. Suas ordens para banir vozes influentes online se proliferaram, e, agora, ele colocou o homem acusado de atiçar as chamas extremistas do Brasil, Bolsonaro, sob sua mira. Na semana passada, Moraes incluiu o ex-presidente na investigação federal do tumulto, da qual é o relator, sugerindo que o ex-presidente tenha inspirado a violência.Suas ações se encaixam em uma tendência mais ampla da Suprema Corte brasileira de aumentar o próprio poder — tomando o que os críticos chamam de um rumo mais repressivo no processo.Vários juristas e analistas políticos agora discutem que impacto Moraes terá a longo prazo. Alguns argumentam que as suas ações são medidas extraordinárias, mas necessárias diante de uma ameaça extraordinária. Outros dizem que, agindo sob a bandeira da salvaguarda da democracia, Moraes está, em vez disso, prejudicando o equilíbrio de poder no país.“Não podemos desrespeitar a democracia para protegê-la”, disse Irapuã Santana, advogado e colunista jurídico do jornal O Globo, um dos maiores do Brasil.Santana votou em Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, o novo presidente da esquerda, em outubro, mas disse temer que muitos no Brasil estejam apoiando Moraes sem considerar as possíveis consequências. “Hoje ele está fazendo isso contra o nosso ‘inimigo’. Amanhã ele está fazendo isso contra o nosso amigo — ou contra nós”, disse. “É um precedente perigoso.”Milly Lacombe, uma comentarista da esquerda, disse que tais preocupações ignoram um perigo maior, evidenciado pelos tumultos e um complô frustrado de atentado à bomba para perturbar a posse de Lula. Ela argumentou, em sua coluna no site de notícias UOL, que a extrema direita apresenta graves perigos para a democracia brasileira, o que deve ofuscar as preocupações com liberdade de expressão ou excesso judicial.“Sob ameaça de uma insurreição de inspiração nazi-fascista vale suprimir temporariamente liberdades individuais em nome da liberdade coletiva?” escreveu. “Eu diria que sim.”O ex-presidente de direita, Jair Bolsonaro, há muito tempo acusa Alexandre de Moraes de exceder sua autoridade e tentou um impeachment contra o Ministro.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesA disputa ilustra um debate global mais amplo, não apenas sobre o poder do Judiciário, mas também sobre como lidar com a desinformação nas redes sem silenciar vozes dissidentes.O proprietário do Twitter, Elon Musk, ponderou que os movimentos de Moraes foram “extremamente preocupantes.” Glenn Greenwald, um jornalista americano que vive no Brasil há anos e crítico de certas regras das redes sociais, participou de um debate nesta semana com um sociólogo brasileiro sobre as ações de Moraes. E as autoridades brasileiras sugeriram que poderiam considerar novas leis para determinar o que pode ser dito nas redes.Alexandre de Moraes tem recusado pedidos de entrevista há mais de um ano. O Supremo Tribunal Federal, em nota, disse que as investigações de Moraes e muitas de suas ordens foram endossadas por toda a Corte e “são absolutamente constitucionais.”Nas horas seguintes ao tumulto em Brasília, Moraes afastou o governador do Distrito Federal, responsável pela segurança do protesto que se tornou violento, e depois ordenou a prisão de dois agentes de segurança do Distrito Federal.Ainda assim, há pouco apoio no Supremo Tribunal Federal para prender Bolsonaro, devido à insuficiência das provas e temores de que uma prisão provocaria novos conflitos. De acordo com um alto funcionário do Supremo Tribunal Federal que falou sob condição de anonimato para discutir conversas privadas, diversos ministros da corte preferem tentar condenar Bolsonaro por abuso de poder no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, o que o tornaria inelegível por oito anos.Bolsonaro, que está na Flórida desde 30 de dezembro, há muito tempo acusa Moraes de exceder sua autoridade e tentou um impeachment contra o Ministro. O advogado de Bolsonaro disse que ele sempre respeitou a democracia e repudiou os tumultos.Moraes, de 54 anos, tem décadas de atuação como promotor público, advogado e professor de Direito Constitucional.O Ministro foi nomeado para o Supremo Tribunal Federal em 2017, uma medida condenada pela esquerda porque ele estava alinhado com partidos da centro-direita.Alexandre de Moraes com o Presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva no mês passado.Andre Borges/EPA, via ShutterstockEm 2019, o então presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal emitiu uma portaria de uma página autorizando a Corte a instaurar seus próprios inquéritos ao invés de aguardar outras autoridades. Para o Tribunal — que, ao contrário da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, processa dezenas de milhares de casos por ano, incluindo certos casos criminais — essa foi uma expansão drástica de sua jurisdição.O presidente da Corte designou Moraes para iniciar o primeiro inquérito: uma investigação sobre “fake news”. O primeiro passo de Moraes foi ordenar a uma revista que retirasse do ar uma reportagem que ligava o presidente da Corte a uma investigação sobre corrupção. (Ordem que revogou quando a revista mostrou provas.)Moraes então mudou o foco das investigações para a desinformação nas redes, principalmente vinda dos apoiadores de Jair Bolsonaro, o que deu a ele um enorme papel na política brasileira. Papel que cresceu ainda mais este ano, quando, por acaso, seu revezamento como presidente do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral coincidiu com a eleição.Nessa função, Alexandre de Moraes se tornou o maior guardião — e cão de guarda — da democracia brasileira. Antes da eleição, Moraes fez um acordo com os militares para realizar testes adicionais em urnas eletrônicas. No dia da eleição, ordenou que a Polícia Rodoviária Federal explicasse por que os policiais estavam parando ônibus cheios de eleitores. E, na noite da eleição, Moraes convidou os líderes da República para que anunciassem o vencedor em conjunto, uma demonstração de unidade contra qualquer tentativa de perpetuação no poder.No meio desse grupo de líderes estava o próprio Alexandre de Moraes. O Ministro fez um discurso contundente sobre o valor da democracia, provocando cantos de “Xandão”.“Espero que, a partir dessa eleição”, disse, “finalmente cessem as agressões ao sistema eleitoral.”Elas não cessaram. Manifestantes da direita protestaram em frente aos quartéis, pedindo aos militares que revogassem a eleição. Em resposta, Moraes ordenou que empresas de tecnologia suspendessem mais contas, de acordo com um advogado sênior de uma grande empresa de tecnologia, que falou sob condição de anonimato por medo de irritar o Ministro.Apoiadores de Jair Bolsonaro protestam em frente ao quartel do Exército em São Paulo para pedir intervenção militar após eleições em novembro.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesEntre as contas que Moraes ordenou que fossem retiradas estão as de pelo menos cinco parlamentares federais, um empresário bilionário e mais de uma dezena de influenciadores da direita, incluindo um dos apresentadores de podcast mais populares do país.As ordens de Moraes para remover contas não especificam o motivo, de acordo com o advogado e uma cópia de uma ordem obtida pelo New York Times. Acessos a contas proibidas no Twitter levam a uma página em branco e uma mensagem contundente: “a conta foi retida no Brasil em resposta a uma exigência legal.” Os donos das contas são simplesmente informados de que estão suspensas devido a uma ordem judicial e que devem considerar entrar em contato com um advogado.O advogado disse que sua empresa de tecnologia entrou com recursos contra ordens que considera excessivamente amplas, mas eles foram negados por Moraes. Os recursos ao Plenário do STF também foram negados ou ignorados, disse.Procuradas pela reportagem, várias redes sociais se recusaram a comentar o assunto publicamente. Moraes é uma potencial ameaça para os seus negócios no Brasil. No ano passado, Moraes baniu brevemente o Telegram no país após a empresa não cumprir suas ordens.Recentemente houve conversas entre alguns ministros do STF sobre a necessidade de pôr fim aos inquéritos de Moraes, de acordo com a fonte do tribunal, mas após o tumulto de 8 de janeiro, esses comentários cessaram. O tumulto aumentou o apoio a Moraes entre seus pares, de acordo com o alto funcionário da Corte.Beatriz Rey, cientista política da Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, disse que a abordagem de Moraes, embora não ideal, se faz necessária porque outros poderes do governo, especialmente o Legislativo, não cumpriram seu dever.“Você não deveria ter um Ministro combatendo ameaças à democracia repetidas vezes,” disse. “Mas o problema é que o próprio sistema está funcionando mal neste momento.”André Spigariol More

