More stories

  • in

    Trump claims ignorance of ‘burner phones’. Here’s how they work

    Trump claims ignorance of ‘burner phones’. Here’s how they workDisposable phones may appeal to anyone trying to hide their identity – whether a criminal or an activist Let’s say you’re the president of the United States. You’re coordinating with a team of shady lawyers, elected officials, and political extremists to pull off a coup at the nation’s Capitol. And let’s just assume – in this hypothetical scenario – that you don’t want there to be a record of your highly incriminating calls. You’d probably want to use a burner phone.Investigators are now asking whether this matches what happened in the White House on 6 January 2021. The Washington Post and CBS News reported on Tuesday that a House investigation had found a seven-hour-and-37-minute gap in Donald Trump’s official call logs that day, during which hundreds of his supporters unleashed a deadly rampage at the US Capitol.Trump has pleaded ignorance, claiming in a statement to the outlets: “I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term.” But the president’s former national security adviser John Bolton has disputed this, saying Trump used the phrase several times, in discussions about how to avoid having calls scrutinized.Either way, it’s important that all of us – including the president – understand what a burner phone is and does.A burner phone is a simple idea: a disposable phone, typically purchased prepaid and without a contract, that someone buys to make calls or send messages over a short period of time before “burning” the phone.Who uses them? In the popular imagination, burner phones are associated with crime. As Detective Carlton Lassiter quipped in the American sitcom Psych: “The only people who use these are low-life criminals, like drug dealers, terrorists, and people with subpar credit.” Breaking Bad’s antihero drug lord Walter White frequently uses cheap flip phones to make calls before snapping them in half. And in The Wire, Bernard, a drug hustler, visits convenience stores to buy prepaid phones for the rest of his organization.Revealed: Trump used White House phone for call on January 6 that was not on official logRead moreBut burner phones are also used by activists protesting police brutality, Hong Kongers trying to evade Covid rules, cheating spouses, teenagers defying their parents and tourists avoiding roaming charges abroad. In short, we live in a time when mobile phones are so cheap and easy to get that anyone can use burners.Jake Moore, a cybersecurity expert and former police forensics officer in the UK, told the Guardian that burner phones can be “very difficult” for law enforcement to trace.Keeping a phone “clean” starts with keeping it disconnected from the internet. Expert users never carry the burner phone and their primary phones with them at the same time.“Your phone is a tracking device,” said the security expert. “If you are moving around with a burner phone and you’ve still got your other phone with you, then law enforcement can do some triangulation on where you were.”A burner phone can also be revealed by the people it contacts. “If a burner phone is speaking and contacting another phone, that other phone will have call records that connect the two,” said Moore. To maximize secrecy, the people you’re contacting should also use burner phones.According to the former cop, the most important burner phone principle is to discard it and replace it constantly. But not everyone remembers to do this. When he was a police officer, “often we would find a ton of these burner phones in a property”, he said. While snapping a flip phone looks cool on TV, properly “burning” a phone requires destroying the sim card, said Moore. Some people go to more dangerous lengths, including microwaving phones.There are some software alternatives to burner phones: the smartphone app Burner generates new phone numbers for users, and Signal is an example of a strongly encrypted messaging app.But while using these apps, “your phone is still emitting lots of data, especially location,” said Moore. “So it’s not a complete burner way of doing things.”Trump discussed ‘burner phones’ several times, John Bolton saysRead moreSo if someone were using a burner phone to orchestrate a coup from the White House, could law enforcement triangulate the user? While it might be possible from a technical standpoint, the greater barriers might be legal ones.“You’ve got to have a warrant to get that information on that particular person, which isn’t easy to do from a threat actor point of view, because they would have to go to prove why they need it through the courts, to the telecom provider, to get that information.” For the user, the biggest obstacle to burner phones is that they’re a huge hassle. Early in his term, Trump turned down a more secure phone, preferring to hang on to his favorite old Android phone. It wouldn’t necessarily be easy for the US president to keep switching burner phones, either.“You’re starting to kill the convenience,” said Moore. “You’re going to have to tell your nearest and dearest of the new number each time. But how can you trust it? If I get a message from Donald Trump saying this is Donald Trump’s new burner phone number, I’m going to suspect that it’s not.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

  • in

    America’s Strangest Redistricting Fight

    America’s Strangest Redistricting FightFelice Belman�� Reporting on New EnglandJoseph Prezioso/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLawmakers nationwide are redrawing congressional districts, with the party in power usually seeking an advantage. But New Hampshire’s Republican governor says his party’s proposed redistricting map isn’t competitive enough.He’s threatening a veto → More

