Elections

President Biden is facing an alarming level of doubt from inside his own party, with 64 percent of Democratic voters saying they would prefer a new standard-bearer in the 2024 presidential campaign, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll, as voters nationwide have soured on his leadership, giving him a meager 33 percent job-approval rating.Widespread concerns about the economy and inflation have helped turn the national mood decidedly dark, both on Mr. Biden and the trajectory of the nation. More than three-quarters of registered voters see the United States moving in the wrong direction, a pervasive sense of pessimism that spans every corner of the country, every age range and racial group, cities, suburbs and rural areas, as well as both political parties.Only 13 percent of American voters said the nation was on the right track — the lowest point in Times polling since the depths of the financial crisis more than a decade ago.Voters on the Direction of the CountryDo you think the United States is on the right track, or is it headed in the wrong direction?

Note: Polls prior to 2020 are Times/CBS surveys of U.S. adults, with the wording “Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?”

Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll of 849 registered voters in the United States from July 5-7, 2022.By Marco HernandezFor Mr. Biden, that bleak national outlook has pushed his job approval rating to a perilously low point. Republican opposition is predictably overwhelming, but more than two-thirds of independents also now disapprove of the president’s performance, and nearly half disapprove strongly. Among fellow Democrats his approval rating stands at 70 percent, a relatively low figure for a president, especially heading into the 2022 midterms when Mr. Biden needs to rally Democrats to the polls to maintain control of Congress.In a sign of deep vulnerability and of unease among what is supposed to be his political base, only 26 percent of Democratic voters said the party should renominate him in 2024.Mr. Biden has said repeatedly that he intends to run for re-election in 2024. At 79, he is already the oldest president in American history, and concerns about his age ranked at the top of the list for Democratic voters who want the party to find an alternative.The backlash against Mr. Biden and desire to move in a new direction were particularly acute among younger voters. In the survey, 94 percent of Democrats under the age of 30 said they would prefer a different presidential nominee.Nicole Farrier, a 38-year-old preschool teacher in Michigan, is frustrated by the rising cost of living.Elaine Cromie for The New York Times“I’m just going to come out and say it: I want younger blood,” said Nicole Farrier, a 38-year-old preschool teacher in East Tawas, a small town in northern Michigan. “I am so tired of all old people running our country. I don’t want someone knocking on death’s door.”The Biden PresidencyWith midterm elections looming, here’s where President Biden stands.Struggling to Inspire: At a time of political tumult and economic distress, President Biden has appeared less engaged than Democrats had hoped.Low Approval Rating: For Mr. Biden, a pervasive sense of pessimism among voters has pushed his approval rating to a perilously low point.Questions About 2024: Mr. Biden has said he plans to run for a second term, but at 79, his age has become an uncomfortable issue.Rallying Allies: Faced with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Mr. Biden has set out to bolster the West and outline a more muscular NATO.Staff Changes: An increasing number of West Wing departures has added to the sense of frustration inside the Biden White House.Ms. Farrier, a Democrat who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, said she had hoped he might have been able to do more to heal the nation’s divisions, but now, as a single mother, she is preoccupied with what she described as crippling increases in her cost of living. “I went from living a comfortable lifestyle to I can’t afford anything anymore,” she said.Democrats’ Reasons for a Different CandidateWhat’s the most important reason you would prefer someone other than Joe Biden to be the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential nominee?

Asked of 191 respondents who said they planned to vote in the 2024 Democratic primary and who preferred a candidate other than Joe Biden in a New York Times/Siena College poll from July 5-7, 2022.By The New York TimesJobs and the economy were the most important problem facing the country according to 20 percent of voters, with inflation and the cost of living (15 percent) close behind as prices are rising at the fastest rate in a generation. One in 10 voters named the state of American democracy and political division as the most pressing issue, about the same share who named gun policies, after several high-profile mass shootings.More than 75 percent of voters in the poll said the economy was “extremely important” to them. And yet only 1 percent rated economic conditions as excellent. Among those who are typically working age — voters 18 to 64 years old — only 6 percent said the economy was good or excellent, while 93 percent rated it poor or only fair.The White House has tried to trumpet strong job growth, including on Friday when Mr. Biden declared that he had overseen “the fastest and strongest jobs recovery in American history.” But the Times/Siena poll showed a vast disconnect between those boasts, and the strength of some economic indicators, and the financial reality that most Americans feel they are confronting.“We used to spend $200 a week just going out to have fun, or going and buying extra groceries if we needed it, and now we can’t even do that,” said Kelly King, a former factory worker in Greensburg, Ind., who is currently sidelined because of a back injury. “We’re barely able to buy what we need.”Ms. King, 38, said she didn’t know if Mr. Biden was necessarily to blame for the spiking prices of gas and groceries but felt he should be doing more to help. “I feel like he hasn’t really spoken much about it,” Ms. King said. “He hasn’t done what I think he’s capable of doing as president to help the American people. As a Democrat, I figured he would really be on our side and put us back on the right track. And I just feel like he’s not.”Now, she said, she is hoping Republicans take over Congress in November to course-correct.One glimmer of good news for Mr. Biden is that the survey showed him with a narrow edge in a hypothetical rematch in 2024 with former President Donald J. Trump: 44 percent to 41 percent.The result is a reminder of one of Mr. Biden’s favorite aphorisms: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” The poll showed that Democratic misgivings about Mr. Biden seemed to mostly melt away when presented with a choice between him and Mr. Trump: 92 percent of Democrats said they would stick with Mr. Biden.Randain Wright, a truck driver, says he talks frequently with friends about Mr. Biden’s shortcomings.Bryan Anselm for The New York TimesRandain Wright, a 41-year-old truck driver in Ocean Township, N.J., is typical of these voters. He said he talked frequently with friends about Mr. Biden’s shortcomings. “He’s just not aggressive enough in getting his agenda done,” Mr. Wright lamented. In contrast, he said, “Trump wasn’t afraid to get his