Mr. Klain’s departure would mark a rare moment of high-level turnover in an administration that has been remarkably stable through two years of crises and political battles.WASHINGTON — Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff who has steered President Biden’s administration through two years of triumphs and setbacks, is expected to step down in coming weeks in the most significant changing of the guard since Mr. Biden took office two years ago.Mr. Klain has been telling colleagues privately since the November midterm elections that after a grueling, nonstop stretch at Mr. Biden’s side going back to the 2020 campaign, he is ready to move on, according to senior administration officials, and a search for a replacement has been underway.The officials, who discussed internal matters on condition of anonymity, would not say whether a successor has already been picked or when the decision would be announced, but indicated that it would come at some point after the president outlined his agenda for the coming year in his State of the Union address on Feb. 7. Mr. Klain likely would stay around for a transition period to help the next chief settle into the corner office that has been his command post for many crises and legislative battles.His resignation would be a striking moment of turnover at the top of an administration that has been relatively stable through the first half of Mr. Biden’s term, and Mr. Klain takes pride that he has lasted longer than any other Democratic president’s first chief of staff in more than half a century. But with Mr. Biden expected to announce by spring that he is running for re-election, advisers predict more moves as some aides shift from the White House to the campaign.The departure would also come at a time when the White House faces a widening array of political and legal threats from a newly appointed special counsel investigating the improper handling of classified documents and a flurry of other inquiries by the newly installed Republican majority in the House. The next chief of staff will be charged with managing the defense of Mr. Biden’s White House and any counterattack as the 2024 election approaches.Among the possible choices to replace Mr. Klain mentioned by senior officials are Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh; former Gov. Jack A. Markell of Delaware, now serving as ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Mr. Biden; Steven J. Ricchetti, the counselor to the president; Jeffrey D. Zients, the administration’s former coronavirus response coordinator; Susan Rice, the White House domestic policy adviser; and Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture.Neither Mr. Klain nor any of those named as possible candidates to succeed him had any immediate comment on Saturday in response to messages. Ms. Dunn has flatly ruled out taking the job in conversations with colleagues.Mr. Klain has been a singularly important figure in Mr. Biden’s administration. Having worked for Mr. Biden off and on for more than three decades, Mr. Klain channels the president as few others can, admirers say. He is seen as so influential that Republicans derisively call him a virtual prime minister and Democrats blame him when they are disappointed in a decision.For all the crossfire, Mr. Klain helped rack up an impressive string of legislative victories, including a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief plan, a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure program, the largest investment in combating climate change in history and measures to expand benefits for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, lower prescription drug costs for seniors, spur development in the semiconductor industry and create a minimum 15 percent tax rate for major corporations.Mr. Klain also helped oversee the distribution of vaccines that have curbed if not ended the Covid-19 pandemic and the enactment of a plan to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt for millions of Americans. And he set the tone for the White House message to the world through an active Twitter account that he used to promote victories and jab critics.On Friday, for instance, he chided Republicans for their approach to federal spending. “How extreme is the House GOP plan to cut Social Security and Medicare?” he wrote. “So extreme that even Donald Trump is saying, ‘Hey, that’s too extreme for me!’”He also reflected on the second anniversary of Mr. Biden’s inauguration. “Two hard years,” Mr. Klain wrote. “So much to be done. But so much progress.”At the same time, Mr. Klain has presided over a rash of troubles that have drained public support for Mr. Biden. While unemployment has remained near record lows and job creation was robust, inflation reached its highest rate in 40 years, gas prices shot up to an all-time high, economic growth stalled for a time and illegal immigration at the southwestern border surged to record levels..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Likely as a result, Mr. Biden’s approval rating has been mired in the low 40 percent range for more than a year. But Mr. Klain is preparing to leave at a moment when gas prices have come back down, inflation is falling and Mr. Biden’s political standing appears to have recovered somewhat after better-than-expected midterm elections.“He is a truly unique chief of staff,” said Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution who studies administration personnel. Mr. Klain’s broad experience in multiple administrations as well as on Capitol Hill, his reputation for managing tough political challenges and his long history with Mr. Biden made him the most important figure in the White House besides the president.“Finding a successor who encompasses all of those skills will not be easy and may well be impossible,” Ms. Tenpas said. “They are headed into a re-election campaign that also increases Ron’s value in that he has campaign experience and political skills. In addition, the chief of staff’s Capitol Hill experience could come in handy as they confront divided government.”By this point in his presidency, Donald J. Trump was already on his third chief of staff and his third national security adviser and had lost more than half of his original 15 cabinet secretaries. By contrast, none of Mr. Biden’s statutory cabinet members have left. In fact, even Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who some had speculated might step down after the midterm elections, recently told Mr. Biden that she would stay.Ms. Tenpas calculates Mr. Biden’s turnover in his most important positions at 40 percent in the first two years, far lower than the 66 percent turnover in the same period under Mr. Trump, although higher than other recent presidents, like Barack Obama, who saw just 24 percent in his first two years.Still, few of those who left were at the senior-most level or part of the president’s inner circle, which has remained broadly intact. Mr. Biden’s overall turnover rate is higher than it would have been otherwise in part because of turmoil in Vice President Kamala Harris’s office, where