  • in

    The Wrong Side of the Gender Gap

    The deepening gender gap in American voting, with men favoring the Republican Party and women favoring the Democrats, is well known, if not well understood. So what explains the presence of millions of men in the Democratic Party and millions of women in the Republican Party? What distinguishes these two constituencies, whose partisanship runs against the grain?I asked Heather L. Ondercin, a political scientist at Appalachian State University who has written extensively on gender issues, including in “Marching to the Ballot Box: Sex and Voting in the 2020 Election Cycle,” for her thoughts on these questions. She emailed back:Regardless of identification as a man or a woman, more stereotypically “masculine” individuals (male and female) — aggressive, assertive, defends beliefs, dominant, forceful, leadership ability, independent, strong personality, willing to take a stand, and willing to take risks — tend to identify with the Republican Party. Individuals (men and women) who are more stereotypically “feminine” — affectionate, compassionate, eager to soothe hurt feelings, gentle, loves children, sensitive to the needs of others, sympathetic, tender, understanding, and warm — tend to identify with the Democratic Party.In a case study of what Ondercin describes, Melissa Deckman, a political scientist at Washington College who is also chairman of the board of the Public Religion Research Institute, and Erin Cassese, a political scientist at the University of Delaware, published research into “gendered nationalism” in 2019 that sought to identify who is most “likely to believe that American society has grown ‘too soft and feminine.’”Deckman and Cassese found a large gender gap: “56 percent of men agreed that the United States has grown too soft and feminine compared to only 34 percent of women.”But the overall gender gap paled in comparison with the gap between Democratic men and Republican men. Some 41 percent of Democratic men without college degrees agreed that American society had become too soft and feminine compared with 80 percent of Republican men without degrees, a 39-point difference. Among those with college degrees, the spread grew to 62 points: Democratic men at 9 percent, Republican men at 73 percent.The gap between Democratic and Republican women was very large, but less pronounced: 28 percent of Democratic women without degrees agreed that the country had become too soft and feminine compared with 57 percent of non-college Republican women, while 4 percent of Democratic women with degrees agreed, compared with 57 percent of college-educated Republican women.The data described by Deckman and Cassese illuminate two key aspects of contemporary American politics. First, despite the enormous gaps between men and women in their voting behavior, partisanship is far more important than gender in determining how people vote; so too is the crucial role of psychological orientation — either empathic or authoritarian, for example — in shaping allegiance to the Democratic or Republican parties.The Deckman-Cassese study is part of a large body of work that seeks to answer a basic question: Who are the men who align with the Democratic Party and who are the women who identify as Republicans?“Gender and the Authoritarian Dynamic: An Analysis of Social Identity in the Partisanship of White Americans,” a 2021 doctoral dissertation by Bradley DiMariano at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, found patterns similar to those in the Deckman-Cassese study.Among white Democratic men, an overwhelming majority, 70.7 percent, were classified in the DiMariano study as either non-authoritarian (50.71 percent) or “weak authoritarian” (19.96 percent), while less than a third, 29.3 percent, were either authoritarian (10.59 percent) or “somewhat authoritarian” (18.74 percent). In contrast, among white Republican men, less than half, 48.3 percent, were non-authoritarian or weak authoritarian, while 51.7 percent were authoritarian or somewhat authoritarian.The partisan divisions among white women were almost identical: Democratic women, 68.3 percent non- or weak authoritarian and 31.7 percent authoritarian or somewhat authoritarian; Republican women, 45.6 percent non- or weak authoritarian and 54.4 percent authoritarian or weak authoritarian.When researchers examine the stands people take on specific issues, things become more complex.Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at Tufts and a co-director of the Cooperative Election Study, provided The Times with data on levels of support and opposition on a wide range of issues for Democratic men, Democratic women, Republican men and Republican women.“One thing that strikes me is that Democratic men and women have very similar issue positions, but Republican women are consistently less conservative on the issues compared to Republican men,” Schaffner wrote by email. “Sometimes the gap between Republican men and women is actually quite large, for example on issues like equal pay, minimum wage, right to strike and prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity/sexual orientation.”Take, for example, the question of whether workers should have the right to strike. Almost identical percentages of Democratic men (84) and women (85) agreed, but Republican men and women split 42-58. Similarly, 90 percent of Democratic men and 92 percent of Democratic women support reviving Section 5 the Voting Rights Act — which was designed to prohibit discriminatory electoral practices — while 37 percent of Republican men supported that position and 56 percent of Republican women did. On legislation requiring equal pay for men and women, 93 percent of Democratic men and 97 percent of Democratic women were in support, compared with 70 percent of Republican men and 85 percent of Republican women.Natalie Jackson, director of research at P.R.R.I., provided The Times with poll data posing similar questions. Asked if “America is in danger of losing its culture and identity,” the P.R.R.I. survey found that 80 percent of Republican women and 82 percent of Republican men agreed, while 65 percent of Democratic women and 66 percent of Democratic men disagreed. Seventy-six percent of Democratic women and 77 percent of Democratic men agreed that undocumented immigrants living in this country should be allowed “to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements,” while 46 percent of Republican women and 39 percent of Republican men agreed.Conflicting attitudes toward risk also drive partisanship. In “Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception,” a 2007 paper by Dan M. Kahan of Yale Law School, Donald Braman of George Washington University Law School, John Gastil of Penn State, Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon and C.K. Mertz of Decision Research, studied the attitudes toward risks posed by guns and by environmental dangers. Drawing on a survey of 1,844 Americans, their key finding was:Individuals selectively credit and dismiss asserted dangers in a manner supportive of their preferred form of social organization. This dynamic, it is hypothesized, drives the “white male effect,” which reflects the risk skepticism that hierarchical and individualistic white males display when activities integral to their cultural identities are challenged as harmful.The authors reported that conservative white Republican men (“persons who held relative hierarchical and individualistic outlooks — and particularly both simultaneously”) are the “least concerned about environmental risks and gun risks.” People “who held relatively egalitarian and communitarian views” — predominantly Democrats — “were most concerned.”On environmental risk, the people who were most risk tolerant were white men, followed by white women, then minority-group men and, the most risk averse, minority-group women. The order was slightly different in the case of risk associated with guns: White men demonstrated the least risk aversion followed by minority-group men, then white women and finally minority-group women.Kahan and his collaborators went on: “Increasing hierarchical and individualistic worldviews induce greater risk-skepticism in white males than in either white women or male or female nonwhites.”In other words, those who rank high in communitarian and egalitarian values, including liberal white men, are high in risk aversion. Among those at the opposite end of the scale — low in communitarianism and egalitarianism but high in individualism and in support for hierarchy — conservative white men are markedly more willing to tolerate risk than other constituencies.In the case of guns and gun control, the authors write:Persons of hierarchical and individualistic orientations should be expected to worry more about being rendered defenseless because of the association of guns with hierarchical social roles (hunter, protector, father) and with hierarchical and individualistic virtues (courage, honor, chivalry, self-reliance, prowess). Relatively egalitarian and communitarian respondents should worry more about gun violence because of the association of guns with patriarchy and racism and with distrust of and indifference to the well-being of strangers.A paper published in 2000, “Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male effect,’” by Melissa Finucane, a senior scientist at the RAND Corporation, Slovic, Mertz, James Flynn of Decision Research and Theresa A. Satterfield of the University of British Columbia, tested responses to 25 hazards and found that “white males’ risk perception ratings were consistently much lower” than those of white women, minority-group women and minority-group men.The white male effect, they continued “seemed to be caused by about 30 percent of the white male sample” who were “better educated, had higher household incomes, and were politically more conservative. They also held very different attitudes, characterized by trust in institutions and authorities and by anti-egalitarianism” — in other words, they tended to be Republicans.While opinions on egalitarianism and communitarianism help explain why a minority of white men are Democrats, the motivation of white women who support Republicans is less clear. Cassese and Tiffany D. Barnes, a political scientist at the University of Kentucky, address this question in their 2018 paper “Reconciling Sexism and Women’s Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races.”Cassese and Barnes found that in the 2016 election, social class and education played a stronger role in the voting decisions of women than of men:Among Trump voters, women were much more likely to be in the lower income category compared to men, a difference of 13 points in the full sample and 14 points for white respondents only. By contrast, the proportion of male, upper-income Trump supporters is greater than the proportion of female, upper-income Trump supporters by about 9 percentage points in the full sample and among white voters only. These findings challenge a dominant narrative surrounding the election — rather than attracting downwardly-mobile white men, Trump’s campaign disproportionately attracted and mobilized economically marginal white women.Cassese and Barnes pose the question: “Why were a majority of white women willing to tolerate Trump’s sexism?” To answer, the authors examined polling responses to three questions: “Do women demanding equality seek special favors?” “Do women complaining about discrimination cause more problems than they solve?” and “How much discrimination do women face in the United States?” Cassese and Barnes describe the first two questions as measures of “hostile sexism,” which they define as “negative views toward individuals who violate traditional gender roles.”They found that “hostile sexism” and “denial of discrimination against women are strong predictors of white women’s vote choice in 2016,” but these factors were “not predictive of voting for Romney in 2012.” Put another way, “white women who display hostile sexist attitudes and who perceive low levels of gender discrimination in society are more likely to support Trump.”In conclusion, Cassese and Barnes write:Our results also address analysts’ incorrect expectations about women voters defecting from the G.O.P. in response to Trump’s campaign. We explain this discrepancy by illustrating that some white women — particularly those without a college education — endorse hostile sexism and have weaker perceptions of systemic gender discrimination. These beliefs are associated with an increased likelihood of voting for Trump — even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.An additional variable predicting Republican partisanship is “social dominance orientation,” briefly defined as a preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Arnold Ho is a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and lead author of the 2015 paper “The Nature of Social Dominance Orientation: Theorizing and Measuring Preferences for Intergroup Inequality Using the New SDO7 Scale.” He wrote that he and his colleagues found “consistent gender differences across all samples, with men having higher levels of social dominance orientation than women” and that there are “moderate to strong correlations between SDO and political conservatism across all samples, such that greater conservatism is associated with higher levels of SDO.”Ho measured conservatism on the basis of political affiliation — Democratic liberal, Republican conservative and self-identification as a social and economic liberal or conservative.A 2011 paper by I-Ching Lee of the National Taiwan University and Felicia Pratto and Blair T. Johnson of the University of Connecticut — “Intergroup Consensus/Disagreement in Support of Group-Based Hierarchy: An Examination of Socio-Structural and Psycho-Cultural Factors ” — makes the case that… in societies in which unequal groups are segregated into separate roles or living spaces, they may not compare their situations to those of other groups and may be relatively satisfied. In such cases, we would expect dominants and subordinates to be more similar in their attitude toward group-based hierarchy.On the other hand, they continued:… in societies in which people purport to value equality, subordinates may come to expect and feel entitled to equality. The evidence and signs they observe of inequality would then mean that reality is falling short of their ideal standards. This condition may lead them to reassert their opposition to group-based hierarchy and to differentiate from dominants.It may be, then, that the association of the Democratic Party with values linked more closely to women than men is a factor in the party’s loss of support among Hispanic and Black men. As my colleague Charles Blow wrote in “Democrats Continue to Struggle With Men of Color” in September: “For one thing, never underestimate the communion among men, regardless of race. Men have privileges in society, and some are drawn to policies that elevate their privileges.”President Biden’s predicament with regard to all this is reflected in the contradictory findings of a March 17-21 AP/NORC poll of 1,082 Americans on views of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.On one hand, 56 percent of those polled described Biden’s response as “not been tough enough” compared with 36 percent “about right” and 6 percent “too tough.” There were sharp partisan divisions on this question: 68 percent of Republicans said Biden’s response to the invasion was not tough enough, and 20 percent said it was about right. Fifty-three percent of Democrats said it was about right, and 43 percent said not tough enough. Independents were closer to Republicans than to Democrats: 64 percent not tough enough, 25 percent just right.Conversely, the AP/NORC survey found that 45 percent of respondents said they were very or extremely “concerned about Russia using nuclear weapons that target the United States,” 30 percent said they were “somewhat concerned,” and 25 percent said they were “not very or not at all concerned.”The potential pitfalls in the American response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine range from provoking Vladimir Putin to further escalation to diminishing the United States in the eyes of Russia and the rest of the world. The specific dangers confronting policymakers stem from serious decisions taken in a crisis climate, but the pressures on those making the decisions are tied to the competing psychological dispositions of Republicans and Democrats described above, and they are tied as well to discrepancies between men and women in toleration of the use of force.In a 2018 paper, “The Suffragist Peace,” Joslyn N. Barnhart, Allan Dafoe, Elizabeth N. Saunders and Robert F. Trager found that “At each stage of the escalatory ladder, women prefer more peaceful options.”“More telling,” the authors write,is to compare how men and women weigh the choice between backing down and conflict. Women are nearly indifferent between an unsuccessful use of force in which nothing is gained, and their country’s leader backs down after threatening force. Men, by contrast, would much rather see force used unsuccessfully than see the country’s reputation endangered through backing down. Approval among men is fully 36 percent higher for a use of force that achieves nothing and in which over 4,000 U.S. soldiers die than when the U.S. president backs down and the same objective outcome is achieved without loss of life.The gender gap on the use of force has deep roots. A 2012 study, “Men and Women’s Support for War: Accounting for the gender gap in public opinion,” found consistently higher support among men than women for military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, concluding that the evidence shows a “consistent ‘gender gap’ over time and across countries.” According to the study, “it would be rare to find scholarship in which gender differences on the question of using military force are not present.”The author, Ben Clements, cites “psychological differences between women and men, with the former laying greater value on group relationships and the use of cooperation and compromise, rather than aggressive means, to resolve disputes.”It should be self-evident that the last thing this country needs at a time when the world has drawn closer to the possibility of nuclear war than it has been for decades is a leader like Donald Trump, the apotheosis of aggressive, intemperate white manhood, who at the same time unreservedly seeks the admiration of Vladimir Putin and other authoritarians.The difficult task facing Biden is finding the correct balance between restraint and authority, between harm avoidance and belligerent opposition. The situation in Ukraine has the potential to damage Biden’s already weakened political stature or to provide him with an opportunity to regain some of the support he had when first elected.American wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly for incumbent American presidents, and Biden faces an uphill struggle reversing that trend, even as the United States faces the most dangerous set of circumstances in its recent history.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

