Elections

The Biden administration has finally delivered on its long anticipated student loan cancellation plans. The timing is critical: Midterm elections are around the corner. Just a few weeks ago, the consensus was that the Democratic Party was in trouble. But a series of policy wins has changed that narrative.President Biden’s executive order on student loans is another win.The top-line debt cancellation numbers do not sound impressive at first: Ten thousand dollars will be forgiven for borrowers who earn less than $125,000 or households earning less than $250,000. But the policy has many layers. Taken together, it is a meaningful response that mostly gets the diagnosis for how we got here right.The Student Loan Law Initiative at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and the Higher Education, Race and the Economy Lab analyzed Biden’s executive order. They estimate that around 41 million debt holders will be eligible for some form of student loan forgiveness, and that 25 million of those people will be eligible for up to $20,000 in student loan forgiveness. Twenty million people, including 3.8 million Black borrowers, could have their entire debts canceled.That isn’t full debt cancellation, but it will help a lot of people. And the people it will help most are those who got the rawest deal. That includes the millions of people who have debt but no degree — nearly one-third of all borrowers. It also includes people who took on student loans to pay for occupational degrees in blue-collar trades like cosmetology and mechanics. Republicans are criticizing the policy as giving handouts to the rich. They really want to implant the image of a Harvard liberal arts graduate getting a free pass. But cancellation is squarely targeted at the debt that working-class students have accrued to hold pretty working-class jobs. The G.O.P. will have a hard time telling those voters that this relief has not improved their lives.Other parts of the policy address underlying problems that created the student loan boondoggle. Millions of people have paid their loans as promised, following the official guidance of student loan servicers, only to owe more than when they started with because of interest. This negative amortization made it nearly impossible for some borrowers to pay off their loans. And documented problems with public student loan forgiveness programs meant that this burden often fell heaviest on people with public interest careers, such as public defenders, teachers and social workers. Now, income-driven repayments for undergraduate loans will be capped at 5 percent of the borrower’s take-home income. If you don’t have a lot of discretionary income, that payment could be low — too low to cover interest on the loan. Previously, this gap added up and increased the total amount owed. Under new guidelines, the government will cover that interest as long as the borrower is making payments. This does not get rid of the scourge of negative amortization for all borrowers. But it does two things: It effectively ends it for public interest workers. That lives up to the promise of public service loan forgiveness, which is that it becomes possible for people to do the work that society desperately needs done without living in eternal debt peonage. It also gives us a model for expanding that option for more borrowers in the future. It is a safe bet that student debt cancellation organizers are paying attention to that possibility.The other bit of good news in the details of this proposal is targeted relief for borrowers who were also Pell grant recipients. Pell grants are a bright spot in our higher education financing ecosystem. They help reduce the impact of one of the biggest drivers of inequality in higher education access, affordability and returns: family income. As tuition costs have dramatically increased, Pell has struggled to keep up. Earlier this year, the Biden administration increased the maximum amount of money attached to Pell grants. When you add that increase to this proposal’s targeted cancellation for anyone who currently or at any time in their undergraduate career qualified for Pell, it is a big help for poor families.Class — income and wealth — is how the Biden administration prefers to deal with racial inequalities that stem from student loan debt. Black borrowers come from poorer families who have less income and less wealth to pay their tuition. Those borrowers take on more student loan debt and their families take on more family loans, like the PLUS program, to help them pay for college. This is acute at lower levels of student loan debt, such as the millions of borrowers that will be included in the $10,000 and $20,000 forgiveness amounts. But these racial differences in debt also show up at the top of distributions. Black borrowers take on a lot of debt to be competitive in the labor market, from associate’s degrees to graduate programs. That debt then makes it hard for those borrowers to help their children pay for college. It’s a vicious cycle. This program won’t help those high-earning but negative wealth borrowers much.It also won’t reduce the cost of college, but it was not designed to. The executive branch does not have a lot of tools it can use to address that. What it does have is the big stick of federal student loan programs. It has used that stick in the past to make college more accessible, but at a cost that became too much for many borrowers to bear. The fight for affordability is primarily a state issue. Like abortion rights, public education and public health initiatives, the real battle for the future of higher education will happen at the state level.As for the federal fight, organizers will ask for more cancellations. I believe that they should. And while this recent policy is not total debt cancellation, it is far from where the Biden administration started. It accounts for research on how the student loan crisis became such a crisis in the first place. The administration has reformed target areas where abuses are the most egregious: bad student loan servicing companies and predatory for-profit colleges. The latest analysis from Goldman Sachs projects that inflationary pressures will be mild, at most. Restarting payments offsets a lot of the modeled risk. And this relief comes for poor and working-class families just as they start tuning in to midterm races. It is hard to argue that this is anything but good news for millions of people — and for the Democrats.Sometimes policy helps people, and sometimes those people remember it when it is time to vote. More