staff members have come and gone with more frequency.Other departures are anticipated, possibly after the president’s State of the Union address, scheduled for Feb. 7. Brian Deese, the president’s national economic adviser, is expected to leave later this year, while Cecilia Rouse is expected to leave her post as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers to return to Princeton University.Mr. Klain, 61, who grew up in Indiana, graduated from Georgetown and earned a law degree from Harvard, has now served under three presidents and brought more White House experience to his post than perhaps any of his predecessors. He was associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, counselor to Attorney General Janet Reno and then chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore. A central figure in Mr. Gore’s futile fight to win the election recount in Florida in 2000, Mr. Klain was later played by Kevin Spacey in the 2008 HBO film “Recount.”Mr. Klain also worked for Mr. Biden’s Senate office and served as Mr. Biden’s chief of staff when he was vice president before becoming Mr. Obama’s Ebola response coordinator. Altogether, he served under nine previous White House chiefs of staff. “I have worked for more White House chiefs of staff than any other White House chief of staff,” Mr. Klain once boasted.In 2015, Mr. Klain enlisted with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign without waiting until Mr. Biden announced he was not running, an act that was seen as a betrayal by some in Biden world. In an email later made public, Mr. Klain even lamented that he was “dead to them,” meaning Mr. Biden’s circle. But several current and former Biden advisers said it is a testament to Mr. Klain’s strategic value that he worked his way back into the good graces of not only the president but also his wife, Jill Biden.Mr. Klain has long been open that he expected to leave at the two-year mark, especially since the midterm elections. He told Chris Whipple, author of “The Fight of His Life,” a new book on Mr. Biden’s presidency published last Tuesday, that he was readying to depart at that point and predicted that his successor could be a woman, without naming her.Officials said in recent days that it was not at all certain it will be a woman after all, however. But after the rough and tumble of his tenure, Mr. Klain took the midterm results as validation. “Maybe,” he wrote Mr. Whipple in an email at 1:16 a.m. on election night, “we don’t suck as much as people thought.” More

Mr. Hipkins, a household name in New Zealand for his role overseeing the country’s response to the pandemic, was nominated to succeed Jacinda Ardern as leader of the governing Labour Party.Chris Hipkins, who has been serving as New Zealand’s education and policing minister, is set to become the country’s new prime minister next month after he was the only member of the governing Labour Party to be nominated for the party leadership post.Members of the Labour caucus will meet on Sunday in the New Zealand city of Napier, where they are currently at their summer retreat, to endorse the nomination and confirm Mr. Hipkins as their party’s new leader. At least 10 percent of the caucus must vote for Mr. Hipkins to confirm him.His nomination comes after the surprise resignation on Thursday of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who had become a global liberal icon during her tenure.“I believe that leading a country is the most privileged job anyone could ever have, but also one of the more challenging,” Ms. Ardern said at the news conference announcing her decision. “You cannot and should not do it unless you have a full tank.”Ms. Ardern has said she will leave her post “no later” than Feb. 7, giving the party about two weeks to complete the transition.A clear front-runner from the moment Ms. Ardern revealed her decision to step down, Mr. Hipkins promised a seamless leadership transition without the infighting and back-alley machinations common to many political parties.“We will select a new leader that the party will then unite behind,” he said, after Ms. Ardern’s resignation. “Leadership contests don’t have to be like the Hunger Games.”Jacinda Ardern on Thursday, the day she announced she was resigning as New Zealand’s prime minister.Kerry Marshall/Getty ImagesMr. Hipkins, nicknamed Chippy, became a household name in New Zealand during his daily televised briefings throughout the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic.As first as the health minister and then as the minister for the Covid-19 response, Mr. Hipkins, 44, became the face of — and often the driving force of the policies behind — the country’s stringent, but widely applauded approach to the virus.The country’s policies resulted in few deaths but included some of the world’s most extensive restrictions in the first months of the pandemic — before the rules were all removed when the virus had been eradicated from the country, allowing New Zealanders to lead largely normal lives for most of the pandemic.But as the Labour Party’s next leader, he will face a number of major challenges when the country goes to the polls on Oct. 14.In a clash of two Chrises, Mr. Hipkins will go head-to-head against Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party and the former chief executive of New Zealand’s national airline, Air New Zealand.Voters, facing the same pocketbook strains as people in many other parts of the world, are looking for solutions to biting inflation, an ongoing housing crisis and other entrenched social problems such as child poverty and crime. Polling suggests many believe the governing party has not provided the policy answers to those problems, with 38 percent favoring the center-right National Party compared with Labour’s 33 percent, as of last month.Mr. Hipkins may also struggle to get beyond his association with pandemic policy, potentially a double-edged sword with voters eager to put the worst of the last three years behind them.Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party, who will be challenging Mr. Hipkins for the prime minister’s job when New Zealand votes in October.Hagen Hopkins/Getty ImagesThe country’s rigorous restrictions and vaccine mandates were initially popular with most New Zealanders. But as the rest of the world opened up and New Zealand’s borders remained shut, resentment began to grow, spurring a backlash and resulting in a crowd of protesters camping outside Parliament’s grounds in Wellington for more than three weeks.Even as her party slumped in the polls, Ms. Ardern had retained a certain star power that her successor may struggle to match. Instead, Mr. Hipkins, who has been a lawmaker since 2008, may bring to the campaign a reputation as a champion debater and an experienced policymaker, as well as a face familiar to most in the country.Certain idiosyncrasies and odd moments — including a well-known fondness for Diet Coke; a time when he posed with a birthday cake made entirely of sausage rolls; and, ahead of a news conference held in a nature reserve, the surprise appearance of his mother, who apologized for his lateness — have been memorialized in countless internet jokes, earning him the unofficial title of “minister for memes.”In a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Hipkins, who has cultivated a political brand of being approachable and down to earth, said that he was “humbled and honored” to assume the party’s leadership and that he was “incredibly optimistic” about New Zealand’s future.He added: “I’m a human being. I’ll make the odd mistake from time to time, I try and own the mistakes that I make. I don’t pretend to be someone that I’m not. I’ve never done that in the past. And I don’t intend to start doing it.”A “boy from the Hutt,” as he described himself in the news conference, Mr. Hipkins grew up in the industrial and unglamorous Hutt Valley north of Wellington, the New Zealand capital.He majored in politics and criminology at Victoria University of Wellington, where he was twice elected student body president. As a first-year student in 1997, he was arrested, strip-searched and detained overnight for protesting a higher education reform bill that he later said would “turn academic entities into corporate entities, treat students as customers.”The government in 2009 apologized to and compensated the protesters.In his first speech in Parliament as a newly elected member in 2008, Mr. Hipkins cited family, community spirit and state support as chief priorities, and called for reform to New Zealand’s welfare system, which he said should help those “at the bottom” to scale “the ladder of opportunity.”“The needs of the competitive free market are balanced by the need for the government to set a few boundaries and ensure that the most vulnerable are protected,” he said. More