  • in

    Trump discussed ‘burner phones’ several times, John Bolton says

    Trump discussed ‘burner phones’ several times, John Bolton saysRevelation from former national security adviser raises pressure on Trump as lawmakers investigate gaps in January 6 call logs John Bolton, the former national security adviser, has revealed that he heard Donald Trump use the term “burner phones” several times and that they discussed how the disposable devices were deployed by people as a way of avoiding scrutiny of their calls.Bolton’s intervention compounds Trump’s difficulties amid a billowing controversy relating to seven hours and 37 minutes that are missing in official call logs. The gap occurs in records made for 6 January last year – the day of the violent insurrection at the US Capitol.The Washington Post and CBS News disclosed on Tuesday that the House committee investigating the insurrection is looking into a “possible cover-up” of the White House records. Documents originally held by the National Archives and turned over to the committee earlier this year showed a gap in Trump’s phone calls spanning precisely the period when hundreds of his supporters stormed the Capitol building.Records show long gap in Trump phone logs as January 6 violence unfoldedRead moreThe news outlets, which obtained 11 pages of records including Trump’s official daily diary and a call log for the White House switchboard, reported that the House panel has begun an investigation into whether Trump used disposable “burner phones” to sidestep scrutiny.In a statement to the Post/CBS News, Trump said: “I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term.”Not true, according to Bolton. In an interview with the Post/CBS News, the former national security adviser said that he recalled Trump “using the term ‘burner phones’ in several discussions and that Trump was aware of its meaning”.Bolton added that he and Trump had spoken “about how people have used ‘burner phones’ to avoid having their calls scrutinized,” according to Robert Costa, author of the Post/CBS News revelations along with Bob Woodward.At the heart of the January 6 committee investigation is whether Trump was directly involved in coordinating the breach of security at the Capitol on the day that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was to be certified by Congress. What Trump did, and whom he talked to, as the insurrection was unfolding is central to the inquiry.The call logs obtained by the committee show that Trump spoke to several close associates on the morning of January 6, including his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former senior adviser Steve Bannon. His daily diary shows an entry at 11.17 am for a phone call with “an unidentified person”, but after that the records fall silent.The next phone log is at 6.54pm when Trump asked the White House switchboard to put him through to his communications chief, Dan Scavino.In those intervening 457 minutes Trump supporters and white supremacist groups had broken through police barricades, forcing vice-president Mike Pence, who was overseeing the certification process, into hiding. A bipartisan Senate report connected seven deaths to the attack with more than 100 law enforcement officers injured.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsJohn BoltonnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    The Political Lives of Clarence and Ginni Thomas

    Rob Szypko, Rikki Novetsky, Chelsea Daniel and Marc Georges and Dan Powell and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherA series of text messages released in the past week show how Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, urged White House officials to push to overturn the result of the 2020 election.There has never been a spouse of a sitting justice who has been as overt a political activist as Ms. Thomas — and that presents a real conundrum for the court.On today’s episodeJo Becker, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.For two decades, Clarence, left, and Ginni Thomas have been waging a battle against what they see as the liberal order.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesBackground readingThe long crusade of the Thomases has taken them from the fringes of the conservative movement to the very center of it.In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Ginni Thomas was involved in a range of efforts to keep President Donald J. Trump in power.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.Transcripts of each episode are available by the next workday. You can find them at the top of the page.Jo Becker contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Kaitlin Roberts, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Anita Badejo, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Chelsea Daniel, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky and John Ketchum.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Wendy Dorr, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli and Maddy Masiello. More