Republicans are still favored to gain seats in the midterm elections but are not as favored as you might have thought.They have lost their lead in the generic congressional ballot and face longer-than-expected odds to win the Senate as a result of flawed, extreme and extremely flawed nominees in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And while Republicans are heavily favored to win control of the House of Representatives, Democrats, according to the forecast at FiveThirtyEight, are still in the game, with a one in five chance to keep their majority,This is, for comparison’s sake, just a notch lower than Donald Trump’s odds of winning the White House in 2016. Recent election results — like the Democratic victory in a special election for New York’s 19th Congressional District — provide even stronger evidence that the national environment may have shifted away from the Republican Party.There is a real chance, in other words, that Democrats could enter the next Congress with their majority intact, a major change from earlier this year, when it looked as if Republicans would ride a red wave to victory in November. And if Democrats get exceptionally lucky — if conditions break just the right way in their favor — then there’s a chance that they begin the new year with a larger majority in the Senate in addition to a majority in the House.The question is: In the unlikely event that Democrats enter 2023 with a stronger majority than they’ve had the past two years, what should they do? There has been plenty of discussion about what Republicans should do with their putative future majorities, but what should the Democrats do with theirs?The easy answer is: everything Democrats couldn’t do in the previous Congress. But as we’ve seen, time is precious, and success depends as much on the willingness to set priorities as it does on the ability to find consensus. What, then, should Democrats prioritize?If the legislative story of the past two years — of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act — is the return of industrial policy, then the legislative story of the next two years must be the return of social policy, as well as an all-out effort to protect and secure the rights that are under assault by the Republican Party and its allies on the Supreme Court.This might sound expansive, but it amounts to just a handful of proposals. On social policy, Democrats should fight to make a child allowance a permanent feature of the social safety net. We already know it works; in just its first round of payments, President Biden’s child tax credits — enacted under the American Rescue Plan — brought more than three million children out of poverty.The Biden plan expired at the end of 2021, but there are still proposals on the table. Last year, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah introduced a plan to give every family a monthly benefit of up to $350 per child for children 5 and under and $250 per child for children 6 to 17. If passed into law, Romney’s plan would, according to the Niskanen Center, cut child poverty by roughly a third. The latest version of the Romney plan isn’t as generous as the original, but it would still put a significant dent in America’s rates of child poverty. There aren’t many policies as clearly good and necessary as a permanent child allowance, which would improve the lives of millions of Americans as well as help Democrats appeal to working- and middle-class voters. They absolutely have to do it.On the question of rights, there are three places Democrats should act as quickly as possible. The first is abortion and reproductive health. In this future in which Democrats still control Congress, they will almost certainly owe their majority to the backlash against the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the subsequent drive to criminalize abortion in Republican-led states.In a sense, Democrats would have no choice but to codify abortion rights into law, most likely using the framework developed in Roe v. Wade. There’s actually a bill that would do just that — the Women’s Health Protection Act, which passed the House last year. A less expansive bill, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, is pending in the Senate.Passing abortion rights into federal law isn’t just the smart thing for Democrats to do; it is the right thing to do — the only way to show the public that the party is willing and able to live up to its rhetoric on reproductive freedom.You can say the same for the other two issue areas that Democrats must address if they somehow keep their majority: labor and voting rights. Both are under assault from right-wing judges and politicians, both need the protection of the federal government, and both are fundamental to the maintenance of a free and fair society. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would strengthen the right of workers to form unions and bargain with their employers, is still on the table, as are proposals to revitalize the Voting Rights Act and end partisan gerrymandering.Of course, to pass any of these laws, Democrats will have to kill the legislative filibuster. Otherwise, this agenda or any other is dead in the water. If Democrats win a Senate majority of 51 or 52 members, they might be able to do it. And they should.It is not often that a political party gets a second bite at the apple. If Democrats win one, there is no reason to let the filibuster — a relic of the worst of our past — stand in the way of building a more decent country, and a more humane one at that.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