“We could have picked apart this guy,” one Republican leader in New Mexico said of Solomon Peña, who is accused of organizing attacks on the homes of four Democratic officials.ALBUQUERQUE — The former Republican candidate accused of targeting the homes of Democrats in drive-by shootings had routinely called for locking up 2020 election officials in Guantánamo Bay. He promoted conspiracy theories about solar power, feminism and “the demonic theories of the Globalist Elites.” He had been demoted twice by the U.S. Navy and served nearly seven years in prison for burglary.Yet powerful party leaders in New Mexico not only gave the first-time candidate, Solomon Peña, 39, full-throated endorsements, they also opened their checkbooks to fund his race for a state legislative seat in central Albuquerque long held by Democrats. Some knew about his prison record but said they felt that he had turned his life around. Local and state authorities now say they are investigating whether drug money helped fund his campaign.“He came across to me as a very respectful, thoughtful young man,” said Harvey Yates, an oilman and former chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, who donated $5,000 to Mr. Peña’s election effort. Now, Mr. Yates acknowledges that he may have made a mistake. He said that he felt “very bad, very sad” for Mr. Peña, “who I think really had possibilities.”The police say that after losing his race by a landslide in November — he received 26 percent of the vote — and refusing to concede, Mr. Peña organized shootings at the homes of prominent Democrats, including two who certified the election results. The attacks came at a time of growing fears across the country about a trend of political violence, mostly from the right wing, including the attack on the husband of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a conspiracy to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.In New Mexico, the case also highlights the internal struggles among Republicans as election deniers like Mr. Peña — who was in the crowd for President Donald J. Trump’s speech in Washington on Jan. 6, according to videos collected by online sleuths — fill the ranks of candidates seeking elected office. Other Republicans such as Audrey Trujillo, who ran for secretary of state, embraced conspiracy theories about elections, school shootings and Covid-19 vaccines.Many of those election deniers lost in New Mexico, mirroring similar Republican setbacks in other parts of the country. The results helped the state’s Democrats solidify their control of both houses in the state Legislature, the governor’s office and the entire congressional delegation, sparking recriminations over the Republicans’ loss of power.Michael Candelaria, a prominent state Republican who until recently was the party chairman in Valencia County, near Albuquerque, said the Peña case laid bare a dilemma in a state where Democrats have steadily expanded their sway in recent years: how to appeal to some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, who refused to accept his 2020 re-election defeat, without alienating other voters who reject the lies and conspiracy theories.“You don’t take a group of people whose support you want and tell them, ‘You’re a bunch of crazies,’” Mr. Candelaria said. “You’re going to have some extremists that you have to figure out how to keep their support.”But Mr. Candelaria, who has pushed for leadership changes in the state party, said that Mr. Peña’s arrest showed the risks of promoting such figures. “Had we done some good vetting, we could have picked apart this guy, but no, we don’t do a good job of picking candidates,” he said.It was unclear how much Republican leaders had examined Mr. Peña’s background. Steve Pearce, a former member of Congress who is now chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, did not respond to requests for comment.Some Republicans are now bracing for more revelations about Mr. Peña, who was arrested on Monday and charged with criminal solicitation, attempted aggravated battery, shooting at an occupied dwelling, shooting from a moving vehicle and conspiracy. The police called him the “mastermind” behind a conspiracy in which four other men were paid to shoot at the homes of two county commissioners and two state legislators, and said that he personally participated in at least one of the shootings.As part of their investigation, Albuquerque police detectives said they were also examining whether Mr. Peña used proceeds from narcotics trafficking to finance his campaign, and whether campaign laws were violated. The New Mexico attorney general’s office will lead the investigation into Mr. Peña’s campaign finances, a spokeswoman for the office said on Friday.The turn in the investigation came after detectives learned through witness interviews that Mr. Peña had identified individuals to funnel contributions from an unknown source into his campaign, according to Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for the department. Investigators said they are focusing on José Trujillo, who is also accused in the shootings, and Mr. Trujillo’s mother, Melanie Griego, who are listed as donating a total of $9,150 to Mr. Peña’s campaign.Police arrested Mr. Trujillo on Jan. 3, shortly after the shooting targeting the Albuquerque home of Linda Lopez, a state senator. In the car that Mr. Trujillo was driving, which the police say is owned by Mr. Peña, investigators say they found 893 fentanyl pills and $3,036 in cash, as well as a firearm matching shell casings found at Ms. Lopez’s home.Mr. Peña made his first court appearance on Wednesday and did not enter a plea. Roberta Yurcic, a lawyer representing him, said she couldn’t comment on specific aspects of her client’s background, including his military demotions and work history. “The investigation into the charges against my client is ongoing,” she added. “Mr. Peña has a right to a fair trial.”Javier Martinez, a Democrat whose home was targeted in the attacks after the November election, said that he had “never experienced anything like this before.” Mr. Martinez, who took over this month as New Mexico’s speaker of the House, tied Mr. Peña’s extremism to the election lies voiced by Mr. Trump.