people in line.”But while he would prefer a different nominee in 2024, Mr. Wright said he still wouldn’t consider voting Republican in 2024 if faced with a Biden-Trump rematch.On the whole, voters appeared to like Mr. Biden more than they like his performance as president, with 39 percent saying they have a favorable impression of him — six percentage points higher than his job approval.In saying they wanted a different nominee in 2024, Democrats cited a variety of reasons, with the most in an open-ended question citing his age (33 percent), followed closely by unhappiness with how he is doing the job. About one in eight Democrats just said that they wanted someone new, and one in 10 said he was not progressive enough. Smaller fractions expressed doubts about his ability to win and his mental acuity.The Times/Siena survey of 849 registered voters nationwide was conducted from July 5 to 7, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, which had been protected for half a century. The ruling sent Democrats into the streets and unleashed an outpouring of political contributions.Typically, voters aligned with the party in power — Democrats now hold the House, the Senate and the White House — are more upbeat about the nation’s direction. But only 27 percent of Democrats saw the country as on the right track. And with the fall of Roe, there was a notable gender gap among Democrats: Only 20 percent of Democratic women said the country was moving in the right direction, compared with 39 percent of Democratic men.Overall, abortion rated as the most important issue for 5 percent of voters: 1 percent of men, 9 percent of women.Gun policies, following mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tex., and elsewhere, and the Supreme Court’s June 23 ruling striking down a New York law that placed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home, were ranked as the top issue by 10 percent of voters — far higher than has been typical of nationwide polls in recent years. The issue was of even greater importance to Black and Hispanic voters, ranking roughly the same as inflation and the cost of living, the survey found.The coronavirus pandemic, which so thoroughly disrupted life at the end of the Trump administration and over the first year of Mr. Biden’s presidency, has largely receded from voters’ minds, the survey found. In an open-ended question, fewer than one percent of voters named the virus as the nation’s most important problem.When Mr. Biden won in 2020, he made a point of trying to make inroads among working-class white voters who had abandoned the Democratic Party in droves in the Trump era. But whatever crossover appeal Mr. Biden once had appears diminished. His job approval rating among white voters without college degrees was a stark 20 percent.John Waldron, a registered Republican in Schenectady, N.Y., regrets voting for Mr. Biden.Richard Beaven for The New York TimesJohn Waldron, a 69-year-old registered Republican and retired machinist in Schenectady, N.Y., voted for Mr. Biden in 2020. Today, he said, he regrets it and plans to vote Republican in 2024. “I thought he was going to do something for this country, but now he’s doing nothing,” Mr. Waldron said.Like others, he expressed worries about Mr. Biden’s age and verbal flubs. On Friday, a clip of Mr. Biden at an event announcing an executive order on abortion went viral when he stumbled into saying “terminate the presidency” instead of “pregnancy,” for instance.“You ever see him on TV?” Mr. Waldron said, comparing the president to zombies. “That’s what he looks like.”Mr. Biden’s base, in 2020 and now, remains Black voters. They delivered the president a 62 percent job-approval rating — higher marks than any other race or ethnicity, age group or education level. But even among that constituency, there are serious signs of weakening. On the question of renominating Mr. Biden in 2024, slightly more Black Democratic voters said they wanted a different candidate than said they preferred Mr. Biden.“Anybody could be doing a better job than what they’re doing right now,” said Clifton Heard, a 44-year-old maintenance specialist in Foley, Ala.An independent, he said he voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 but is disillusioned over the state of the economy and the spiraling price of gas, and is now reconsidering Mr. Trump.“I understand that they’ve got a tough job,” he said of Mr. Biden’s administration. “He wasn’t prepared to do the job.”The Times/Siena nationwide survey was conducted by telephone using live operators. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. Cross-tabs and methodology are available here.Alyce McFadden contributed reporting. More

January 6 hearing to focus on Trump’s tweet to extremist groupFormer president’s notorious ‘Be there, will be wild!’ tweet was catalyst for violent protests, congress members will argue The House January 6 select committee is expected to make the case at its seventh hearing Tuesday that Donald Trump gave the signal to the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol to target and obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college win.The panel will zero in on a pivotal tweet sent by the former president in the early hours of the morning on 19 December 2020, according to sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the forthcoming hearing.“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump said in the tweet. “Be there, will be wild!”Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn electionRead moreThe select committee will say at the hearing – led by congressmen Jamie Raskin and Stephanie Murphy – that Trump’s tweet was the catalyst that triggered the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, as well as Stop the Steal activists, to target the certification.And Trump sent the tweet knowing that for those groups, it amounted to a confirmation that they should put into motion their plans for January 6, the select committee will say, and encouraged thousands of other supporters to also march on the Capitol for a protest.The tweet was the pivotal moment in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack, the select committee will say, since it was from that point that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers seriously started preparations, and Stop the Steal started applying for permits.The select committee also currently plans to play video clips from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent testimony to House investigators at Tuesday’s hearing.Raskin is expected to first touch on the immediate events before the tweet: a contentious White House meeting on 18 December 2020 where Trump weighed seizing voting machines and appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The meeting involved Trump and four informal advisers, the Guardian has reported, including Trump’s ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and ex-Trump aide Emily Newman.Once in the Oval Office, they implored Trump to invoke executive order 13848, which granted him emergency powers in the event of foreign interference in the election – though that had not happened – to seize voting machines and install Powell as special counsel.The former president ultimately demurred on both of the proposals. But after the Flynn-Powell-Byrne-Newman plan for him to overturn the election fell apart, the select committee will say, he turned his attention to January 6 as his final chance and sent his tweet.The response to Trump’s tweet was direct and immediate, the panel will show, noting that Stop the Steal announced plans for a protest in Washington set to coincide with Biden’s certification just hours after the former president sent his missive. Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackRead moreThe Proud Boys – whose top members has since been indicted for seditious conspiracy over the Capitol attack – also started to crystalize what their plans were for January 6 the following day, according to federal prosecutors prosecuting the case.On 20 December 2020, prosecutors have said, the former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio created an encrypted group chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning” committee that included his top lieutenants.The day after Tarrio started the MOSD Leaders Group – the Monday after Trump’s tweet that came on a Saturday – the leaders of Stop the Steal applied for a permit to stage a protest on “Lot 8” near the Capitol, and around that time, sent live the WildProtest.com website.Through the rest of December and spurred on by Trump’s tweet, the select committee will say citing the Proud Boys indictment, the Proud Boys leaders used the MOSD chats to plan a “DC trip” and tell their members to dress incognito for their operation on January 6.Top members of the Oath Keepers militia group led by Stewart Rhodes, who have also been indicted for seditious conspiracy, made similar plans as they prepared to obstruct the congressional certification of Biden’s election win, the panel intends to show.The select committee will then focus on how the Oath Keepers stockpiled weapons and created an armed quick reaction force ready to deploy to the Capitol, and how the group ended up as the security detail for far-right activist Roger Stone and other Trump allies.One of the witnesses providing public testimony at the hearing is expected to be Jason van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers who left the group around 2017 but is slated to discuss their motivations and how they operated.The 1st Amendment Praetorian, Flynn’s paramilitary group, is also expected to get a brief mention at the hearing, as will the various “war rooms” at the Willard hotel, where both Stone and Flynn, as well as Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, were spotted ahead of January 6.The select committee, through Raskin’s portion of the hearing, will run through the effects of Trump’s tweet on preparations for January 6 right up until the morning of the Capitol attack and Trump’s speech at the Save America rally on the Ellipse.Congresswoman Murphy is then expected examine the Ellipse rally itself, and Trump’s incendiary rhetoric where he told his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol, giving the pro-Trump crowd the ultimate incentive to storm Biden’s certification.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump campaign manager and White House adviser, made the abrupt about-face after the former president authorized him to talk to investigators.WASHINGTON — With his criminal trial for contempt of Congress approaching, Stephen K. Bannon, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump’s who was involved in his plans to overturn the 2020 election, has informed the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that he is now willing to testify, according to two letters obtained by The New York Times.His decision is a remarkable about-face for Mr. Bannon, who until Saturday had been among the most obstinate and defiant of the committee’s potential witnesses. He had promised to turn the criminal case against him into the “misdemeanor from hell” for the Justice Department.But with the possibility of two years in jail and large fines looming on the horizon, Mr. Bannon has been authorized to testify by Mr. Trump, his lawyer told the committee late on Saturday in a letter, which was reported earlier by The Guardian.The former president had previously instructed Mr. Bannon and other associates not to cooperate with the panel, claiming that executive privilege — a president’s power to withhold certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving him or his top aides — compelled them to stay silent. But in recent days, as several witnesses have come forward to offer the House panel damning testimony about his conduct, Mr. Trump has grown frustrated that one of his fiercest defenders has not yet appeared before the committee, people close to him said.“Mr. Bannon is willing to, and indeed prefers, to testify at your public hearing,” Robert J. Costello, Mr. Bannon’s lawyer, wrote to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 7Making a case against Trump. More

Sequestered with family and security, Ms. Hutchinson, 26, has in the process developed an unlikely bond with Representative Liz Cheney, the panel’s vice chairwoman.WASHINGTON — The day before Cassidy Hutchinson was deposed for a fourth time by the Jan. 6 committee, the former Trump White House aide received a phone message that would dramatically change the plans of the panel and write a new chapter in American politics.On that day in June, the caller told Ms. Hutchinson, as Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chairwoman, later disclosed: A person “let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal. And you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”At Ms. Hutchinson’s deposition the next day, committee members investigating the attack on the Capitol were so alarmed by what they considered a clear case of witness tampering — not to mention Ms. Hutchinson’s shocking account of President Donald J. Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6, 2021 — that they decided in a meeting on June 24, a Friday, to hold an emergency public hearing with Ms. Hutchinson as the surprise witness the following Tuesday.The speed, people close to the committee said, was for two crucial reasons: Ms. Hutchinson was under intense pressure from Trump World, and panel members believed that getting her story out in public would make her less vulnerable, attract powerful allies and be its own kind of protection. The committee also had to move fast, the people said, to avoid leaks of some of the most explosive testimony ever heard on Capitol Hill.In the two weeks since, Ms. Hutchinson’s account of an unhinged president who urged his armed supporters to march to the Capitol, lashed out at his Secret Service detail and hurled his lunch against a wall has turned her into a figure of both admiration and scorn — lauded by Trump critics as a 21st-century John Dean and attacked by Mr. Trump as a “total phony.”Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony also pushed the committee to redouble its efforts to interview Pat A. Cipollone, Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, who appeared in private before the panel on Friday. His videotaped testimony is expected to be shown at the committee’s next public hearing on Tuesday.Ms. Hutchinson and Representative Liz Cheney, the vice chairwoman of the Jan. 6 committee, have developed an unlikely bond.Doug Mills/The New York TimesNow unemployed and sequestered with family and a security detail, Ms. Hutchinson, 26, has developed an unlikely bond with Ms. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and onetime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during the George W. Bush administration — a crisis environment of another era when she learned to work among competing male egos. More recently, as someone ostracized by her party and stripped of her leadership post for her denunciations of Mr. Trump, Ms. Cheney admires the younger woman’s willingness to risk her alliances and professional standing by recounting what she saw in the final days of the Trump White House, friends say.“I have been incredibly moved by young women that I have met and that have come forward to testify in the Jan. 6 committee,” Ms. Cheney said in concluding a recent speech at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.When she mentioned Ms. Hutchinson’s name, the audience erupted in applause.Influence Beyond Her YearsThe path that led a young Trump loyalist to become a star witness against the former president was not exactly prefigured by Ms. Hutchinson’s biography.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 7Making a case against Trump. More