Nina Feldman More

Over the course of this summer, the nation has been transfixed by the House select committee’s hearings on the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and how or whether Donald Trump might face accountability for what happened that day. The Justice Department remained largely silent about its investigations of the former president until this month, when the F.B.I. searched his home in Palm Beach, Fla., in a case related to his handling of classified documents. The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy, and these questions demand answers.Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation. The disturbing details of his postelection misfeasance, meticulously assembled by the Jan. 6 committee, leaves little doubt that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the Constitution and overturn the will of the American people. The president, defeated at the polls in 2020, tried to enlist federal law enforcement authorities, state officials and administrators of the nation’s electoral system in a furious effort to remain in power. When all else failed, he roused an armed mob that stormed the Capitol and threatened lawmakers.The Justice Department is reportedly examining Mr. Trump’s conduct, including his role in trying to overturn the election and in taking home classified documents. If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must indict him, too.This board is aware that in deciding how Mr. Trump should be held accountable under the law it is necessary to consider not just whether criminal prosecution would be warranted but whether it would be wise. No American president has ever been criminally prosecuted after leaving office. When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he ensured that Nixon would not be prosecuted for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal; Ford explained this decision with the warning that such a prosecution posed grave risks of rousing “ugly passions” and worsening political polarization.That warning is just as salient today. Pursuing prosecution of Mr. Trump could further entrench support for him and play into the conspiracy theories he has sought to stoke. It could inflame the bitter partisan divide, even to the point of civil unrest. A trial, if it is viewed as illegitimate, could also further undermine confidence in the rule of law, whatever the eventual outcome.The risks of political escalation are obvious. The Democratic and Republican parties are already in the thick of a cycle of retribution that could last generations. There is a substantial risk that, if the Justice Department does prosecute Mr. Trump, future presidents — whether Mr. Trump himself or someone of his ilk — could misuse the precedent to punish political rivals. If their party takes a majority in the House of Representatives after the midterm elections, some Republicans have already threatened to impeach President Biden.There is an even more immediate threat of further violence, and it is a possibility that Americans should, sadly, be prepared for. In the hours after federal agents began a court-approved search of Mr. Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, based on a warrant investigating possible violations of three federal laws, including one that governs the handling of defense information under the Espionage Act, his most fervent supporters escalated their rhetoric to the language of warfare. As The Times noted, “The aggressive, widespread response was arguably the clearest outburst of violent public rhetoric since the days leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”Mr. Garland has been deliberate, methodical and scrupulous in his leadership of the Justice Department’s investigations of the Jan. 6 attack and the transfer of documents to Mr. Trump’s home. But no matter how careful he is or how measured the prosecution might be, there is a real and significant risk from those who believe that any criticism of Mr. Trump justifies an extreme response.Yet it is a far greater risk to do nothing when action is called for. Aside from letting Mr. Trump escape punishment, doing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?More important, democratic government is an ideal that must constantly be made real. America is not sustained by a set of principles; it is sustained by resolute action to defend those principles.Immediately after the Jan. 6 insurrection, cabinet members reportedly debated privately whether to remove Mr. Trump from power under the authority of the 25th Amendment. A week after the attack, the House impeached Mr. Trump for the second time. This editorial board supported his impeachment and removal from office; we also suggested that the former president and lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 plot could be permanently barred from holding office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that applies to any official who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have