“The previous president, I think, really exploited some of those feelings,” Mr. Martinez said. “And we’ve seen it play out in different ways, including the insurrection in Washington, D.C., including this set of events here in our own backyard.”Mr. Peña presented himself as someone on the mend, leading groups in prayer at political meetings and telling neighbors that he did not drink or take drugs. But he made little effort to hide his extreme views. His campaign website denounced “the demonic theories of the Globalist Elites and their foreign counterparts,” called feminism “demonicism,” and said the 2020 election had been rigged against Mr. Trump by “enemy combatants” who “must be placed in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the remainder of their natural lives.”During his campaign, Mr. Peña highlighted his time as a Navy hospital corpsman assigned to a Marine division in Okinawa, Japan. But promotion data provided by the U.S. Navy’s public affairs office shows that Mr. Peña hardly served with distinction. He was demoted twice during his four years in the service and left the military in 2004 at the lowest possible rank. The Navy was unable to provide the reasons for Mr. Peña’s demotions.Mr. Peña ran on a platform of cracking down on crime, despite his own criminal history. He served nearly seven years in prison in New Mexico on charges including burglary and larceny after being part of a “smash-and-grab” crew that slammed vehicles into retail stores, including a Kmart in Albuquerque, then stole items, according to court records.After being released from prison in 2016, Mr. Peña tried selling cars at a dealership in Albuquerque but lasted less than a month before he was fired for showing up late, court records from a lawsuit filed by Mr. Peña in 2017 show. (The case was dismissed.) Mr. Peña also enrolled at the University of New Mexico, obtaining a political science degree in 2021, the same year that his voting rights were restored after his prison term.Mr. Peña appears to have run for the Republican nomination for the state legislative seat unopposed. In October, he received an endorsement from the Republican National Hispanic Assembly’s New Mexico chapter. Ronnie Lucero, the chairman of both the group’s national organization and the state chapter, said that he had spoken with Mr. Peña at events during the campaign, and that the candidate had filled out a questionnaire asking about his professional, financial and criminal history before the group endorsed him.The group did not see Mr. Peña’s criminal record as disqualifying, Mr. Lucero said, adding: “At the time that we made the endorsement, there was the impression that he’d got his life together and he’s one of those second-chance stories that would turn out to be something good and positive for the community.“It was a bad decision that we made, and regretfully,” he said. “But we can’t read the future.”When asked about some of the extremist rhetoric on Mr. Peña’s campaign website, Mr. Lucero said that he had not seen the statements — although they were published before the endorsement, according to the Internet Archive — and that they would have given him pause if he had.Some Republican officials defended the apparent lack of vetting before the party establishment put its support behind Mr. Peña, which included defending him when his opponent sought to have him disqualified from the race because of his criminal record, which could potentially have prohibited him from taking office.“The Republican Party did not recruit him,” said Representative Bill Rehm, a Republican state legislator from Albuquerque, adding that he did not think the party establishment should vet candidates. “He, like anyone else, can sign up to run for whatever office.”John Ismay More

Three active-duty US marines arrested for participating in Capitol attackMen were taken into custody on Wednesday, bringing the number of US military members charged in connection to insurrection to 12 Three active-service US marines, all with ties to intelligence work, were arrested this week for taking part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, according to federal documents newly unsealed.The men, all long-serving, were taken into custody on Wednesday on four charges, bringing to 12 the number of US military members charged in connection with the deadly insurrection by supporters of outgoing president Donald Trump as they tried to prevent the certification by Congress of his defeat by Joe Biden. The news was first reported by military.com.The three were named as Micah Coomer, Joshua Abate and Dodge Dale Hellonen. According to the documents, unsealed on Thursday, they spent more than an hour together wandering around the Capitol rotunda, and at one point placed “a red Maga hat on one of the statues to take photos with it”, indicating Trump’s Make America Great Again election slogan.Investigators noted social media posts by Coomer, including one where he stated he was “glad to be apart [sic] of history”, and a chat with another Instagram user in which he explained he was there because he was “waiting for the boogaloo”, a term popular with rightwing extremists and white supremacists to signify a race-related civil war.Marine corps records provided to military.com show all three have been enlisted for more than four years, have good conduct medals, and that each works in “demanding jobs” tied to the intelligence community. At least one holds a “significant” security clearance.In a statement to the outlet, a spokesperson said the service is “aware of an investigation and the allegations” and said it was “fully cooperating with appropriate authorities in support of the investigation”.The men face misdemeanor charges including trespass, disruptive and disorderly conduct and obstructing government business. According to the 13-page document compiled by FBI special agent Kelsey Randall of the agency’s joint terrorism taskforce, investigators “learned” of Coomer’s social media posts and, after obtaining a search warrant, identified the two others from images contained in them.Security footage from the Capitol showed the three entering the building together through a door near the Senate chamber, and moving further inside as part of a mob of dozens of others, many wearing Trump’s signature Make America Great Again red caps.Additional proof came from cell phone records showing the three were in the building, Randall wrote..TopicsUS Capitol attackUS militarynewsReuse this content More

More from our inbox:The U.S. Embassy in IsraelPaying Off Our DebtsWhy Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Election Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsDarren Woods, ExxonMobil’s C.E.O., appeared before the House Oversight Committee via video link in 2021.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Exxon Scientists Saw Global Warming, as Oil Giant Cast Doubt, Study Says” (Business, Jan. 13):Exxon knew that its fuels would contribute to overheating the planet, yet it chose to deceive the public. It’s the very definition of fraud. Fossil fuel interests and their political allies are carrying out a fraud on humanity. They enjoy massive profits while their products are causing disease, death and disruption around the world.More than eight million people die annually from fossil fuel pollution. Societies are burdened by billions of dollars in damages from climate-fueled heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods and sea rise.How can we hold them accountable? Many cities and states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies seeking damages.We citizens can demand congressional action to end fossil fuel subsidies, enact carbon pricing to make the polluters pay, subsidize clean energy, speed electrification, reform the permitting process for renewable energy, and sequester carbon through healthier forests and better agricultural practices.Robert TaylorSanta Barbara, Calif.To the Editor:The revelation that Exxon scientists in the 1970s correctly projected the long-term climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, while publicly claiming ignorance, is both unsurprising and infuriating. Rising profits beat rising sea levels every time.Communities on the front lines of the climate crisis have long felt the environmental, economic and health consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. It stands to reason that scientists employed by big polluters would reach the same conclusions.When lead paint and tobacco companies were found to have known the negative health effects of their products, but spent decades concealing them, a public reckoning — with significant monetary damages — followed. It is long past time for the fossil fuel industry to face the same kind of accountability.Zellnor Y. MyrieBrooklynThe writer is a New York State senator for the 20th District.To the Editor:It is indeed unfortunate that Exxon was not forthcoming about its studies and its scientifically accurate projections of global warming. We can use this information to vilify Exxon Mobil, and certainly it deserves criticism, or we can use the information to acknowledge that a great deal of untapped expertise resides in the private energy industry that can be harnessed to address climate change.It would be highly productive if the federal government worked with energy corporations, where so much energy expertise resides, helping them make the socially beneficial decisions that are required to move toward nonpolluting and climate-friendly sources of energy.The government could help fund research and provide economic assistance to construct new infrastructure, which would ease the monetary challenges in transitions.Make the oil and energy industry part of the solution, as opposed to the problem.