  • in

    The Battle for the Mural — and the Future of Belarus

    Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmTo hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.As his family slept, the man spent his nights planning. There were about 40 security cameras among the three buildings in central Minsk, maybe even more. He had long ago calculated their blind spots. He knew there was only one place in the shared courtyard they didn’t see. It took him a day to map out the best approach. The group had decided that they would act in the evening, when there would be enough people on the street so that their actions would not arouse suspicion but not so many that someone would be likely to report them to the police. He wasn’t afraid for himself as much as for the rest of them. If they got caught, it would be his fault.They positioned their spotters to watch for the Belarusian security services, the siloviki. They agreed on a plan to create an emergency diversion if they arrived.On the morning of Feb. 25, he took a white piece of cloth the size of a flag and painted it quickly. It would take four hours to dry. When it was ready, he folded it deliberately, carefully aligning the fabric to make sure it would take the least amount of time to unfurl. He attached carabiners to the corners and put it in a bag.As he made his way to the fence next to the utility shed, the man felt only anger — a voice in his head that demanded to know how can a person be afraid to do something like this? When he reached the fence, he hooked up the carabiners, then threw the cloth over the top. It unfurled in seconds. He fastened the bottom and stepped back. Weeks of planning ended in minutes. In the purple light, the banner was ethereal and simple — the logo of their group, a peace sign and the words NO WAR.An hour and a half later, a minibus with tinted windows arrived. Plainclothes officers stormed out and tore down the banner. The next morning, investigators from the local branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrived. They started collecting security footage from the buildings as well as nearby stores and combing over the tape. The man believed they wouldn’t be found. They had followed protocol and stuck to the route.They had been shouting for more than a year and a half that their country was a dictatorship, that Belarus was under occupation, that everything would be disastrous if Aleksandr Lukashenko were not stopped. No one had listened. There were more than 1,000 political prisoners in detention; sentences for those who opposed Lukashenko’s regime stretched into decades. Now Russia had launched an assault on Ukraine, and Lukashenko had sold their country to the Kremlin as a giant military base.If they had overthrown Lukashenko, the man thought, probably none of this would be happening. Vladimir Putin would not have had the strategic assets to be able to carry out this war — no support from the northern flank, no airfields for refueling planes, no silos to keep the missiles. If the world thought Belarusians to be collaborators, he needed to show they were anything but. They had been fighting against this for far longer than people realized. They had taken far greater risks than people knew.Sept. 3, 2020 Repainting the mural in the Square of Change in Minsk.Yauhen AttsetskiOn weekday mornings, the elevators in Diana Karankevich’s building were so crowded with young parents bringing their children to school, she often took the stairs. With 20 floors, the prefabricated high-rise had loomed over the nearby squat, beige Soviet-era buildings in the New Lake neighborhood almost as soon as construction started around 2011. By the time everyone moved in, the new development’s three identical buildings on the intersection of Smorgovsky Tract and Chervyakova Street teemed with young, upper-middle-class families. The appeal of buying there was obvious — it was a 10-minute drive from downtown Minsk, with a supermarket across the street and good schools nearby. It was a short walk to the Belarusian capital’s largest park and the shores of the big lake that locals in the landlocked country referred to as the Minsk Sea.Before 2020, whether because of Belarus’s long Soviet hangover or their busy, phone-absorbed lives, most people in the buildings never knew their neighbors. Diana, a 30-year-old nail technician who had worked in a beauty salon on the first floor, was an exception. Outgoing and opinionated, she was always saying hello to someone. From the apartment she shared with her mother and her then 5-year-old son, Timofey, Tima for short, Diana could see the road that led to the three buildings’ shared courtyard, where there was a small, multicolored playground surrounded by benches. In the afternoons, the congestion reversed — the same parents bringing their children home, sometimes stopping at the swing set or the seesaw.On Aug. 6, 2020, Diana was walking Tima home from kindergarten, through the verdant birch trees of a smaller square nearby called Peoples’ Friendship Park.“Why are there so many people?” Tima asked, confused.“Because they came out,” she answered absent-mindedly.It was a few days before the August 2020 presidential elections, which until recently Diana and pretty much everyone else in Belarus had expected to be the sixth straight election President Lukashenko would win through a combination of voter apathy, oppositional disarray, electoral suppression and outright fraud. But for the first time in his 26 years in power, the usual script of the regime’s election interference had gone awry.A few weeks earlier, the opposition united around a single candidate: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a 39-year-old housewife married to a popular video blogger, who had surprised even herself by registering to run for president after her husband was disqualified on charges that were largely viewed as political. Tsikhanouskaya, whom many just called Sviatlana, had rocketed to a level of popularity unheard-of since Lukashenko himself came to power in 1994 in the only free elections Belarus had ever held.Sviatlana had called for a rally in Friendship Park, one of the few venues to allow political gatherings in Minsk, but the city authorities refused to issue a permit. They had announced a musical concert in honor of “Railway Troops Day” instead. When Diana heard, she could only laugh. There had been no railway troops in Belarus since 2006. It was exactly the kind of absurdism Belarusians had become inured to over the years.Diana noticed that the regime’s concert was sparsely attended, the cordoned-off area empty aside from the state-employed D.J.s and a few pensioners, the kind who came to every Lukashenko rally, waving the red-and-green flag Lukashenko had resurrected from Soviet times. The rest of the park, however, was unusually crowded. Diana thought maybe they were hopefuls waiting for Sviatlana to show up. Diana was leading Tima away when a loud cheer went up. Maybe she came after all? Diana moved closer and heard lyrics from a song that anyone who grew up in the former Soviet Union knows by heart:Changes!It’s the demand of our hearts.Changes!It’s the demand of our eyes.Aug. 6, 2020 The D.J.s Vladislav Sokolovsky and Kirill Galanov, who inspired the mural in the Square of Change.Nadia BuzhanThe rock band Kino’s 1986 song “Changes” was a famous anthem across Eastern Europe that presaged the Soviet Union’s collapse. It was blocked from Belarusian radio airwaves during past periods of protest. The crowd cheered louder, emboldened by one another’s enthusiasm. Diana pushed forward with Tima in her arms. The two young D.J.s stood with their arms raised above their turntables in silence, unflinching, as the music blasted. One had his fingers up in a V for victory with a bit of white cloth — the color of the opposition — wrapped around it; the other had made a fist around a white bracelet.Journalists surged forward: “Whose idea was this?” “Aren’t you scared?” “You’re not afraid of losing your job?”The D.J.s replied that they were just doing what they thought was right. Almost immediately, they were arrested. Roughly a week later, residents woke up to a large black-and-white mural of the D.J.s with their arms raised.Diana would eventually learn it had all been an accident — the mural was never meant to be there. Some guys had wanted to stick it on the wall where the D.J.s played the song, but the cops drove by, and they lost their nerve. Since they had everything ready to go, they glued the mural to the first safe place they encountered — their buildings’ own playground.But if it had started as an accident, perhaps the rest of it was fated. If the mural had been placed elsewhere, Diana thought, maybe it would have vanished. Maybe when the authorities decided to paint over it, as they had so much other revolutionary graffiti, no one would have stopped them. But the residents of the newly named Square of Change noticed. The mural meant something to them, and they would ensure it would come to mean something to the entire nation.For more than two decades, Belarusians had existed in an equilibrium of quiet authoritarianism. If the repressions didn’t directly touch them, most people tolerated them. The country’s national anthem started with “We, Belarusians, are a peaceful people,” and a common proverb to describe the national psyche was “maya hata s krau” — which translates roughly to “my house is on the side.” Whatever is happening outside my family is none of my business. But over the course of 2020, a country whose history and identity never much interested a majority of people who lived there became something they would sacrifice their lives for. Before the battle over the mural became a symbol of the nation they would call New Belarus, there were just three nondescript buildings in the middle of a city of two million, a courtyard set around a children’s playground: swings, a seesaw and a roundabout, surrounded by benches.Diana Karankevich and her son, Tima, at their home in Warsaw.Emile Ducke for The New York Times In 1991, the year before Diana was born, the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine negotiated the end to the U.S.S.R. at a hunting lodge in western Belarus. Diana’s compatriots were among the least interested in independence — 83 percent of Belarusians had voted against it. Still, they emerged one day into a new reality of seismic proportions; their state, their ideology and all the order they knew had melted away. As an only child after perestroika, Diana was allowed to do whatever she wanted, too young and too loved to realize the real toll of the upheaval running through the former Soviet empire.Diana grew up on the outskirts of Mogilev, a city roughly 120 miles from Minsk, due east toward the Russian border. Her neighborhood, the Eighth, was split — half was cop territory, with a police academy and officer housing, and the other half, where she lived, was called banditski. In the chaos of the 1990s, she recalls, everyone knew that if a cop came to the bandits’ side, it would end poorly. Her parents straddled the new divide neatly — her mother worked for the state, while her father worked the corner. He tried everything to get in on the new economy. He drove plush toys from Smolensk, Russia, hawked meat at an open-air market and thumbed stacks of rubles on the black-market currency exchange.Their family, like most Belarusian families, spoke Russian at home. Belarus had not existed autonomously within its present borders before it belonged to the U.S.S.R. It had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — sharing its medieval capital, writers and historic heroes with present-day Lithuania and Poland — before being absorbed into the Russian empire. In 1918, an independent Belarusian state was declared and existed for a few months, before being swallowed into the Soviet project.During World War II, Belarus was the center of hostilities between the Nazis and the Soviets — at least two million people were killed on Belarus’s land. Minsk was bombed so brutally, the Wehrmacht had to wait for the fires to subside so they could enter the city. Whether because of extermination, displacement or deportation, by the end of the war, Belarus was missing half its population. Under Stalin, Belarus underwent rapid industrialization, urbanization and Russification. The capital was rebuilt and later awarded “Hero City” status for its suffering in what the Soviet Union called the Great Patriotic War. By the mid-1980s, only a third of the country spoke Belarusian in daily life.After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a new generation of leaders rose in the former republics, but Belarus remained under old Soviet nomenklatura rule even after independence. Though the red-and-green Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic flag was swapped for the red-and-white flag of the Belarusian National Republic that existed for a few months in 1918, previous institutions other than the Communist Party remained intact.Belarus’s leadership was slower to embark on market reforms than Russia or Ukraine, whose torturous adventures into unfettered capitalism in the ’90s Belarusians watched with trepidation. In Belarus, too, as the economy was liberalized, standards of living dropped, while criminality climbed. Diana didn’t remember the food lines, but her grandmother often told her that while life in the Soviet Union was difficult, it was stable, and the people were kinder.Lukashenko made his entrance into this morass. The former head of a small collective farm, he was elected to Parliament in 1990 but remained unknown until he became head of an anticorruption committee three years later. He shot to fame after giving a speech denouncing high-level corruption on the floor of the legislature when he was 39. Lukashenko presented himself as a mix of everyman populist and cherry-picked Soviet-nostalgist, bellicose and bombastic. He defeated Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kebich with 80 percent of the vote in the 1994 presidential election.Almost immediately after taking power, Lukashenko began to impose autocratic rule. He censored state media; he closed Belarus’s only independent radio station and several newspapers. Lukashenko stripped powers from the Parliament. He oversaw a referendum to resurrect Soviet national symbols and made Russian a state language. In 1999, Belarus and Russia signed a treaty that committed them to merging into a confederal state at some future point. (At the time, President Boris Yeltsin of Russia was so