done so. But most Republicans in the Senate refused to convict Mr. Trump, and Congress has yet to invoke that section of the 14th Amendment against him. As a result, the threat that Mr. Trump and his most ardent supporters pose to American democracy has metastasized.Even now, the former president continues to spread lies about the 2020 election and denounce his vice president, Mike Pence, for not breaking the law on his behalf. Meanwhile, dozens of people who believe Mr. Trump’s lies are running for state and national elected office. Many have already won, some of them elevated to positions that give them control over how elections are conducted. In June the Republican Party in Texas approved measures in its platform declaring that Mr. Biden’s election was illegitimate. And Mr. Trump appears prepared to start a bid for a second term as president.Mr. Trump’s actions as a public official, like no others since the Civil War, attacked the heart of our system of government. He used the power of his office to subvert the rule of law. If we hesitate to call those actions and their perpetrator criminal, then we are saying he is above the law and giving license to future presidents to do whatever they want.In addition to a federal investigation by the Justice Department, Mr. Trump is facing a swirl of civil and criminal liability in several other cases: a lawsuit by the attorney general for the District of Columbia over payments during his inauguration ceremonies; a criminal investigation in Westchester County, N.Y., over taxes on one of his golf courses; a criminal case in Fulton County, Ga., over interference in the 2020 election; a criminal case by the Manhattan district attorney over the valuation of Mr. Trump’s properties; and a civil inquiry by New York’s attorney general into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization.The specific crimes the Justice Department could consider would likely involve Mr. Trump’s fraudulent efforts to get election officials in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere to declare him the winner even though he lost their states; to get Mr. Pence, at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the election, to throw out slates of electors from states he lost and replace them with electors loyal to Mr. Trump; and to enlist officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense to persuade officials in certain states to swing the election to him and ultimately stir up a mob that attacked the Capitol. The government could also charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy, a serious charge that federal prosecutors have already brought against leaders of far-right militia groups who participated in the Capitol invasion.The committee hearings make it clear: Mr. Trump must have known he was at the center of a frantic, sprawling and knowingly fraudulent effort that led directly to the Capitol siege. For hours, Mr. Trump refused to call off the mob.The testimony from hundreds of witnesses, many of them high-ranking Republican officials from his own administration, reveal Mr. Trump’s unrelenting efforts, beginning months before Election Day and continuing through Jan. 6, to sow doubt about the election, to refuse to accept the result of that election and then to pursue what he must have known were illegal and unconstitutional means to overturn it. Many participants sought pre-emptive pardons for their conduct — an indication they knew they were violating the law.Other evidence points to other crimes, like obstruction of Congress, defined as a corrupt obstruction of the “proper administration of the law.” The fake-elector scheme that Mr. Trump and his associates pushed before Jan. 6 appears to meet this definition. That may explain why at least three of Mr. Trump’s campaign lawyers were unwilling to participate in the plot. People involved in it were told it was not “legally sound” by White House lawyers, but they moved forward with it anyway.Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Mr. Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, provided powerful evidence that could be used to charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy. In her public testimony at a Jan. 6 committee hearing, she said that Mr. Trump was informed that many in the throng of supporters waiting to hear him speak on the Ellipse that day were armed but that he demanded they be allowed to skip the metal detectors that had been installed for his security. “They’re not here to hurt me,” he said, according to Ms. Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.”If Mr. Garland decides to pursue prosecution, a message that the Justice Department must send early and often is that even if Mr. Trump genuinely believed, as he claimed, that the election had been marred by fraud, his schemes to interfere in the certification of the vote would still be crimes. And even though Mr. Trump’s efforts failed, these efforts would still be crimes. More than 850 other Americans have already been charged with crimes for their roles in the Capitol attack. Well-meaning intentions did not shield them from the consequences of their actions. It would be unjust if Mr. Trump, the man who inspired them, faced no consequences.No one should revel in the prospect of this or any former president facing criminal prosecution. Mr. Trump’s actions have brought shame on one of the world’s oldest democracies and destabilized its future. Even justice before the law will not erase that stain. Nor will prosecuting Mr. Trump fix the structural problems that led to the greatest crisis in American democracy since the Civil War. But it is a necessary first step toward doing so.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.