Plus Shinzo Abe’s allies win a supermajority in Japan’s parliament and Russia bombards Donetsk.Good morning. We’re covering the resignation of Sri Lanka’s president, election results in Japan and Russia’s bombardment of Donetsk, Ukraine.Sri Lanka’s economy has been foundering for months, leading to widespread protests.Dinuka Liyanawatte/ReutersSri Lanka’s president to resignAn official said President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had agreed to resign as the leader of Sri Lanka after protesters took over his house on Saturday. Rajapaksa hasn’t been seen since.Rajapaksa himself has not yet addressed the reports that he plans to resign later this week, and it’s unclear who is in charge. Ranil Wickremesinghe, who replaced Rajapaksa’s brother as prime minister in May, also agreed to resign on Saturday after his home was set on fire.It’s unclear what the next government will look like and what it can do immediately to address shortages of food, medicine, fuel and other essentials. Without fuel, Sri Lanka’s economy is grinding to a halt. The country needs billions of dollars to stabilize its economy.Details: Local media reported that Rajapaksa had ordered cooking fuel to be distributed, his first statement since the takeover. The statement could not be immediately verified.Background: The takeover was the culmination of months of public discontent with the Rajapaksa family, a political dynasty that has been accused of destroying the economy and violating human rights.Details: Protesters swam in Rajapaksa’s pool, lounged on canopied beds and watched cricket on wide-screen televisions when they stormed his residence this weekend. “It still feels unreal,” one man told The Times.Shinzo Abe’s death appeared to have increased voter turnout to over 52 percent, up from about 49 percent in 2019.Kimimasa Mayama/EPA, via ShutterstockAbe’s allies win a supermajorityThe Liberal Democrats and their partners gained enough seats yesterday to form a two-thirds supermajority in Japan’s Parliament, two days after the party’s former leader, Shinzo Abe, was assassinated.The mandate will give the lawmakers a new chance to pursue Abe’s long-held ambition of revising a clause that renounces war in the country’s pacifist Constitution.Better Understand the Russia-Ukraine WarHistory: Here’s what to know about Russia and Ukraine’s relationship and the causes of the conflict.On the Ground: Russian and Ukrainian forces are using a bevy of weapons as a deadly war of attrition grinds on in eastern Ukraine.Outside Pressures: Governments, sports organizations and businesses are taking steps to punish Russia. Here is a list of companies that have pulled out of the country.Updates: To receive the latest updates in your inbox, sign up here. The Times has also launched a Telegram channel to make its journalism more accessible around the world.The election results were also a clear sign that Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, remained a guiding political force, even though he resigned in 2020. But without him, the will to push revisions through a difficult parliamentary process could wane.Context: The plan to amend the Constitution has long been unpopular with the public. With inflation pressures mounting, the yen weakening, the war in Ukraine heightening fears of energy shortages and coronavirus infections rising, it could be a harder sell than ever.Assassination: Here is what we know so far. The police have released little information about the suspect and his motives, but acknowledged that Abe’s security was flawed.Russia’s attacks often seem random. Taken as a whole, they make clear that Moscow aims to capture more of Donetsk.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesRussia bombards DonetskRussia has aggressively moved to take the entire Donbas region of Ukraine after seizing the Luhansk province last week. Over the weekend, it bombarded the five main towns and cities in neighboring Donetsk, the other province in the region.At least 15 people were killed in Donetsk when a Russian missile hit an apartment complex in the village of Chasiv Yar. Rescue crews said that up to 20 people could still be trapped, including a 9-year-old boy. Here are live updates.In the northeast, Russian forces also conducted attacks on the Kharkiv region. Last week, Russia established a civilian administration and unveiled a new flag in border areas under its control — a sign, analysts said, that Moscow plans to annex the territory.Ukrainian officials estimate that Russia already occupies about 30 percent of the Kharkiv region.Soldiers: Russia, desperate for recruits, has turned to cash incentives to bring in new fighters — often from impoverished minority groups.Gas prices: President Biden is seeking a global price cap on Russian oil, a full European ban on which could raise U.S. gas prices to $7 a gallon.Analysis: The war is becoming a contest of global stamina between Russia and the West.THE LATEST NEWSThe G20 meetingThe U.S. secretary of state, Antony Blinken, with Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister.Pool photo by Stefani ReynoldsAt a meeting in Indonesia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the top U.S. diplomat, pressed Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, to further isolate Russia. Wang responded sharply, noting a “growing ‘China phobia’” in the U.S.China warned Australia to stop treating it as an opponent and instead view Beijing as a partner, Reuters reports.Several Western nations shunned Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who still met with diplomats from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey and Argentina.Asia PacificFlash floods in Kashmir killed at least 16 people during a Hindu pilgrimage, Reuters reports.Intense flooding also killed dozens of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Reuters reports.An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease disrupted Eid al-Adha celebrations in Indonesia, The Associated Press reports.Maria Ressa, the Nobel Prize laureate, lost her appeal against a cyberlibel conviction and could face a lengthy prison sentence, The Guardian reports. The development comes after authorities in the Philippines ordered her news website, Rappler, to shut down.The toll of Australia’s recurring natural disasters is starting to show among the residents of New South Wales.World NewsElon Musk filed to back out of his deal to buy Twitter on Friday. Now, the issue is moving to the courts.Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Donald Trump who faces up to two years in jail and large fines, agreed to testify before the Jan. 6 panel, just days before his criminal trial for contempt of Congress is set to begin.At least 21 people were killed when gunmen opened fire on three taverns in South Africa this weekend. WimbledonNovak Djokovic beat the Australian upstart Nick Kyrgios in four sets, winning his 21st Grand Slam singles title.Elena Rybakina, a 23-year-old Russia native who competed for Kazakhstan, won her first Grand Slam title.A Morning ReadA tombstone in South Korea commemorating the final days of Internet Explorer. “He was a good tool to download other browsers,” it reads.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesSouth Korea is known for its blazing broadband and innovative devices. But the country remains tethered to a buggy and insecure piece of software that was introduced 27 years ago and has since been abandoned by most of the world: Internet Explorer.ARTS AND IDEASLuca Tong behind the wheel of his “hot dog” bus in Hong Kong last month.Louise Delmotte for The New York TimesA ‘hot dog bus’ returnsDouble-decker “hot dog buses,” nicknamed for their lack of air-conditioning, were once a daily feature of life in Hong Kong. But they’ve been out of commission for more than a decade.Now, at least one has returned to the city’s streets, thanks to two pilots who pooled their savings to buy and restore the relic. When the pandemic cut their flight hours, they spent months scouring the internet for antique parts, watching old video clips to determine the correct font and placement of stickers and decals, and documenting the process on Instagram.For onlookers, the bus is a trip of nostalgia, a portal to the 1980s and ’90s. When the pilots, Luca Tong and Kobee Ko, park it at a terminal by the harbor front, enthusiasts come aboard to marvel at it. “All my memories came back,” said one woman who used to ride hot dog buses in high school and who brought her 4-year-old son for the experience.But the bus is also a memento of a happier time in the city, before pandemic restrictions and a sweeping political crackdown.“Back then, there was freedom, money and a whole lot of warmth,” Tong, 35, said. “The bus has the feeling of Hong Kong at that time, but that feeling is disappearing from Hong Kong.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChris Simpson for The New York Times. Food stylist: Maggie Ruggiero. Prop stylist: Sophia Pappas.Bryan Washington weaves his childhood and his travels into this recipe for kimchi Cheddar biscuits. Chill your butter for best results.TravelA flight attendant gives advice for avoiding summer chaos. And here are tips to avoid lost luggage.What to Read“Son of Elsewhere” is a funny, frank memoir about the writer’s experiences emigrating from Sudan to Canada as a child.Now Time to PlayPlay today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Word with milk, note or number (five letters).Here are today’s Wordle and Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The veteran financial reporter Joe Rennison is joining The Times to cover markets and trading.The latest episode of “The Daily” is on Boris Johnson’s resignation.You can reach Amelia and the team at [email protected]. More

One of our greatest errors as a country has been our nonstop campaign to convince generations of voters that elections are about freedom of choice.This may be true if you are of a class not historically oppressed by the state. Many white people, particularly white men, fall into this category. They have the ability — the power — to be swing voters, knowing that their basic civil rights are not on the line. And many of them have invented new dangers — like threats to the Second Amendment — while pretending to defend their rights against those threats.In November of 2019, Nate Cohn in The Times analyzed a number of surveys of swing-state voters and looked specifically at the “persuadable pool,” the 15 percent of voters in the battleground states who were undecided and still thinking of voting for Donald Trump or a Democrat.He found, “As a group they are 57 percent male and 72 percent white.”For most other people, “freedom of choice” in elections is an illusion. We are captives of the two-party system. We are political hostages.Voters subject to oppression have only two choices: the benevolent captors (Democrats) or the cruel captors (Republicans).Democrats will work for your freedom, but not to the extent that it endangers their power. They have to work against Republicans, who, now more than at any other time in recent memory, seem hellbent on establishing a new age of severe restrictions under the banner of states’ rights.The choice between the two is not a choice at all. Voting for Democrats is the only option, not because they have been fully responsive to your pleading, but because they are the only bulwark against disaster.This is not a lesser-of-two-evils view but a light-switch view: the choice is light — no matter how dim — or darkness.There was some waffling about Hillary Clinton in 2016, and that gave us Donald Trump, who gave us a radical, theocratic Supreme Court, which has given us dozens of deeply regressive decisions: overturning Roe v. Wade, restricting the ability to enforce Miranda rights, tying the country’s hands in its fight against climate change.Now, we live in a kind of captivity, and captivity, of any sort, is unconscionable to some. So, they fly against it. Over the past year, progressives have demanded action from Democrats, demanded that promises be kept, demanded that more of a fight be waged. But, in the end, this is futile. What’s worse, it often provides ammunition to cruel captors who are waiting for a chance to replace benevolent ones.There are periods on the electoral calendar in which Democratic voters can more forcefully challenge Democratic politicians to stay true to their ideals while doing the least amount of damage to their electoral chances: the primary season when Democrats are choosing among possible Democratic candidates, and in the early days of a presidential term.But once those windows close, the time for complaining ends. One must enter the defense phase.This is all incredibly unsatisfying, and yet it is the reality that voters must accept. We have to dispense with the mythology of elections and come around to the reality of them.That often means swallowing a bitter pill, coming to terms with the fact that our priorities are not always aligned with those of the politicians we chose to represent us.Politicians in a hyper-politicized, two-party system understand that winning and holding their seats is the first order of business. With a position in power or a vote in Congress, they can get things done, even if their accomplishments are limited in scope. But if they lose seats, nothing gets done. In fact, it is very likely that something deeply harmful could happen.In that equation, simply trying to make progress — even if the effort is weak — has to be sufficient. It is the “has to be” in that sentence that grates against those of us on the quest for full freedom, political and otherwise.This is maddening, I know. It drives me mad. When I see broken promises, when I see existential issues shunted to