sick and unpopular, Lukashenko believed he might head the eventual union.)While Putin’s Russia worked hard to rehabilitate discredited Soviet symbolism, Lukashenko’s Belarus easily revived his favorite old Soviet traditions — unpaid working Saturdays called subbotniks and holidays like the Great Patriotic War’s Victory Day on May 9. By the end of the ’90s, Lukashenko controlled all executive and judicial authorities, the Central Election Commission, unions and the military and law-enforcement structures. Through a 2004 constitutional referendum, he abolished presidential term limits.In some ways, Lukashenko’s autocracy outgrew even the U.S.S.R.’s model. Belarus had no ruling party, no place to incubate rivals or create factions — the elites existed at Lukashenko’s pleasure. The president made all key personnel and economic decisions, including the appointment and dismissal of heads of cities and districts, lower-court judges and directors of major factories. The K.G.B. was never disbanded. Instead, “curators” were placed in important institutions.Because Belarus was slow to privatize, oligarchs never had much of a chance to materialize. Half of the economy remained under state control. Lukashenko instituted a short-term job-contract scheme in the state sector, which was used to target anyone who became too political. Placements in institutions of higher learning were similarly weaponized. Independent journalists were jailed intermittently and then released, the steady two-step of a repressive state.By the time Diana was in seventh grade, even she could sense it. Every year, the same droll history class on the first day of school — the Belarusian flag is red and green, the president is Lukashenko, they would intone. “Lukashenko, Lukashenko. Will we ever hear someone else’s name?” Diana joked, drawing laughter from the other students.Lukashenko’s was a soft authoritarian system, with the requisite window dressings. If you were a private nonpolitical citizen, you were unlikely to encounter the K.G.B. There was little fear of serious consequence for an ordinary citizen making a joke. People could openly talk about hating the president in cafes; they could make fun of his often nonsensical ramblings. They could mock his mustache, his combover and his rural accent.There were small, unpopular opposition parties, which were allowed to rent office space in the capital. They registered for elections. There was no personality cult — no portraits, streets or statues dedicated to the Great Leader. Instead, the regime relied on technicalities, like an article in the criminal code covering insults to the president, which it used to persecute critics. The authorities rarely shuttered publications outright, preferring to impose crippling fines instead.But most crucially, for well over a decade, Lukashenko was genuinely popular. A level of propaganda undergirded his rule, reinforcing the perception of a social pact in which the state would provide for the citizen. Lukashenko relished his supporters’ calling him Batka — Father. Most experts agree he would have won elections without rigging them. Belarus’s economic growth hovered in and around the double digits. The economy was buttressed by money the state earned refining duty-free Russian oil and gas and reselling it. Excluding the Baltics, Belarus was the former Soviet republic with the highest standard of living. Belarus’s per capita G.D.P. was nearly twice that of neighboring Ukraine. Life expectancy was higher than in Russia.For a long time, Belarusians had some faith in their justice system. Everyone knew there were two parallel tracks — cases involving the government and everything else. The country had escaped much of the petty corruption of the post-Soviet neighborhood — under Lukashenko, the traffic police did not make it a practice to shake down drivers; the bureaucracy didn’t operate on bribes. Courts ruled relatively impartially in civil cases. Even the political cases had a certain logic to them. Independent lawyers fumed at the sentences for activists and politicians, and international human rights groups slammed politically motivated verdicts, but only those in the “opposition ghetto,” as it was called, received outlandish sentences.The opposition itself was not very popular, embroiled in its own internal scandals — often tarred by the regime as being made up of nationalists, fascists or hooligans. They were in a minority anyway. Most citizens steered clear of anything political, and many believed what their TVs told them. Diana did her best to avoid her high school boyfriend’s brother, who she knew traveled to Minsk to attend protests. She would see people on TV scuffling with the police and throwing Molotov cocktails. “Aren’t you afraid of him?” she asked her boyfriend. What if he’s hiding something in his room, like a grenade? She tried to make sure they didn’t cross paths.When she got to university in Minsk, where she studied materials science, Diana realized she had been fooled by state television. In 2011, runaway inflation struck the country — there was a major currency devaluation, and the regime imposed price controls on basic goods and food. People in Minsk gathered to clap in civil disobedience. Diana was curious and went out to watch. The assembled were absolutely peaceful, she marveled, nothing like how they were portrayed on TV, but nearly 2,000 people were detained, more than 500 of whom were given five-to-15-day sentences.The authorities responded with their usual farce — they banned applause unless directed at veterans. They arrested a one-armed man for clapping. They accused a deaf and mute man of shouting anti-government slogans. When people started to protest by flash mob, the authorities banned standing around doing nothing in a group.Diana graduated in 2014 directly into a process-engineering job at Minsk Gear Works, part of the Minsk Tractor Works — one of Belarus’s largest manufacturers. Every morning at work, Diana opened Tut.by — the country’s most popular news portal — and read the headlines over coffee. She couldn’t open other independent media on the government computers, but Tut.by was allowed. The portal was started in 2000 by the businessman Yuri Zisser, often referred to as Belarus’s Steve Jobs, and was read by 62 percent of the population, reaching people across the political spectrum. The regime had invested heavily in telecommunications infrastructure and left most of it alone, focusing efforts on television propaganda.The year Diana started her job, Ukrainians staged mass protests that toppled the government after President Viktor Yanukovych bowed to Russian pressure and halted plans for an economic-alignment agreement with the European Union. Taking advantage of the chaos, Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Fighting broke out with Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. It was nonstop news in Minsk, with everyone glued to the daily developments.Lukashenko, who often played Russia and Europe against each other for his own gain, did not recognize the annexation of Crimea and refused to join the Kremlin’s boycott of the West. Since Putin’s election in 2000, relations between the two presidents had been strained. Russia subsidized the Belarusian economy and by extension kept Lukashenko in power, but Lukashenko rarely made it easy for the Kremlin. Belarus was an important transit country for Russian gas exports to Europe, and Lukashenko knew Putin was loath to see political instability along the border. For years, Putin had pushed for closer ties, economic and military, based on the 1999 union agreement, but Lukashenko balked. Though Belarus agreed in 2014 to join Russia’s version of the E.U., the Eurasian Economic Union, Lukashenko stalled Russian demands for a new air base in Belarus. He wavered on extending leases on two military facilities.Watching the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Lukashenko seemed to decide that an overreliance on the Kremlin could lead Belarus to the same fate. He flirted with the European Union and the United States and began a limited political liberalization, marketing Belarus as a Slavic Switzerland — a neutral country where negotiations and peace talks, like the Minsk Accords for a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine, could be held. Most Belarusians agreed — they didn’t want to be part of the E.U., nor did they want to merge with Russia. The status quo was fine.Lukashenko began to tolerate more expressions of Belarusian national identity, encouraging the Belarusian language, elements of pre-Soviet history and national symbols, like traditional embroidery on the national soccer team’s uniforms. For the first time since the 1990s, he gave a speech in Belarusian.In 2018, after a three-year state-subsidized maternity leave, Diana found it difficult to go back to the factory. Most people just sat around doing nothing but drinking tea and living the Soviet adage, “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” She had divorced her husband, a college boyfriend of two and a half years, and was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease shortly after Tima was born. She needed a job that could provide her with paid time off and sick leave.The first vacation she took, Diana and Tima went to Cyprus to sit by the sea. She was on her hotel balcony while Tima napped, when she read an article on Tut.by about the average salary in Belarus. She was shocked to learn that it was three times what she was making as an engineer at a state factory. She had been doing nails on the side ever since university, having fallen in love with it when she got her first manicure for high school graduation, and thought she could make more as a full-time nail technician in the private sector. The first thing she did when she got back to Minsk was put in her notice.Sept. 2, 2020 A gathering in the Square, not long after the election fixed in Lukashenko’s favor gave way to widespread protests.Yauhen AttsetskiDiana had been active on her building’s Telegram group chat as soon as she moved into her apartment in 2018. People were polite, willing to help out when asked — like when she had a problem with her radiator or needed to borrow a carrot to finish making soup. In March 2020, when Covid hit, Lukashenko dismissed the virus as “psychosis” that could be treated with a shot of vodka, a tractor ride or a sauna visit. There was no lockdown, and citizens were left to fend for themselves. The residents’ chat exploded with news — true and false. When people began damaging the elevator by using their keys to press the buttons, other residents implored them to use their knuckles. Arguments broke out.Stepan Latypov, who lived on the 16th floor, chimed in. He explained that he was an arborist and took it upon himself to message the group with information. Hospitals were running out of supplies, infection rates were spiking, doctors were being silenced for speaking the truth and deaths were being covered up. Stepan, an outgoing 41-year-old divorcé with a pet hedgehog, posted photos of oxygen cylinders and explained that he had three in his apartment. If anyone needed them in an emergency, they could write to him.Vasili Logvinov, a 38-year-old computer programmer on the 13th floor, followed along avidly. He and his wife had a toddler. Vasili had never really bothered to meet any of his neighbors before but was relieved to learn that there was someone in the building they could trust.In April 2020, a group of activists started ByCovid-19, a crowd-funded volunteer initiative that raised 370,000 euros to purchase 450,000 pieces of personal protective equipment, oxygen cylinders, oxygen splitters, pulse oximeters and more. The regime could have blocked the effort in a pen stroke, but instead the Health Ministry coordinated with ByCovid-19. State TV praised their work. It was the largest and most successful civic action that Belarusians had ever coordinated.Covid was the great equalizer — it was impossible to stay detached, to maintain maya hata s krau. The regime must have sensed that something was amiss, that the social contract Batka had relied on for so long was fraying.After the elections were scheduled for August, a handful of new candidates with no political experience announced that they would run. Sviatlana’s husband, Sergei, the populist video blogger, traveled the country talking to ordinary citizens, documenting poverty and highlighting the failures of the regime. He carried around a slipper and shouted, “Stop the cockroach!” Diana found him crude, and like many young professionals, she preferred Viktor Babariko, the chairman of Belgazprombank. Vasili, the coder, preferred Valery Tsepkalo, a former diplomat who started Hi-Tech Park in 2005, Belarus’s successful version of Silicon Valley.No one understood where these neophytes had come from. Rumors swirled that they were Russian plants sent to remove Putin’s disdained ally. After Lukashenko distanced himself from Russia in the wake of the Crimean annexation, Moscow had shown its ire. The Kremlin tried to increase the price Belarus paid for oil, while Belarus tried to raise gas transit taxes. Lukashenko repeatedly complained that the Kremlin was trying to bully Minsk into a union with Russia. As relations deteriorated, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo became the highest-level U.S. official to visit Belarus in decades. When the presidential campaign began, Lukashenko openly accused Russian oligarchs and “higher” people of interference. He detained 33 mercenaries from a Kremlin-linked security contractor, the Wagner Group, whom he claimed had been dispatched to depose him.By mid-July, all three candidates had been removed from the ballot — two were in jail, and one fled the country in anticipation of his own detention. The campaigns united under Sviatlana, who was running on three demands — release of political prisoners, curtailed powers for the president and free elections. Charismatic and earnest, she was adored for her image as a Decembrist’s wife — women who had given up their lives and followed their husbands to exile in Siberia.The day of the vote, Diana waited in line for hours at her polling place. Sviatlana’s Telegram channel had asked supporters to come with a white ribbon so independent observers could keep track of them. Around her, everyone was wearing white bracelets, some made of torn shirts, even medical gauze. A platform called Golos, a word that means both vote and voice, asked everyone to take photos of both sides of the ballot paper and then