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
text-transform: uppercase;
font-size: 18px;
font-weight: 600;
letter-spacing: 0.5px;
line-height: 26px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
}
article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after{
content: “The Editorial Board”;
display: block;
color: white;
}

@media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
content: ” “;
width: 72px;
unicode-bidi: normal;
display: block;
margin: 15px 0px 20px;
height: 1px;
background-color: #fff;
}

}

@media screen and (max-width: 1024px){

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:visited {
color: #D0021B;
letter-spacing: 0.07em;
font-size: 15px;
}
article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
font-size:15px;
color: #D0021B;
}
article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after {
color: #000000;
font-size:15px;
margin-top: -5px;
}

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
content: ” “;
width: 72px;
unicode-bidi: normal;
display: block;
margin: -5px 0px 22px;
height: 1px;
background-color: #e2e2e2;
}

} More

Vladimir Putin will expand Russia’s military.A Russian Army recruiting billboard that reads: “Serving Russia is a real job!”Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressPutin to expand Russia’s militaryVladimir Putin ordered a sharp increase in the size of Russia’s armed forces yesterday, signaling a lengthy commitment to the war in Ukraine.The Russian president raised the target number of active-duty service members by about 137,000, to 1.15 million, as of January of next year. He also ordered the government to set aside money to pay for the growth.Some analysts described the move as a clear signal that, after a full six months of fighting, Putin had no plans to relent. Putin may also be trying to rebuild his forces. Experts have attributed the slowing pace of Russia’s offensive to a lack of manpower. And Western estimates of Russia’s casualties, including both deaths and injuries, have run as high as 80,000.Analysis: Putin’s decree represents a stunning reversal of years of efforts by the Kremlin to slim down a bloated military. But a national draft would destroy the veneer of normalcy that Russia has sought to maintain, despite economic sanctions and the continued fighting.Liz Truss is trying to appeal to the 160,000 or so dues-paying members of the Conservative Party who will choose the next British prime minister.Phil Noble/ReutersLiz Truss channels Margaret ThatcherLiz Truss, Britain’s foreign secretary, is the odds-on favorite to become the country’s next prime minister.With less than two weeks left in a race against Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer, Truss has projected an aura of inevitability, stuck to the Conservative Party orthodoxy and wrapped herself in the mantle of Margaret Thatcher, a conservative icon.But Truss, 47, has offered very few clues about how she would confront an economic crisis that many experts view as the gravest in a generation. Instead, she has vowed to cut taxes, shrink the size of the government and discard the remaining E.U. regulations.The State of the WarWhat Is Next?: After six months of fighting, the war seems to have settled into an impasse on the battlefield. Here is how the next stage of the war might shape up.Russia’s Military Expansion: President Vladimir V. Putin ordered a sharp increase in the size of Russia’s armed forces, a sign Russia expects a prolonged war in Ukraine.Defiant Under Attack: Amid the blare of air raid sirens and deadly missile strikes, Ukrainians celebrated their Independence Day on Aug. 24 with a show of defiance against Russia’s invasion.Nuclear Plant Standoff: Russian and Ukrainian militaries are continuing to accuse each other of launching missiles and preparing to stage attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The United Nations issued warnings about the risk of a nuclear disaster and called for a demilitarized zone around the plant.History: If she triumphs, Truss will become Britain’s third female leader, after Theresa May and Thatcher, an anti-Communist warrior and free-market evangelist who took power during a time of comparable economic hardship in 1979.The New York TimesHow China could blockade TaiwanChina probably still lacks the ability to quickly invade and seize Taiwan, but it is honing its ability to blockade the self-governed island.In an effort to force concessions, or as a precursor to wider military action, Beijing could ring the island in ships and submarines to prevent vessels from entering or leaving Taiwan’s ports. A blockade would seek to repel U.S. forces, and China would most likely also use warplanes and missiles to dominate the skies.Taiwan could be vulnerable: Most of its 23 million people are concentrated on its western flank — closest to China — along with its industry and ports. Even a limited blockade would threaten one of the