the back burner, when I see political tiptoeing when there should be stomping, I am enraged by it. It is supremely disappointing. I know that politics are once again winning over the will of the people.But I try to remind myself of what every voter must: This is the system in which we are trapped. We can try to reform that system or at minimum force our leaders to consider radically altering it. Both are noble endeavors, but they are also incredibly hard and, at the very least, not close at hand. In the meantime, we have to work within the current system.Maybe one day there will be a third party or even multiple parties, but that won’t be the case by the next presidential election.This brings me to President Biden: Whatever you think of him and his performance — whether you champion his accomplishment or focus on the areas where he has fallen short — if he chooses to run for re-election, as the White House insists he will, he will be the only option. In that scenario, he becomes a last line of defense. His shortcomings become secondary. Helping to ensure his re-election becomes an act of self preservation.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

Several states run by Democrats are pushing for stiffer rules on the spread of false information, while Republican-run states are pushing for fewer rules.To fight disinformation, California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would force social media companies to divulge their process for removing false, hateful or extremist material from their platforms. Texas lawmakers, by contrast, want to ban the largest of the companies — Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — from removing posts because of political points of view.In Washington, the state attorney general persuaded a court to fine a nonprofit and its lawyer $28,000 for filing a baseless legal challenge to the 2020 governor’s race. In Alabama, lawmakers want to allow people to seek financial damages from social media platforms that shut down their accounts for having posted false content.In the absence of significant action on disinformation at the federal level, officials in state after state are taking aim at the sources of disinformation and the platforms that propagate them — only they are doing so from starkly divergent ideological positions. In this deeply polarized era, even the fight for truth breaks along partisan lines.The result has been a cacophony of state bills and legal maneuvers that could reinforce information bubbles in a nation increasingly divided over a variety of issues — including abortion, guns, the environment — and along geographic lines.The midterm elections in November are driving much of the activity on the state level. In red states, the focus has been on protecting conservative voices on social media, including those spreading baseless claims of widespread electoral fraud.In blue states, lawmakers have tried to force the same companies to do more to stop the spread of conspiracy theories and other harmful information about a broad range of topics, including voting rights and Covid-19.“We should not stand by and just throw up our hands and say that this is an impossible beast that is just going to take over our democracy,” Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said in an interview.Calling disinformation a “nuclear weapon” threatening the country’s democratic foundations, he supports legislation that would make it a crime to spread lies about elections. He praised the $28,000 fine levied against the advocacy group that challenged the integrity of the state’s vote in 2020.“We ought to be creatively looking for potential ways to reduce its impact,” he said, referring to disinformation.The biggest hurdle to new regulations — regardless of the party pushing them — is the First Amendment. Lobbyists for the social media companies say that, while they seek to moderate content, the government should not be in the business of dictating how that’s done.Concerns over free speech defeated a bill in deeply blue Washington that would have made it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for candidates or elected officials “to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to stoke violence.”Governor Inslee, who faced baseless claims of election fraud after he won a third term in 2020, supported the legislation, citing the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That ruling allowed states to punish speech calling for violence or criminal acts when “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”The legislation stalled in the state’s Senate in February, but Mr. Inslee said the scale of the problem required urgent action.Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington State, faced baseless claims of election fraud after he won a third term in 2020.Jovelle Tamayo for The New York TimesThe scope of the problem of disinformation, and of the power of the tech companies, has begun to chip away at the notion that free speech is politically untouchable.The new law in Texas has already reached the Supreme Court, which blocked the law from taking effect in May, though it sent the case back to a federal appeals court for further consideration. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the legislation last year, prompted in part by the decisions by Facebook and Twitter to shut down the accounts of former President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, violence on Capitol Hill.The court’s ruling signaled that it could revisit one core issue: whether social media platforms, like newspapers, retain a high degree of editorial freedom.“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a dissent to the court’s emergency ruling suspending the law’s enforcement.A federal judge last month blocked a similar law in Florida that would have fined social media companies as much as $250,000 a day if they blocked political candidates from their platforms, which have become essential tools of modern campaigning. Other states with Republican-controlled legislatures have proposed similar measures, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Alaska.Alabama’s attorney general, Steve Marshall, has created an online portal through which residents can complain that their access to social media has been restricted: alabamaag.gov/Censored. In a written response to questions, he said that social media platforms stepped up efforts to restrict content during the pandemic and the presidential election of 2020.“During this period (and continuing to present day), social media platforms abandoned all pretense of promoting free speech — a principle on which they sold themselves to users — and openly and arrogantly proclaimed themselves the Ministry of Truth,” he wrote. “Suddenly, any viewpoint that deviated in the slightest from the prevailing orthodoxy was censored.”Much of the activity on the state level today has been animated by the fraudulent assertion that Mr. Trump, and not President Biden, won the 2020 presidential election. Although disproved repeatedly, the claim has been cited by Republicans to introduce dozens of bills that would clamp down on absentee or mail-in voting in the states they control.Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Sixteen states have expanded the abilities of people to vote, which has intensified pre-emptive accusations among conservative lawmakers and commentators that the Democrats are bent on cheating.