upload them to the platform, which would provide an alternative poll count. Diana took photos of her ballot as Golos requested.The next day the Central Election Commission announced preliminary results that Lukashenko had won with 80 percent. Golos later tabulated that Sviatlana won at least 56 percent of the vote. If the results had been less lopsided, perhaps nothing would have happened, but now there was a general feeling of indignation: Did they really expect people to doubt their own eyes? Did they really think Belarusians would accept this outrageous figure meekly? In seven years of relative liberalization, as Belarusians like Diana had come of age, they had forgotten what totalitarianism was capable of.September 2020 Police officers and opponents of President Aleksandr Lukashenko at the Square in Minsk, Belarus.Valery Sharifulin/AlamyFor three days, the wide boulevards and tidy parks of downtown Minsk were full of protesters, most of whom had ventured into the streets for the first time. They were met by riot police, tear gas and stun grenades so loud the residents could hear the echoes in their homes. The authorities cut off the internet — the only way to understand what was happening was to go outside.One of Diana’s neighbors, a mother in her 40s, drove downtown with a friend. On one corner, she watched five siloviki beat one unarmed protester. On another, she saw two young men running away as the siloviki sicced dogs on them. At a junction, a silovik in full riot gear was running after someone; when he missed the protester, he started beating the mother’s car instead. She curled into a ball and waited for the assault to end. She had never had a reason to fear the siloviki before.Nearly 7,000 protesters were arrested in four days. Hundreds were beaten and tortured. Lukashenko called protesters “drug addicts” and “prostitutes.” Human Rights Watch documented prolonged stress positions, electric shocks and threats of rape. The group counted broken bones, cracked teeth, skin abrasions, inflicted electrical burns, kidney damage and traumatic brain injuries. It was an unprecedented level of brutality by the regime. On the fourth day after the election, hundreds of women carrying flowers formed a chain in the central market in Minsk, twisting Slavic misogyny in their favor. The siloviki didn’t know what to do — could they beat the women or arrest them or what?That night, Stepan messaged the building chat that they should do something, but there was so much fear, no one knew what would be safe. They decided to shout “Long live Belarus! Leave!” from their windows. The next night, Diana joined a small group gathered by the building entrance. Everyone was timid and anxious, but they shouted and waited. Nothing happened. The night after that, they ventured to the children’s playground and shouted slogans from there. The following day, they called to their neighbors to join them.In mid-August, the buildings woke up to the D.J. mural. Stepan messaged the building chat that everyone should come to the playground. Residents arrived with thermoses. They hung red and white ribbons on their fence and began to gather for tea every night. A few mornings later, the building chat pinged with a message:“The mural was painted over.”“The paint is not very good!” someone replied. “Looks like the municipal workers saved money and mixed the paint with water!”“Let’s wash it off!”Diana was already at the salon, but Vasili joined a dozen others with rags and water. The paint rubbed off easily. The D.J.s re-emerged from the gray background.In the chat, meanwhile, others were composing a letter:Dear Citizen of the Republic of Belarus constantly painting over the current mural with persistence worthy of another use,We appreciate your hard work, whether you work under compulsion or out of personal conviction. After all, we ourselves had to work hard to build these beautiful houses, playground and this exit from the parking lot that our authorities dislike so much. We appreciate all work and even though we don’t agree with you, we want you to be happy. It hurts to see the camera recordings where you have such a sad face. Smile. Go to the coffee house at 62 Chervyakova Street. There is paid coffee and cookies for you and your comrade. Every labor should bring joy. (Thank you for putting down a tarp.)— Tenants of the yard.They hung it next to the mural and waited.By the end of August, Lukashenko’s system seemed to be teetering. Hundreds of thousands of citizens had joined weekly Sunday marches demanding a recount. State-run factories held walkouts. Siloviki publicly handed over their badges. State-TV journalists resigned or even dared to air segments devoted to the protests. On a visit to Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant, Lukashenko was greeted with loud boos and shouts of “Leave!” He appeared shaken and vowed that they would have to kill him first.One Sunday march, Lukashenko reportedly took to the skies in a helicopter, buzzing over the crowds. He returned to the presidential palace and stalked the grounds brandishing a Kalashnikov with his 15-year-old son, Nikolai, wearing a bulletproof vest and condemning the “rats.”Neighborhood and building courtyard chats had proliferated around Minsk to coordinate smaller actions. Residents of Diana’s building sewed giant red-and-white flags and hung them off the balconies, spanning four floors. Then Stepan, the arborist, strung up a home-sewn red-and-white flag between two buildings, using children’s socks stuffed with uncooked rice as weights. Almost immediately, a fire truck arrived to take it down, but the firefighters couldn’t figure out how to get on the roof. They sat in their truck all night, waiting. By morning, one line had sagged, and they were able to cut the rope. But they still couldn’t get on the second building’s roof to cut the line on the other side, so they left to find a door cutter. Stepan quickly pulled the cut side back up again. When the siloviki returned with the fire truck, dressed in all black, the whole group stormed the building. “Look, it’s Special Operation Flag!” residents taunted on their neighborhood chat.And so it became a routine. Each time the municipality painted over the mural, the residents came right back down to wipe the paint off. Whenever they cut down the ribbons on the fence, the group put them back up again. One day in September, the residents had to wash the paint off twice in one day. At some point the authorities seemed to tire of cutting the ribbons and a man came with a blowtorch and burned them instead. Someone had made a Square of Change sign in the same style and lettering as all the street signs in Minsk, white letters against a blue background. When the authorities knocked it down, residents nailed it back.People had started making pilgrimages to the Square, taking photos of themselves against the famous backdrop. Visitors left gifts — candies, honey, cookies and notes of support. They came from other parts of Belarus or as far away as Moscow and Vilnius. A Belarusian American from Florida visiting Minsk came to take a photograph. Someone programmed “Square of Change” into Yandex — the Russian Google Maps equivalent, which is widely used in Belarus — and it was official.The Square became its own universe. It had a Telegram channel, an Instagram account and a Facebook page. There were Square of Change sweatshirts and stickers. Dozens of residents would gather there every evening. Unlike the Minsk streets or weekly citywide Sunday marches, where people continued to be detained, the courtyard felt safe, like an island of freedom where residents could create the community they had long been denied.Sept. 11, 2020 Police officers near the D.J.s mural during patrols in the Square.Yauhen AttsetskiOne day in the middle of September, the authorities returned to the mural. This time, Stepan and a few others stood in front of the booth, blocking their access. Stepan asked the officers wearing balaclavas to identify themselves. “If you show your credentials, we will, of course, follow the orders of any policeman,” Stepan repeated loudly and calmly, his hands behind his back. Two siloviki in ski masks grabbed him and carried him away. Residents blocked the police car with their bodies and filmed the whole encounter. “Take off your mask!” they shouted. “Show your face! Introduce yourselves! This is our children’s playground!” An unmarked van pulled up, and a group of men in green, wearing ski masks, ran out. They grabbed Stepan, threw him in the van and sped off.That night, the residents gathered to discuss what happened. Diana thought maybe he would be held overnight, maybe for a few days at most. But the following week, Stepan was still in detention, and state television ran a program saying prosecutors knew he was planning to poison the police. They accused him of being the organizer of the Square of Change and said they found chemicals and murderous plans in his house.Everyone was incredulous. The group decided that they would show the authorities who the real organizers were. They printed masks with Stepan’s face on them and took photos: “We are all Stepan Latypov,” they posted on Instagram.But the initial optimism was fading. Peaceful marches were shrinking as attendance became more dangerous. During the postelection melee, Sviatlana had been detained and forced into exile in Lithuania. From Vilnius, she had started calling herself the “leader of democratic Belarus.” A quasi-state had reconstituted itself around her as other political figures, NGO workers, campaigners and civic activists fled or were driven out of the country to Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania or Poland. Those who had not fled were arrested; there were no protest leaders left in Minsk.Putin had publicly congratulated Lukashenko on his victory soon after the election, but his patron had made no other large-scale moves of support. Pragmatists knew their fate was tied to Moscow. Given the personal animosity between the two leaders and the rumors that the opposition candidates were actually Kremlin-approved plants, people thought perhaps Putin would withdraw his support for Lukashenko. Sviatlana and the opposition had taken pains to paint themselves as Russia and E.U. neutral. This had nothing to do with wanting to join the E.U. or NATO, they said — they just wanted free elections.But in mid-September, Lukashenko and Putin met in Sochi, and the Kremlin extended a $1.5 billion loan, cementing continued support for Lukashenko’s regime. Lukashenko dug in and reshuffled the security services, promoting hard-liners, and quickly began making overtures to Russia. Some of the gestures were performative — floating the removal from the Constitution of the country’s neutrality — but others were more concrete. He released the Wagner mercenaries, and the Russian National Guard reportedly signed a cooperation agreement with Belarus’s police force to combat “terrorism and extremism.”Everyone was sure there were siloviki sitting in the open chats, monitoring them. We should start a new secret chat, everyone whispered to one another when they met in the playground. But no one wanted to be the administrator; it was too dangerous. “I’ll do it,” Diana decided. She was tired of hearing everyone repeating the same thing without taking action. The secret chat quickly ballooned with enthusiasts. Diana thought it was getting too big to be secure; she had to be able to trust everyone in the chat. I am Diana, the chat administrator. I want to hear from each of you, privately or publicly. I need your real name and your photo, for security. Don’t be shy. She uploaded a photo of herself and sent it. She tried to meet everyone in person, either at the playground or on a walk. She wanted to find out who they were, what they wanted to accomplish and what skills they had that could help the Square. When it was done, about 60 people remained.Sept. 15, 2020 Constantly painted over and restored, the D.J.s were forever re-emerging as residents of the Square organized against the authorities. Yauhen AttsetskiEvery Sunday at 7 a.m., Diana wrote out the instructions: “Good morning, guys. Today is a day to be responsible. We are going to a march. Whoever isn’t going, cheer for those who are going. Those who are going: The first thing we do is clear all our history, then wipe our pictures. Good luck to everyone. We’ll meet again tonight.” She would delete the whole chat before she left the house and resurrect it at 5 p.m. with a dummy poll, something like: “How would you rate the weather? 1 to 10?”Diana previously assigned everyone in the chat a number, and whatever question she posed, each person had to reply with his or her assigned number. If someone responded with another number or didn’t reply at all, Diana assumed that person had been compromised in some way and would remove him or her from the group chat. Every night before midnight, Diana would ask everyone to check in with their numbers.In the chat, they operated as a democracy, debating future actions, voting on ideas. Diana was a natural leader, stern when she needed to be, unafraid to speak her mind, even if nearly everyone in the group was older than she was.By October, three months after the election, 16,000 people had been detained. There were 101 political prisoners. Diana instituted safeguards for the chat. If they attended a protest, they should let her know, so she could make sure they made it back. She kept a record of their screen names hidden on a piece of paper in her apartment for that day. At night, she would rip it up into small pieces.Sept. 15, 2020 Stepan Latypov, who after opposing the Belarusian authorities attempted suicide during his trial and was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.Ulf Mauder/picture-alliance/dpa/AP ImagesThe Square of Change continued to flourish. The members gathered there every evening. They held concerts and performances nearly every night. One evening, residents watched a video of the D.J.s thanking the Square. After the D.J.s’ arrests and a 10-day sentence, they had fled the country. Another night, Sviatlana called in. By November, the residents had added Saturday fairs to the weekly repertoire, bringing food, small items like handmade soaps and art for the kids. Diana had delegated many of the roles — managing content for their Telegram channel and Instagram account, creating the nightly performance schedule. There was even someone in charge of keeping track of the thermoses.In her apartment, Diana kept a prepacked bag she called a “panic suitcase” filled with items of first necessity to bring to those who were detained. She found a friend who never seemed to mind being woken up in the middle of the night to drive her to detention facilities. When someone was released, the group always greeted them with a cake made by a sympathetic pastry chef with icing that read: Hero of the Square of Change.On the night of Nov. 11, Diana heard that someone had written “Lukashenko is a sucker” in marker on the parking booth, and she went down with acetone to remove it. She hated when people did vulgar things on the Square. Roman Bondarenko, a 31-year-old store manager whom everyone called Roma for short, came up to Diana beaming. “I quit my job!” He announced happily. An interview for his dream graphic-design job earlier that afternoon had gone well. “Now I will come to the courtyard every day!”Diana first met Roma after someone speculated in a chat that he was a tihar, a plainclothes policeman, because of the way he dressed, always in black, with his hood pulled over his head. Plainclothes police officers had a habit of monitoring protests. At an earlier gathering on the Square, Diana confronted him.