world’s busiest trade routes.Technology: China sees information as a key battleground. It may try to disable undersea cables that carry about 90 percent of the data connecting Taiwan to the world.THE LATEST NEWSEuropeMyanmar Centre for Responsible BusinessMyanmar’s military regime arrested Vicky Bowman, a former British ambassador, and her husband. It charged them with violating immigration law.As France reels from a summer of extreme heat, private jets are under attack.Around the WorldA redacted version of the affidavit used to search Donald Trump’s residence is scheduled to be unsealed today.The U.N.’s top human rights official signaled that she may not release a long-awaited report on alleged abuses in Xinjiang before leaving office next week, despite promises to do so.A Pakistani court ordered the police not to arrest Imran Khan, the former prime minister, before a hearing next week.From 1976 to 1987, South Korean dictators forced roughly 38,000 people off the streets and into a welfare center, where some were beaten and raped. The government illegally detained them, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission confirmed this week.What Else Is HappeningJohn Minchillo/Associated PressNovak Djokovic, who is unvaccinated against Covid, said he would miss the U.S. Open.Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers are suing her and her brother for almost $900,000 in legal fees.A small study found that two doses of psilocybin “magic mushrooms,” paired with psychotherapy, sharply reduced excessive drinking.A Morning ReadVirginia Mayo/Associated PressMack Rutherford, 17, became the youngest pilot to complete a solo flight around the world in a small plane when he landed in Sofia, Bulgaria, on Wednesday.The Belgian-British pilot flew nearly 30,000 miles (more than 48,000 kilometers) and made stops in 30 countries. “Very happy to be here after five long months,” he said while disembarking.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICThis week, we are introducing a new component to this newsletter — a sports section, written by the staff of The Athletic.Breaking down the Champions League draw: The biggest club competition in European soccer is back with a bang, and the group stage draw has thrown up some instant classics. Chelsea must face the Italian champion, AC Milan; Tottenham will do battle with the likes of Marseille and Sporting Lisbon; and Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Inter Milan have been drawn together in the traditional “Group of Death.”The sad downfall of Dele Alli: The young England midfielder was once one of the brightest stars in the game. Now, at just 26 years old, and only a few years after what might have been his peak, he’s leaving the Premier League under a cloud, his future uncertain.Is the way we analyze scoring in soccer all wrong? The way we analyze attacking data has been the same for years, which could be leading to unfair comparisons between players. This is how it could be fixed.ARTS AND IDEASFear and L.G.B.T.Q. rights in GhanaWhen the members of the gay rights organization called the Drama Queens want to meet, they first have to identify a secure location and consider hiring security personnel. But they’re not alone. Members of dozens of advocacy groups in Ghana live in fear.Ghana, in West Africa, is generally considered one of Africa’s most progressive countries. But for the past year, it has been considering a harsh anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bill.When the measure was first presented, it was dismissed by many as an effort by opposition politicians to raise their profile. But the legislation, formally known as the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, is still alive, and activists say it has fueled a sharp increase in homophobia. There have been reports of police raids and harassment. In June, vandals destroyed L.G.B.T.Q. pride posters in Accra, the capital.The bill says that any activities promoting gay rights offend traditional values and threaten the concept of family. The country still has a colonial-era law on the books that punishes same-sex relationships, but this proposed legislation would go much further. It would criminalize virtually every aspect of queer culture, from the way people dress to their social gatherings. Allies of L.G.B.T.Q. people could also face criminal charges.The Drama Queens, formed five years ago, hold workshops on consent and sexual and reproductive rights and have expanded to provide a safe, creative space for women and queer Ghanaians. The organizers put together art exhibitions, film festivals and get-togethers where young people can share their experiences. If Parliament passes the measure, everything they do could become a crime.Dennis K.F. Agyemang, a co-director of the Drama Queens, denounced the bill, calling it “an imminent threat to organizations and queer safety.” — Lynsey Chutel, Briefings writer