“There is a direct line from conspiracy theories to lawsuits to legislation in states,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, the acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan election advocacy organization at the New York University School of Law. “Now, more than ever, your voting rights depend on where you live. What we’ve seen this year is half the country going in one direction and the other half going the other direction.”TechNet, the internet company lobbying group, has fought local proposals in dozens of states. The industry’s executives argue that variations in state legislation create a confusing patchwork of rules for companies and consumers. Instead, companies have highlighted their own enforcement of disinformation and other harmful content.“These decisions are made as consistently as possible,” said David Edmonson, the group’s vice president for state policy and government relations.For many politicians the issue has become a powerful cudgel against opponents, with each side accusing the other of spreading lies, and both groups criticizing the social media giants. Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has raised campaign funds off his vow to press ahead with his fight against what he has called the “authoritarian companies” that have sought to mute conservative voices. In Ohio, J.D. Vance, the memoirist and Republican nominee for Senate, railed against social media giants, saying they stifled news about the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden, the president’s son.In Missouri, Vicky Hartzler, a former congresswoman running for the Republican nomination for Senate, released a television ad criticizing Twitter for suspending her personal account after she posted remarks about transgender athletes. “They want to cancel you,” she said in the ad, defending her remarks as “what God intended.”OnMessage, a polling firm that counts the National Republican Senatorial Committee as a client, reported that 80 percent of primary voters surveyed in 2021 said they believed that technology companies were too powerful and needed to be held accountable. Six years earlier, only 20 percent said so. “Voters have a palpable fear of cancel culture and how tech is censoring political views.” said Chris Hartline, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Florida Republican, has raised campaign funds off his vow to press ahead with his fight against what he has called “authoritarian companies.”Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesIn blue states, Democrats have focused more directly on the harm disinformation inflicts on society, including through false claims about elections or Covid and through racist or antisemitic material that has motivated violent attacks like the massacre at a supermarket in Buffalo in May.Connecticut plans to spend nearly $2 million on marketing to share factual information about voting and to create a position for an expert to root out misinformation narratives about voting before they go viral. A similar effort to create a disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security provoked a political fury before its work was suspended in May pending an internal review.In California, the State Senate is moving forward with legislation that would require social media companies to disclose their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, extremism, harassment and foreign political interference. (The legislation would not compel them to restrict content.) Another bill would allow civil lawsuits against large social media platforms like TikTok and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram if their products were proven to have addicted children.“All of these different challenges that we’re facing have a common thread, and the common thread is the power of social media to amplify really problematic content,” said Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel of California, a Democrat, who sponsored the legislation to require greater transparency from social media platforms. “That has significant consequences both online and in physical spaces.”It seems unlikely that the flurry of legislative activity will have a significant impact before this fall’s elections; social media companies will have no single response acceptable to both sides when accusations of disinformation inevitably arise.“Any election cycle brings intense new content challenges for platforms, but the November midterms seem likely to be particularly explosive,” said Matt Perault, a director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina. “With abortion, guns, democratic participation at the forefront of voters’ minds, platforms will face intense challenges in moderating speech. It’s likely that neither side will be satisfied by the decisions platforms make.” More

Many of Shinzo Abe’s goals are central to the Liberal Democrats’ platform, and party members hoped the slain ex-leader’s memory would inspire sympathy votes on Sunday.TOKYO — When Shinzo Abe was gunned down at a campaign stop on Friday, he was no longer the leader of Japan, nor of its governing party. But as Japanese voters went to the polls on Sunday, Mr. Abe, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, was still a guiding political force, shaping their choices at the ballot box and his party’s vision for the future.“I have the responsibility to take over the ideas of former Prime Minister Abe,” the current prime minister, Fumio Kishida, told a crowd west of Tokyo on Saturday, the day after Mr. Abe’s killing, as he campaigned for their party’s candidates for the Upper House of Parliament.Many of Mr. Abe’s goals, like bolstering military spending and revising Japan’s pacifist Constitution, are still central to the Liberal Democratic Party’s platform. And party leaders hoped that drawing on his memory would give them more power to enact those ideas.Even before the assassination, the Liberal Democrats, along with Komeito, their longtime partner in the governing coalition, had been expected to win a majority of the seats up for grabs in the Upper House on Sunday. If Mr. Abe’s death results in the additional sympathy votes that some analysts expect, the coalition could gain a two-thirds supermajority in Parliament.Technically, at least, that would give it the power to achieve Mr. Abe’s most cherished goal: amending the clause in the Constitution imposed by postwar American occupiers that renounces war, and thus opening the door for Japan to become a military power capable of global leadership.Hours after former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was fatally shot in Nara, Japan, people left flowers at the site of the attack.Philip Fong/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMuch stands in the way of that goal — not least that it has long been unpopular with the Japanese public. And with inflation pressures mounting, the yen weakening and coronavirus infections again on the rise, changing the Constitution could be a harder sell than ever.“I’m interested in prices, wages, daily life, medical services and child care,” said Risako Sakaguchi, 29, who cast her votes for Liberal Democratic candidates at a polling station in Saitama, a suburb of Tokyo.Given such fundamental concerns, “constitutional revision is a kind of luxury good,” said Tobias Harris, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who oversees work on Asia.