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.The writer is a former employee of PECO Energy, an electric and gas utility.To the Editor:Thank you for this article, but this is not news. We have known for some time that the oil companies have been deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding global warming, when they knew better.The Union of Concerned Scientists published “The Climate Deception Dossiers” in 2015. This document is a compilation of evidence that the oil companies knew what greenhouse gases would do to the Earth.In addition, the magazine Scientific American published an article in 2015 that stated that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977.Joseph MilsteinBrookline, Mass.The U.S. Embassy in IsraelThe lot in Jerusalem that is a candidate for a new U.S. embassy.Ofir Berman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Don’t Build the Jerusalem Embassy Here,” by Rashid Khalidi (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 17):Dr. Khalidi’s view of international law, history and politics demands a response.When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the Jewish organizations had embraced the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending partition into predominantly Jewish and Arab states. Arabs rejected the recommendation and attacked. If there was a “nakba” (catastrophe), it was of their making.Second, Israel did not wake up one day and decide to march into East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Egypt, Syria and Jordan engaged in armed aggression in 1967 with the stated objective of pushing the Jews into the sea. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.There is not an international right of return law. That argument is an excuse for destroying Israel as a Jewish state.Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem recognized the location of Israel’s capital and sent an important signal to those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Real peace between Israel and the Palestinians will happen when both sides recognize a need to compromise.Nicholas RostowNew YorkThe writer is a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and general counsel and senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Paying Off Our DebtsThe Treasury Department is using so-called extraordinary measures to allow the federal government to keep paying its bills.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Hits Debt Cap, Heightening Risk of Economic Pain” (front page, Jan. 20):If the debt limit is not raised, then the U.S. will be unable to make payments to some of its creditors, employees and entitlement programs that it is legally obligated to make.How nifty! My wife and I have a mortgage and a car loan. We have decided that our personal debt level is too high. So, we plan to send our bank a letter today saying that we will no longer make our mortgage or car payments.On second thought, scratch that. I know what our bank would say. And it would be right.If we need to reduce our debt as a nation, then — like my wife and me — let’s do it by reducing future spending commitments, not by failing to make current payments that we have already legally committed ourselves to make.Craig DuncanIthaca, N.Y.Why Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Alec Baldwin on set of the film “Rust” in near Santa Fe, N.M., after the death of the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021.Agence France-Presse, via Santa Fe County Sheriff’s OfficeTo the Editor:Re “Baldwin to Face Pair of Charges in Movie Death” (front page, Jan. 20):Why do actors need to use real guns? They use fake props for everything else!If we can send people to the moon and create self-driving cars, you would think that we could create realistic-looking guns, instead of real ones, that actors could use in movies and theaters.If they had done that on the set of “Rust,” the western that Alec Baldwin was filming, no one would have died. It’s a simple solution to prevent anything like this from happening again.Ellen EttingerNew YorkElection Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsA ballot cast for former President Donald J. Trump that was part of the county’s recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Despite Recount of 2020 Ballots, County’s Deniers Cling to Doubts” (front page, Jan. 16):Sensible taxpayers have the right to ask why their tax funds and the time of civil servants are spent on a request for an additional recount or audit of a verified and certified vote absent any evidence of fraud or irregularity.Where no reasonable probable cause exists for any such recount or audit, then any re-examination should be completely at the expense and time of the party that initiated it, especially when these beliefs are conjured up by conspiratorial fantasies or motivated by bad faith.Government officials and civil servants need to be free to focus on the needs of all, and not just the aims of a divisive and selfish minority.Jim CochranDallas More

How much did coronavirus deaths, redistricting and voter suppression matter in the last election?Supporters of a trucking convoy that included vaccine opponents last year in Adelanto, Calif.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesA lot of mail has piled up since the election, so let’s take a trip to the mailbag while we’re in a relatively quiet period.Covid mortality and votingI’m not sure if I should be surprised by this, but one of the most popular email topics has been a morbid one: the effect of the coronavirus death toll.“Since the 2020 election, Covid has claimed well over half a million lives, predominantly elderly unvaccinated persons. Studies have documented the greater fatality rate in red counties. It appears that more elderly G.O.P. voters have died than their Democratic counterparts. Death certificates don’t include party affiliation, but there appears to have been something of a red wave of G.O.P. morbidity occurring over the last two years.