“Are you a tihar or not?” she asked.“Me?” He turned toward her, incredulous, his blue eyes wide and earnest. “I’m Roma! I’m not a tihar!” Roma would eventually persuade them of his sincerity when they saw him teaching their children to draw at a Saturday fair.That night by the booth, Vasili trotted over to them. “We need to leave now,” he said sharply. “Unmarked vans have arrived.” Everyone knew that meant trouble, and they decided to split up for safety. As she walked, Diana noticed strangers on the Square. They were wearing hats, hoods and face masks. After getting into a car with a friend, she messaged the chat: Guys, there are buses in the courtyard. Please do not go out. We will redo the ribbons. Let’s not go out. Everybody got it?Everyone agreed.One woman did not see the messages. She came back from the store with her child and confronted the masked men. Another woman walking by joined her. Roma watched from a window.“I’m going out,” he wrote in the chat.Seven minutes later, he wrote again. “Come out.”No one replied. Diana had the feeling something weird was going on. “Guys, what is happening?” she wrote. “Why is it so quiet?”“There was a fight, some people ran away,” they replied.“Was anyone taken?”Residents had access to the buildings’ security cameras, and they started uploading and poring over the footage. In the videos, Diana watched the masked men taunt Roma. It was clear to her he wasn’t there for a fight. Trying to protect the women, he stood with his hands in his pockets. The men started to beat him and carried him away. Diana wasn’t overly worried. It seemed like the usual detention. They would need to locate Roma and bring him the panic suitcase.They called the precinct a few times and were told there was no one by the name of Roman Bondarenko there. When they called again, they were told Roma had been there, but he had started to feel sick and was sent to the hospital. When they called the hospital, no one picked up. Diana thought maybe they broke his arm or leg when they loaded him into the bus. “We should go there and bring him some stuff,” she wrote the chat. “Give me five minutes.”A carful of them arrived at the hospital at 2 a.m. After a few tries and incorrect names, the receptionist told Diana that Roma was in surgery. But when Diana called the surgery department, they told her Roma wasn’t there.“What the hell?” Diana raised her voice. She was tired and angry. “I didn’t get this number off the top of my head! The registrar told me that a Roman came to you. All day today everyone is telling me they didn’t admit Roma.”The receptionist at the desk beckoned to Diana, passing her another number. Diana looked at her with exasperation.“I made a mistake,” the receptionist said uncomfortably. “He’s not … in surgery.”“Then where?”“Neurosurgery.”Diana started shaking. She didn’t want to think about what that meant. She took a minute to collect herself. When she called neurosurgery, she learned that Roma had been in the operating room for several hours.“He was admitted in what state?” Diana asked.“Unconscious.”“Thank you.” Diana hung up. They sat down in silence.Nov. 14, 2020 A memorial in the Square for Roman Bondarenko, who died after he was detained by the police.Yauhen AttsetskiRoma died at 7:10 p.m. the next day. All day the large Telegram channels and media carried his story. The group had left the hospital vowing that what happened to Roman Bondarenko in his own backyard would be everywhere. They spent the twilight hours finding Roma’s family to inform them. They also contacted every journalist and channel they could. By evening, the Square was crammed with people holding a vigil more crowded than any previous event.The following day, there was a minute of silence. It felt as if Minsk froze all at once. As soon as it was over, cars started beeping, and the city wailed in unison. Even more people thronged the Square with candles and flowers. “We won’t forget, we won’t forgive,” they chanted through tears.The authorities denied responsibility for Roma’s death, saying he had been killed in a fight, while Lukashenko told reporters Roma had been “drunk.” In response, someone leaked a copy of Roma’s medical records, which stated that he had no alcohol in his system. He had died of a hematoma.Telegram channels began calling for a Sunday march through the city that would end at the Square. Others called for an occupation like the one the Ukrainians had in 2014. The residents of the Square thought this was a terrible idea. “The Square is surrounded on two sides by a metal fence,” they wrote to everyone. “It will be easy for the police to trap everyone and arrest them all.” No one listened. Chat members started patrolling their own courtyard asking people to remove tents and take supplies somewhere else.That Sunday, the march was enormous. Diana watched from a balcony as people flooded the route. In the afternoon, lines of siloviki moved toward the marchers, cutting them off at different intervals. They were kettling the crowds. Diana rushed downstairs to the entryway just as people started running into the courtyard. Residents had opened the three buildings’ doors and started letting people inside, ushering them up the elevators and the stairs. “Guys, run!” Diana shouted as she watched the black wave of riot police rolling in from one side, then another. Streaks of color raced by her, hurrying through the door. She slammed it shut at the last second.But the security services soon managed to get in and started going from apartment to apartment. “They’re here,” someone would message. “They’re here too,” another would add.Since Diana had been the last one upstairs, she hadn’t taken anyone in. She, her mother and Tima sat with the lights off in silence. Her mother was terrified, but Diana wasn’t scared. Since Roma’s death, she had felt nothing but fury. “Why should we be afraid? We are in our own apartment.” Diana turned on the lights and started making noise.The chat pinged with stories. People had taken up to 20 people per flat. Some refused to open their doors. Others opened them with great theatrics.“Are there people here?” the siloviki asked.“Yes, one behind the couch, and two in the closet.”The siloviki thought they were kidding and left.Another called her priest. She explained to the seven people she was sheltering that they were congregants of such and such church on such and such street. She taught them some prayers and streamed an online sermon. When the police knocked, she opened the door.“What is this!” The officer asked, looking at the people seated in the living room.“We’re listening to the word of God,” she explained. She pushed her screen toward the officer. “Hello!” the priest bellowed.A portrait of Roman Bondarenko at his mother’s apartment. Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesTwo journalists from Belsat TV, an opposition station based out of Warsaw, were livestreaming from the 14th floor. The police flew a drone above the building to find them. They cut the door off the apartment and detained them. They would be sentenced to two years in prison, the first time criminal charges would be applied to journalists covering protests. Around 100 people took shelter in the basement. They spent 16 hours hiding without heat, light and food.Some officers simply carried people to police vans, while others took the opportunity to punch and kick those they detained. Diana thought about the system that killed Roma. For so many years, they had all been part of it, paying their taxes or working directly for the state. Diana knew each person had just been trying to survive. Then they woke up and constructed the most beautiful version of their country, not just the people of the three buildings but all those people who felt this New Belarus in their hearts. When would they be able to live in that country?The morning after the march, residents woke to a police patrol that would stay on the Square 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for nearly five months. A pair of officers stood at each building, and three pairs walked the children’s playground. The mural had been painted and repainted so often no one could say exactly how many times, but they thought it was at least 18. Now it was gone again.The police patrolled the courtyard through the winter snow and spring rain, checking people’s identification papers to make sure they were building residents. All the while, the secret chat continued to agitate. Neighborhood marches were instituted. Members of chats met with other neighborhood chats and went on short, clandestine walks. The residents of the Square staged covert actions in their stairwells, filming five floors of people, their backs to the camera, lined up with a view of the courtyard police patrol in the distance. They took photos behind the parking booth with the white-red-white flag, just under the siloviki’s noses, and posted them online. On the 12th of every month, they released a video to commemorate Roma’s death on their channels. They fantasized endlessly about resurrecting the mural.The cost of even small protests was rising. By April, there were more than 350 political prisoners. What was previously a five-to-15-day administrative detention was now indefinite pretrial detention with possible criminal charges that carried years of prison time. But if they had put their hands down, mourned and kept silent, what would have been the point of Roma’s death? Diana asked herself. No, they had to keep fighting, putting up stickers and posting photos. Small symbols had grown larger. These ciphers mattered.On April 8, 2021, the residents woke up to an empty Square — the patrols had vanished. So they started to plan. If the first few times they put up the D.J.s they had done it mostly in the open, they knew better now. They met in the parking garage at midnight on May 8, the eve of the Great Patriotic War’s Victory Day. They all had taken their own routes there to avoid the security cameras. Each one had a task — some were on lookout, others would put up ribbons, some would work on the flag and others would draw the mural. They changed into matching white hazmat suits in the parking lot, wore gloves to hide their fingerprints and grabbed the supplies. They wore headphones, tuned to the same channel and waited.When they received the signal, Diana and Vasili walked straight to the booth’s wall. Even if someone had screamed at her, Diana was sure she wouldn’t have noticed; her ears were thudding with the sound of her pulse. The D.J. stencil was big. Diana held it for Vasili, and he held it for her. He had climbed the wall and hung off a metal pipe above her. It was as if they were one unit, a mechanism working in tandem. Diana did the bottom and threw the canister up to Vasili, who grabbed it midair and began to paint. He dropped the canister down to her, and she caught it with one hand. The adrenaline hit hard, the kaleidoscopic sensation of being outside her body. They were done in four minutes.The ribbons were up, the flag was raised, the mural was repainted. They went back to the parking lot, changed and exited the way they planned. They would all walk around the neighborhood for a while, taking different routes, arriving home at different times through different entrances. They were giddy; no one had seen anything. A few hours later, photos of the mural were everywhere — on the news, on Telegram, on Tut.by. The Square of Change had returned.They were caught the following week. One participant, who went by Tanya, had violated protocol and gone home straight from the parking lot. Her face was everywhere on the security-camera footage. On Friday at 7 a.m., plainclothes police officers arrived at her door. She held them off for an hour, stalling by calling the police on the police.As word spread through the chat, people panicked. If there was one thing they were sure of, it was the ability of Belarusian security services to break the weakest link — they knew Tanya had a child with a disability, so it wouldn’t take much. They were all worried they would be next. Some started clearing their apartments of anything incriminating. Diana disconnected her buzzer to give herself time to think. She needed to be normal; she needed to take Tima to kindergarten. She went to the bathroom to take a shower. As she turned on the water, she started wiping her phone. There was pounding on the door.Diana opened it in her towel, half naked. “Hello, I’m in the shower,” she said. “Come in or stay out there, but I have to get dressed.” She went back into the bathroom and cursed to herself. She erased the chat and her contacts. She unsubscribed from opposition Telegram channels. She came out of the bathroom with a clean phone.The two men said they were from the criminal investigations department. “You know why we are here,” they said. They told her to call Vasili. She told them she didn’t have his contacts. She was showing them her clean phone when an alert flashed. It was a message from Vasili: “Someone is knocking on my door.”One of the men took Diana’s phone. “Open it, everything is fine,” he typed, and he hit send. Diana was furious but had little recourse. One of the investigators was talkative, bantering about this or that, while the other stood masked and silent in the entryway. They told her she would be coming to the station.Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The state of peace talks. More