based in Johannesburg.PLAY, WATCH, EAT, PARENTWhat to CookChris Simpson for The New York Times. Food stylist: Maggie Ruggiero. Prop stylist: Sophia Pappas.The fruit sandwich is a Japanese treat. Here’s how to make your own.ParentingHow to get back in sync with your teen.Pet LifeDogs who don’t get enough exercise may be at higher risk of canine cognitive dysfunction, a.k.a. “doggy dementia.”Now Time to PlayHere’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: “Night watch” (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Thanks for joining me. — AmeliaP.S. The latest “The New York Times Presents,” available on Hulu, is about an influential doctor who spreads Covid misinformation.The latest episode of “The Daily” is on the death of Daria Dugina.Lynsey Chutel wrote today’s Arts and Ideas. You can reach Amelia and the team at [email protected]. More

But embracing the role of the Democratic Party’s top campaigner will mean confronting Republican attacks when nearly three-quarters of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction.WASHINGTON — President Biden is preparing for one of the biggest tests of his presidency: Can he save his party?Fresh off a series of legislative victories, the president kicked off the transition to campaign mode with a speech at a Democratic National Committee rally in Maryland on Thursday as he tries to preserve the party’s control of Congress in the midterm elections.In a spirited speech before an enthusiastic campaign crowd, Mr. Biden delivered his strongest condemnation to date of what he called “ultra-MAGA Republicans” and hailed the success his administration has had in meeting key priorities on climate change, guns, jobs and the coronavirus.“Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate and division,” Mr. Biden said to about 2,400 people at a suburban Maryland high school gym. “But we’ve chosen a different path: forward, the future, unity, hope and optimism.”The president’s new stump speech was the start of what his aides say will be a more aggressive Joe Biden, willing to brag about his accomplishments and assail his opponents.“If the MAGA Republicans win control of the Congress, it won’t matter where you live. Women won’t have the right to choose anywhere, anywhere,” Mr. Biden said, prompting loud boos from the audience. “Let me tell you something. If they take it back and they try and pass it, I will veto it.”In his speech, Mr. Biden delivered his strongest condemnation to date of what he called “ultra-MAGA Republicans.”Al Drago for The New York TimesBut Mr. Biden’s approval rating remains stubbornly low — lower, in some cases, than those of the candidates he hopes to help — and inflation remains stubbornly high. At 79, Mr. Biden is the oldest president in American history, which has become an increasingly uncomfortable issue for Democrats.Embracing the role as his party’s top campaigner will mean directly confronting Republican attacks when nearly three-quarters of voters say the United States is heading in the wrong direction. It will also mean enduring cold shoulders from some Democratic candidates, a few of whom have made clear that they would prefer if Mr. Biden stayed away.Representative Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who is running for the Senate, cited scheduling conflicts when Mr. Biden was in his state in July, declining to appear beside the president even as Mr. Ryan — a moderate — is locked in one of the country’s most intense campaign battles in a traditional swing state that has been moving toward Republicans.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsThe Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s increasingly hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a special election in New York’s Hudson Valley is the latest example.New Women Voters: The number of women signing up to vote surged in some states after Roe was overturned, particularly in states where abortion rights are at risk.Sensing a Shift: Abortion rights, falling gas prices, legislative victories and Donald J. Trump’s re-emergence have Democrats dreaming again that they just might keep control of Congress. But the House map still favors Republicans.Bruising Fights in N.Y.: A string of ugly primaries played out across the state, as Democrats and Republicans fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.Mr. Ryan’s spokeswoman, Izzi Levy, said the president was not someone the congressman wanted to campaign with.