“As pollsters extrapolate from their samples, has the weighting been revised since 2020 to reflect the shift in surviving voters due to Covid fatalities?” — John BaileyJohn, I doubt pollsters are revising their weighting targets to directly account for Covid deaths. And if some went through the motions of doing so, my guess is they found it wasn’t worth the time.I don’t want to appear to minimize the significance of more than half a million deaths since the 2020 election (and more than a million since the start of the pandemic), but the truth is this is not a large enough number to significantly affect the American electorate.Let’s suppose the most extreme case: Imagine that every single post-2020 Covid death was a Trump voter in the last election. How much would the result have changed if they hadn’t voted? Well, President Biden would have won by 4.8 points instead of 4.4 points.A swing of four-tenths of a point isn’t nothing, but polls don’t even report results to the decimal point. If pollsters made this adjustment, most poll results would go unchanged. The likeliest scenario, of course, is a much, much smaller effect.Nonetheless, coronavirus deaths will eventually affect the makeup of the polls, even if pollsters make no effort to account for Covid whatsoever. That’s because most polls are adjusted to match the characteristics of the population, based on data from the Census Bureau or voter registration files. To the extent Covid deaths ultimately change the characteristics of the population or the voter rolls, the targets that pollsters use for weighting will incrementally change as well.The role of gerrymanderingA recurring theme in the inbox was gerrymandering, which I did not mention in any of my post-election analyses:Not a mention of gerrymandering in this piece. A competitive congressional district map in N.Y. was very instrumental in the G.O.P. House victories there whereas a very gerrymandered map in Florida led to Democratic losses there — combined maybe at least half the expected majority the G.O.P. is estimated to end up with in the House when the dust settles. I would love to read your analysis on this issue. — Stan RoeI’m not so sure about that, Stan. As I wrote in the fall, this year’s congressional map was the fairest House map in decades. It gave the Democrats a serious and underrated chance at winning the House. And the final results bear this out: Democrats nearly won the House even though they lost the popular vote by a few percentage points.Going state by state, it’s striking how often the Democrats got their money’s worth. Their riskiest, maximum-effort gerrymanders paid off in Nevada, New Mexico and Illinois, where the party swept the eight competitive districts that they risked in order to maximize their chances at additional seats.Meanwhile, Republicans did so well in the red states that some of their most extreme gerrymanders may not have paid off as much as one might have guessed based on the results of the 2020 presidential election. Believe it or not, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida would have carried more seats on the relatively fair map he vetoed than on the enacted Republican gerrymander.Effects of voter suppressionMany readers asked about another topic I didn’t mention in my post-election analyses: voter suppression.Did voter suppression or even the threat thereof affect Black and Hispanic turnout? Thank you for your interesting newsletters! — Claire HessIt’s worth noting that this is a reply to a newsletter entry from early December, when I noted that Black turnout appeared to drop markedly across the country. Indeed, Black turnout really did seem to decline everywhere, regardless of whether states imposed new voter suppression laws or even expanded voter access.To take the three states where we have the best data — North Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia — Black turnout dropped off the most in North Carolina and Louisiana, where Democratic governors blocked efforts to restrict access. And turnout stayed strongest in Georgia, the epicenter of the fight over voting rights.This pattern doesn’t prove that new voter laws had zero effect in Georgia or elsewhere — and this analysis is separate from the ethics of the intent of the laws — but the broad decline in Black turnout across the country suggests that other factors were mainly responsible. It also implies that the effect of the new laws was small enough that it’s hard to tease out from the other factors that affect turnout from state to state.As I wrote two years ago about the new Georgia law, “In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all.” This is by no means the final account, but that remains my best guess. More

Activists are pushing for tougher abortion restrictions, while politicians fear turning off swing voters who don’t support strict limits like a national ban.For decades, opposition to abortion was a crucial but relatively clear-cut litmus test for Republican candidates: support overturning a constitutional right to an abortion, back anti-abortion judges and vote against taxpayer funding for the procedure.But now, six months after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, the test has grown a whole lot harder — and potentially more politically treacherous.Even after a backlash in support of abortion rights cost Republicans key seats in the midterm elections, a restive socially conservative wing is pushing the party’s lawmakers to embrace deeper restrictions. That effort is likely to be on stark display on Friday in Washington, when anti-abortion activists gather for what is expected to be a lower-key version of their annual march. Historically, the event attracted top Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and former Speaker Paul Ryan. This year, the list of speakers circulated in advance included two lawmakers: Representative Steve Scalise, the Republican majority leader, and Representative Chris Smith, one of the leaders of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.These activists and their allies are pressuring potential Republican presidential contenders to call for a national ban. Raising the stakes nearly two years before the 2024 contest, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the most powerful anti-abortion groups, said that any candidate who does not support federal restrictions should be “disqualified” from winning the party’s nomination.But some Republican strategists worry that such a position could repel general-election swing voters, who polls show are turned off by the idea of a national ban.Other conservative activists are pushing for a new series of litmus tests that include restrictions on medication abortion, protections for so-called crisis pregnancy centers that discourage women from having abortions, and promises of fiercely anti-abortion appointees to run the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration.For Republican politicians, these activists are forcing the question of what, exactly, it means to be “pro-life” in a post-Roe v. Wade era.In Grand Rapids, Mich., last November, opponents rallied against Proposition 3, a ballot measure that sought to protect abortion rights. Democratic candidates, who supported Proposition 3, did well in the election.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times“This is coming. The pro-life movement is not going to be happy or thanking a candidate simply for saying they are pro-life,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group. “We’re in a position where we’re going to get down to the various candidates on how far they are going to go to protect women and children.”Some Republican officials and strategists argue that pitched debates over abortion rights in the midterms — and the party’s inability to quickly adopt a unified message on the issue — contributed to the G.O.P.’s weaker-than-expected performance in battleground states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona.More on Abortion Issues in AmericaAt a Crossroads: As the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling approaches, anti-abortion activists who fought to have the decision overturned are split about what they should focus on next.In Congress: Republicans used their new power in the House to push through legislation that could subject doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties.Morning-After Pills: The Food and Drug Administration revised its guidance on the most commonly used emergency contraceptives, making clear they are not abortion pills.Abortion Pills: In a move that could significantly expand access to medication abortions, the F.D.A. moved to allow retail pharmacies to offer abortion pills in the United States.This view is shared by former President Donald J. Trump, who distanced himself this month from a social conservative wing that has been a pillar of his base when he blamed the “abortion issue” for the party’s loss of “large numbers of voters” in November.The comments set off an instant backlash from loyal supporters who once lauded him as the most anti-abortion president in history. Ms. Hawkins described Mr. Trump as “listening to swamp consultants.” The remarks also prompted ridicule from some Republican strategists who noted that Mr. Trump was often a liability in major races last year.Some potential 2024 candidates have begun tussling over the issue as they try to position themselves as the conservative movement’s next standard-bearer. Mr. Trump’s comments drew a rebuke from his former vice president, Mike Pence, who retweeted a statement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America urging the former president and his possible rivals to embrace an “ambitious consensus pro-life position.”