  • in

    A Democratic Super PAC’s Ad Buy Shows a Widening Battle for House Control

    The Democrats’ House Majority PAC is spending nearly $102 million to reserve advertising time in 51 media markets, staking out a broad battlefield for the coming midterm elections.WASHINGTON — The House Democrats’ main political action committee is spending nearly $102 million to reserve advertising spots in 50 media markets, from Bangor, Maine, to San Diego, Calif., a battlefield that is considerably larger and more expensive than it was in the past two congressional elections.The breadth of the congressional map reveals the scope of Democrats’ worries about holding seats in midterm elections. Areas once considered safe, like South Texas, greater Pittsburgh and Seattle will see Democratic advertising.But Democrats will be playing some offense, too, especially in California, where redistricting has opened up Republican targets.“We are doing whatever it takes to hold the majority, and there are opportunities across the map,” said Abby Curran Horrell, the executive director of the House Democrats’ political action committee, known as House Majority PAC, adding, “We feel confident about the races that we plan to play in.”Her Republican counterpart, Dan Conston of the Congressional Leadership Fund, said the huge expenditure is a sign of weakness and an admission that inflation, rising crime rates and an unpopular Democratic president will not only cost Democrats swing districts but also make some districts President Biden won handily fiercely competitive.“I think they believe they’ve already lost the majority,” he said. “This is about staving off losses in some deep blue, traditionally Democratic areas.”The spending comes even as redistricting has shriveled the number of districts considered competitive based on election results in 2020. House district maps gerrymandered by both parties have left fewer than 40 seats — potentially far fewer — that would have been closely divided between Republican and Democratic voters in 2020. But the new advertising reservations point to a map that has expanded far beyond those districts.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Analysis: For years, the congressional map favored Republicans over Democrats. But in 2022, the map is poised to be surprisingly fair.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.Wednesday’s reservations in 51 markets stand out, even in recent history. In 2020, House Majority PAC made initial advertising reservations in 29 media markets, with half the money it is spending Wednesday. In the Democratic wave year of 2018, $43 million was put down early for reservations in 33 markets.Democrats holding swing seats will see advertising spent on their behalf. Among the beneficiaries will be Representatives Jared Golden of Maine, Abigail Spanberger and Elaine Luria of Virginia, Cindy Axne of Iowa, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Angie Craig of Minnesota and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.But with Mr. Biden’s approval ratings hovering near 40 percent, House Majority PAC is reserving advertising time to defend some entrenched Democratic incumbents, whose political holds are weakened not just by the president but by newly drawn districts. Representative Sanford Bishop, for instance, has represented a swath of southern Georgia since 1993. Yet the PAC is reserving $2.6 million of ad space in three media markets to boost his re-election.A member of the Kildee family has represented the area around Flint, Mich., for 45 years — first Dale Kildee, then his nephew Dan, who took the seat nearly a decade ago. But new district lines and a stiff political headwind have forced House Majority PAC to make a hefty advertising reservation of more than $1 million to try to save the younger Kildee’s House career. Media stations in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., will get more than $1.7 million as the PAC tries to save Representative Matt Cartwright, another veteran.In Colorado, the last several elections seemed to turn the districts around Boulder and Denver into a reliable shade of blue. But redistricting and the retirement of Representative Ed Perlmutter have prompted House Majority PAC to pony up $4.4 million in the Denver media market to defend the state’s seventh and eighth districts.And the marked movement of Hispanic voters toward the Republican Party is forcing Democratic spending in South Texas to try to secure two House districts that stretch from the once reliably Democratic Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio and its suburbs.Rep. Katie Porter at a town hall meeting in Irvine, Calif., in 2019.Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesRep. Mike Levin at an event hosted by the Democratic Party of Orange County, Calif., in 2019.Allison Zaucha for The New York TimesDemocrats are also preparing to spend big to stave off defeats in Southern California, focusing their defenses on Representatives Katie Porter and Mike Levin.The advertising reservations also show how painful it will be to defend the seats of the 31 House Democrats who have announced their retirements or are seeking other offices. Millions of dollars will be spent to save the seats of Mr. Perlmutter and other retiring Democrats, including Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Cheri Bustos of Illinois and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina.Democrats are defending the seats of the 31 House Democrats who have announced their retirements or are seeking other offices. They include, from left, Rep. Cheri Bustos, Rep. Ron Kind, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Rep. G.K. Butterfield, and Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. Win McNamee/Getty Images, Lauren Justice for The New York Times, Pool photo by Anna Moneymaker, Erin Schaff/The New York Times, Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times, Kelly Presnell/Arizona Daily Star, via Associated PressThe multitude of races in some states is also challenging Democratic efforts. In Nevada, for instance, where Democrats are trying to hold onto the governorship, a Senate seat, and three House seats, House Majority PAC is shelling out $11.6 million in Las Vegas alone.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

  • in

    Call Logs Underscore Trump’s Efforts to Sway Lawmakers on Jan. 6

    New details from White House documents provided to the House panel investigating the Capitol assault show a 7-hour gap in records of calls made by the former president on the day of the riot.WASHINGTON — As part of his frenzied attempt to cling to power, President Donald J. Trump reached out repeatedly to members of Congress on Jan. 6 both before and during the siege of the Capitol, according to White House call logs and evidence gathered by the House committee investigating the attack.The logs, reported earlier by The Washington Post and CBS and authenticated by The New York Times, indicated that Mr. Trump had called Republican members of Congress, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, as he sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from several states.But the logs also have a large gap with no record of calls by Mr. Trump from critical hours when investigators know that he was making them. The call logs were among documents turned over by the National Archives to the House committee examining the Jan. 6 attack last year on the Capitol.The New York Times reported last month that the committee had discovered gaps in official White House telephone logs from the day of the riot. The Washington Post and CBS reported Tuesday that a gap in the phone logs amounted to seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being assaulted.Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any of the call logs were tampered with or deleted. It is well known that Mr. Trump routinely used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, to talk with other aides, congressional allies and outside confidants, bypassing the normal channels of presidential communication and possibly explaining why the calls were not logged.The logs appear to have captured calls that were routed through the White House switchboard. Three former officials who worked under Mr. Trump said that he mostly used the switchboard operator for outgoing calls when he was in the residence. He would occasionally use it from the Oval Office, the former officials said, but more often he would make calls through the assistants sitting outside the office, as well as from his cellphone or an aide’s cellphone. The assistants were supposed to keep records of the calls, but officials said the record-keeping was not thorough.People trying to reach Mr. Trump sometimes called the cellphone of Dan Scavino Jr., the former deputy chief of staff and omnipresent aide, one of the former officials said. (The House committee investigating the attack recommended Monday evening that Mr. Scavino be charged with criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with a subpoena from the panel.)But the call logs nevertheless show how personally involved Mr. Trump was in his last-ditch attempt to stay in office.One of the calls made by Mr. Trump on Jan. 6, 2021 — at 9:16 a.m. — was to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate’s top Republican, who refused to go along with Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign. Mr. Trump checked with the White House switchboard operator at 10:40 a.m. to make sure a message had been left for Mr. McConnell.Mr. McConnell declined to return the president’s calls, he told reporters on Tuesday.“The last time I spoke to the president was the day after the Electoral College declared President Biden the winner,” Mr. McConnell said. “I publicly congratulated President Biden on his victory and received a phone call after that from President Trump and that’s the last time we’ve spoke.”The logs also show Mr. Trump reached out on the morning of Jan. 6 to Mr. Jordan, who had been among those members of Congress organizing objections to Mr. Biden’s election on the House floor.The logs show Mr. Trump and Mr. Jordan spoke from 9:24 a.m. to 9:34 a.m. Mr. Jordan has acknowledged speaking with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6, though he has said he cannot remember how many times they spoke that day or when the calls occurred.Mr. Trump called Mr. Hawley at 9:39 a.m., and Mr. Hawley returned his phone call. A spokesman for Mr. Hawley said Tuesday that the two men did not connect and did not speak until March. Mr. Hawley had been the first senator to announce he would object to President Biden’s victory, and continued his objections even after rioters stormed the building and other senators backed off the plan.The logs also show that Mr. Trump spoke from 11:04 a.m. to 11:06 a.m. with former Senator David Perdue, Republican of Georgia, who had recently lost his re-election campaign to Senator Jon Ossoff.A spokesman for Senator Bill Hagerty, Republican of Tennessee, confirmed he had called Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 but said they did not connect. Mr. Hagerty declined to comment.Despite the lack of call records from the White House, the committee has learned that Mr. Trump spoke on the phone with other Republican lawmakers on the morning of Jan. 6.For instance, Mr. Trump mistakenly called the phone of Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, thinking it was the number of Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama. Mr. Lee then passed the phone to Mr. Tuberville, who said he had spoken to Mr. Trump for less than 10 minutes as rioters were breaking into the building.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 4Trump’s tweet. More