“We haven’t been interested in him or any other out-of-state surrogates,” she said, noting that Mr. Ryan’s approval rating in Ohio was higher than Mr. Biden’s. “I don’t see that changing anytime soon.”Representative Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who is running for the Senate, declined to appear with Mr. Biden in his state, citing scheduling conflicts.Dustin Franz for The New York TimesIn the West Wing, the president’s advisers are betting that he can help Democratic candidates despite the drag on his popularity. They note that gas prices have dropped for more than two months; the coronavirus has receded, as Mr. Biden promised it would; and he has pushed through big Democratic wins on climate change, drug pricing and taxes on corporations. On Wednesday, he announced billions of dollars in student debt relief, a move that aides hope will energize young voters.White House strategists also believe no one is better positioned to contrast the Democratic Party’s ideas with those of “ultra-MAGA Republicans,” a phrase the president uses to draw attention to the control that former President Donald J. Trump still wields and the number of Republicans who adhere to his election-denying conspiracies.“What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy,” Mr. Biden said at a D.N.C. reception before the evening rally on Thursday. “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something, it’s like semifascism.”The F.B.I.’s search of Mr. Trump’s home in Florida this month to retrieve classified documents has focused attention on him at an opportune time for Mr. Biden, raising new questions about the former president’s norm-busting — and possibly illegal — behavior. But it has also made it tougher for the White House’s messages to break through the barrage of Trump-related news coverage. More

ATLANTA — Gov. Brian Kemp was one of the Georgia Republican officials who declined to help Donald J. Trump overturn his 2020 election loss in the state — a decision that had him hailed as a hero in some quarters.And yet, on Thursday, Mr. Kemp’s lawyers showed up in an Atlanta courtroom to argue that the governor should not have to help with the ongoing criminal investigation into election meddling by testifying before a special grand jury. Mr. Kemp’s legal team has accused Fani T. Willis, a Democrat and the local prosecutor leading the inquiry, of politicizing the investigation, and wants any testimony to take place after the polls close on his re-election bid in November.In a sign of how widely her case is expanding, Ms. Willis also moved on Thursday to compel testimony from a number of additional Trump advisers, including Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff in the White House, and Sidney Powell, a lawyer who advanced the most aggressive conspiracy theories falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen. And Ms. Willis indicated in court filings that her investigation now encompasses “an alleged breach of elections data” in rural Coffee County, Ga., which was part of a larger effort by Trump allies to infiltrate elections systems in swing states.In court, the lawyers for Mr. Kemp made a number of arguments as to why he should not have to comply with the subpoena at all, but they were received skeptically by Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, who did not immediately make a ruling.“The governor doesn’t think he’s beyond any reach of law, but he’s just beyond the reach of this particular subpoena,” said S. Derek Bauer, one of Mr. Kemp’s lawyers.Mr. Kemp, who is locked in a tight race for re-election with Stacey Abrams, a Democrat, has tried to maintain a difficult balancing act since falling out of Mr. Trump’s good graces. The former president soured on Mr. Kemp in 2020 after the governor declined Mr. Trump’s request to call a special session of the Georgia Legislature so that a group of pro-Trump electors could be named in place of the legitimate ones earned by Joseph R. Biden Jr., who defeated Mr. Trump by just under 12,000 votes in the state.Jenna Ellis, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, was scheduled to testify before the grand jury in Atlanta on Thursday.Tom Williams/Getty ImagesAt one point, Mr. Trump called Mr. Kemp “the worst ‘election integrity’ governor in the country.”Since then, even as his name elicited torrents of boos from the Trump faithful at rallies and Republican events, Mr. Kemp has found a way to stay alive politically. In May, he crushed Mr. Trump’s handpicked Republican primary candidate, David Perdue, the former U.S. senator, by focusing on his record of conservative policy accomplishments and economic success, and largely avoiding the topic of Mr. Trump.But the general election fight presents its own complex series of calculations. Though polling in recent months has shown Mr. Kemp leading Ms. Abrams, she is a formidable fund-raiser hoping to ride a wave of changing demographics and fresh concerns about Republican overreach on issues like abortion.Charles S. Bullock III, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, said Mr. Kemp might be wary of turning off some centrist voters, but the deeper risk could be turning off Mr. Trump’s considerable base in Georgia.Understand Georgia’s Trump Election InvestigationCard 1 of 5Understand Georgia’s Trump Election InvestigationAn immediate legal threat to Trump. More