“Well said,” added Mr. Pence, who has cast himself as a true champion of the cause as he promotes the Supreme Court’s ruling in appearances at “crisis pregnancy centers” and movement galas.A spokesman for Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has accused Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida of “hiding” behind his state’s ban on abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy, while Ms. Noem has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.“Talking about situations and making statements is incredibly important, but also taking action and governing and bringing policies that protect life are even more important,” she said recently on CBS News..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.And Mr. DeSantis, who shied away from addressing abortion for most of the fall campaign, has said he is “willing to sign great life legislation” and has not ruled out support for a six-week ban.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill last year for a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, and he has said he would consider a six-week ban.John Raoux/Associated PressStill, it remains unclear what, exactly, is the new standard for being anti-abortion — even among those pushing for more restrictions. Is it enough to seek to ban abortions after 15 weeks? Or should the bar be roughly six weeks, like the measure that Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed into law? Should Republicans support exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother — which Mr. Trump backs — or none at all? And how do you define health anyhow? Do psychiatric crises count?As some Republican-dominated statehouses prepare to further limit abortion, future presidential candidates are also likely to be asked about restrictive measures being proposed, including prosecuting those seeking abortion care in states where it is banned, targeting allies who help women travel across state lines for the procedure, criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication, and granting fetuses the same legal rights as people through fetal personhood bills.“Conservatives will not allow a Republican to be elected as their candidate that’s not pro-life,” said Penny Nance, the chief executive of Concerned Women for America, a group that argues that life begins at conception.Asked how conservatives now defined “pro-life” credentials — in terms of embracing abortion restrictions after a certain pregnancy threshold, simply looking for candidates who seemed to be fighters on the issue, or something else — Ms. Nance replied, “I think we’ll grapple with that.”Several activists have suggested that they expect this grappling to unfold in the context of a presidential primary campaign, as possible candidates race to demonstrate their anti-abortion bona fides.Democrats are avidly watching from the sidelines, keeping close tabs on the abortion stances of potential 2024 rivals. Their hope is that Republicans adopt positions that might be popular with their base but that will cost them the moderate suburbanites who are critical in the general election. Polling conducted by some Democratic strategists during the midterms found that voters strongly rejected any discussion of a national abortion ban.“They’re going to go for a national ban,” Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic strategist and pollster, said in an interview around Election Day. “That is the most mobilizing statement, the most persuasive.”She added, “And their candidate is going to be pushed into saying it.”Still, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it remains an open question whether social conservatives hold the same king-making power in the primary as they did in 2016, or if they may be forced to accept a candidate who doesn’t go as far on their top issues as they would prefer.Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressThe party remains divided over whether to support any national restrictions. In the House, the new Republican majority opened the session with a package of abortion legislation that did not include a national ban. Because Democrats control the Senate, none of the measures are expected to become law.“A great many Republicans still think the victory in Dobbs was pushing this down to the states,” Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell, said when asked for his thoughts on the relatively limited action on Capitol Hill. “It is contradictory to simultaneously believe that and then push for a national regime on it.”Mr. Jennings said he thought restricting abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions, was smart politics, a proposal that candidates could endorse for the states.But when Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina put forward that position in the form of a federal ban before the midterms, the proposal earned a backlash among some Republicans who viewed it, and its timing, as politically foolhardy.Still, in the final weeks of the midterms, many Republicans embraced a central message: a 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. They sought to push Democrats to define their own limits on gestational age — and falsely accused them of supporting “abortion until birth” if they refused. Nearly all Democrats support federal legislation that would reinstate a version of the standard set by Roe: permitting abortion until fetal viability, roughly 23 weeks, and after that point only if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s health.Robert Blizzard, a veteran Republican pollster, noted that several Republican candidates who generally opposed abortion rights won major statewide races in places including Florida, Georgia and Iowa. But elsewhere, for candidates without clearly defined personal brands, he said, “voters can use the abortion issue as a test of how compassionate they are, and how pragmatic they are, in order to solve problems and get things done.”“There were some candidates we had running, specifically in statewide races, that just could never get past the favorability” issue with independent voters, he added.Mr. Blizzard emphasized that it was impossible to know what issues would motivate voters in the 2024 general election. But there is little doubt, he said, that Democrats will continue to use the abortion issue against Republicans — and that in the midterms they often did so effectively.“Every metric you would look at indicates that that energizes the left and energizes the Democratic base, which it certainly did,” he said. “In some cases, where we made the fight over other issues — whether the economy, inflation, the border, whatever else was going on in a particular state or district — we did, I think, well. But in places where we were not able to change the narrative of a race, we didn’t do well.”“In terms of going forward,” he went on, describing the political uncertainties surrounding the issue, “I don’t think anyone has a really solid answer for it.” More