“It’s the kind of thing where if there’s nothing else going on, maybe you can focus on this,” Mr. Harris said. “But given that attention being spent on constitutional revision is attention not being paid to other stuff, there is going to be a penalty for it, especially when people are so concerned about household issues.”More on the Assassination of Shinzo AbeAn Influential Figure: Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, was one of the most transformational politicians in the country’s post-World War II history.Japan’s Gun Laws: Mr. Abe’s assassination may look like a rebuke of the country’s stringent gun laws. But a closer look at what happened actually demonstrates their effectiveness. Reactions: People in Japan, where violent crime is rare, were rattled by the assassination. Mr. Abe’s death also prompted an outpouring of mournful statements from world leaders.Mr. Abe, who was in office for nearly eight years (in addition to a brief, earlier stint as prime minister), left a legacy that went well beyond his hopes of revising the Constitution.Even after Japan fell behind China in world economic rankings, he helped extend its influence by holding a multinational trade agreement together after President Donald J. Trump pulled the United States out of it. At home, he helped bring the economy back from years of doldrums. Even if his economic policies never delivered as much as he promised, he gained international recognition for the program he called “Abenomics.”After he left office, Mr. Abe’s public statements resonated well beyond those of most former prime ministers. When he suggested that it was time for Japan to establish a nuclear sharing agreement with the United States, media outlets assumed the Liberal Democrats were considering a break with the longtime taboo against even discussing the possibility of a Japanese nuclear arsenal.For Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, the sudden loss of Mr. Abe may present opportunities as well as perils. Pool photo by Yoshikazu TsunoWithin the party, he was a kingmaker, often referred to as a “shadow shogun.” Mr. Kishida owes his position to Mr. Abe, who directed his supporters to throw their weight behind him after Mr. Abe’s first choice, Sanae Takaichi, lost a first-round ballot in the party leadership contest.Campaigning for Liberal Democrats over the last two weeks, Mr. Abe’s enduring influence was on display, drawing crowds as far north as Hokkaido and as far south as Fukuoka. His fatal visit to Nara, Japan’s old capital, was his second in support of Kei Sato, 43, a junior member of the party.For Mr. Kishida, the sudden loss of Mr. Abe may present opportunities as well as perils. He could consolidate power after the election, as he is not legally required to call another one for three years. Politicians in Japan often refer to this interval as the “golden period.”But history suggests the odds may be against him. Since the end of World War II, powerful prime ministers have typically been followed by a revolving door of forgettable faces, said Carol Gluck, a professor of history and specialist in modern Japan at Columbia University. Mr. Kishida is the second person to hold the job since Mr. Abe resigned in 2020; his predecessor, Yoshihide Suga, lasted just a year.“There’s a whole lot of prime ministers, if you add them up between 1945 and now, who did not make a mark,” Professor Gluck said.Privately, Mr. Kishida may feel some relief that he will no longer have to answer to Mr. Abe. But others in the party are sure to maneuver to fill the power vacuum.Mr. Abe, center, campaigning in Yokohama for a Liberal Democratic candidate on Wednesday.Yoshikazu Tsuno/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Abe led the largest, and most right-leaning, party faction, and he had not anointed a successor. Infighting could unsettle the party and make it more difficult for Mr. Kishida to get policies enacted.“It would have been much more predictable if Abe was still a big influence,” said Koichi Nakano, a professor of politics at Sophia University.Party power squabbles aside, the bigger question may be whether Mr. Kishida ultimately has his own vision.He once cast himself as a liberal-leaning, dovish member of the party. But driven by the war in Ukraine and increasing threats from North Korea and China, Mr. Kishida has followed Mr. Abe in calling for increased military spending and weapons that can strike missile launch sites in enemy territory.Without Mr. Abe as a driving force, though, some analysts wonder if Mr. Kishida will be able to deliver on that national security agenda.“I think Japan will lose our momentum to strengthen our defense,” said Lully Miura, a political scientist and head of the Yamaneko Research Institute in Tokyo. “We need a visible figure who can support the strong security and appeal to the public.”At the peak of his power, Mr. Abe himself was unable to push through the constitutional revisions he so badly wanted. In 2016, he presided over a Parliament in which his governing coalition had the required two-thirds supermajority. But tensions within the coalition, along with concern that the public — which must ultimately ratify any constitutional amendment — would not go along, thwarted his hopes. Changing the Constitution could be even further out of reach now, given multiple crises around the world and at home.Campaign posters outside a Tokyo polling station on Sunday. Kimimasa Mayama/EPA, via ShutterstockThe war in Ukraine has worsened supply chain problems and driven up the prices of oil and other commodities, raising fears of energy shortages in Japan. Coronavirus infections, until recently under control, have started rising again. And in the longer term, an aging population and falling birthrate raise the prospect of labor shortages and problems with caregiving.Mr. Kishida has offered no all-encompassing program to address such challenges. When running for the party leadership, he spoke of a “new capitalism,” but never spelt out what that meant, other than vague rhetoric about reducing inequality.“Kishida could get things done if there are things that he wants to get done,” said Nick Kapur, a historian of modern Japan at Rutgers University. “He has some popularity and he’s going to have a majority, but as we know, there are so many economic headwinds for everyone in the world — dealing with inflation and an emerging markets debt crisis and the war in Ukraine — and maybe that would damage any leader at some point.”Interest in politics has long been low in Japan, where the Liberal Democrats have been in power for virtually all of the postwar period — largely because of ineffective opposition parties, many analysts say. Early indications on Sunday were that turnout would be low, despite the party’s hopes for a surge in sympathy votes.Ayumi Sekizawa, 31, who works for a real estate company in Tokyo, said he had voted for the Liberal Democrats in part to show his support after Mr. Abe’s death. But he said he usually voted for them because there were “no other good parties.”He said that given the aggressive behavior of Russia, China and North Korea, he agreed that Japan needed to improve its defense capabilities.But his main concerns were closer to home. “I’m interested in the economy,” he said. “Wages should be raised, otherwise, virtually, our living standard is declining.”Makiko Inoue More