Elections

The far rightProud Boys leader gets five months for burning BLM banner and weapons crimesEnrique Tarrio participated in burning of banner pulled from Black church and brought magazines to DC days before Capitol attack G More

A draft report on a much-ridiculed review of the 2020 election results in Arizona’s largest county has been delayed by a Covid-19 outbreak on the team preparing the analysis, the Republican president of the Arizona State Senate said on Monday.The president, Senator Karen Fann, said in a statement that three people on the five-member team were “quite sick,” including Doug Logan, the chief executive of the Florida-based company, Cyber Ninjas, that is in charge of the review.A portion of the draft was still set to be delivered to Ms. Fann on Monday, but the remainder will await the recovery of the three team members. Lawyers for the State Senate will begin reviewing the partial draft on Wednesday, Ms. Fann said, and more meetings will be required before the findings of the review are made public.The statement offered no hint of the contents of the partial draft. Mr. Logan and others involved in the review have previously claimed to have found irregularities in the official results of the November balloting, only to see those allegations debunked by election officials.Mr. Logan’s company began reviewing 2.1 million ballots and election equipment from Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, in April on orders of the Republican majority in the State Senate. Ms. Fann has said that the review was conducted to address claims of voter fraud by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, though no evidence of widespread fraud exists. She has also said that President Biden’s narrow victories in both the county and the state would remain official regardless of the findings.Ms. Fann and other supporters of the review have argued that it was thorough and nonpartisan. But a range of election experts and the Republican-led leadership of Maricopa County have denounced the exercise from the beginning, citing haphazard rules for handling and counting ballots as well as lax security.Supporters’ claims of an impartial review have been broadly dismissed. Mr. Logan spread conspiracy theories of a rigged election in Arizona on Twitter last year; his firm recruited volunteer workers for the review through Republican organizations; and virtually the entire cost of the exercise has been shouldered by conservative groups supporting Mr. Trump.On Monday, Ms. Fann said the draft report had been further delayed because images of mail-ballot envelopes that had been demanded from Maricopa County election officials were delivered only on Thursday. A final report will be released, she said, only after a final meeting “to continue checking for accuracy, clarity and proof of documentation of findings.” More

US Capitol attackUS Capitol police clear officer who shot dead 6 January rioter Ashli BabbittCapitol police issue result of investigation into how and why Babbitt was shot as she and others tried to break through door

US politics – live updates
Joanna Walters@ More

Just over a year ago, on Aug. 9, 2020, I stood in Belarus’s presidential election against Aleksandr Lukashenko. The dictator, who has ruled the country for 27 years with an iron fist, stole victory from us, setting off widespread protests. We united in a national pro-democracy movement to demand the release of all political prisoners, an end to state violence and a free and fair election.The regime responded with violence. Since then, more than 35,000 people have been detained, nearly 5,000 of whom claim they were tortured. The authorities have started 4,691 politically motivated criminal cases, and according to Viasna, an independent human rights center, there are now over 600 political prisoners. Ten people have lost their lives.The past year has been hard. Belarusians learned that the road to democracy is long and arduous. But the struggle goes beyond Belarus: All democratic nations have a stake in the future of the country. Not only is there a moral imperative to support our cause, but there’s a strategic one, too, as an autocratic regime threatens to spread chaos across Europe. For the good of the continent, it must be stopped. And Belarusians, who have already come so far, must be free.The strength of our democratic movement is plain to see. Last year, on Aug. 16, hundreds of thousands of Belarusians took to the streets. Since then, there have been peaceful protests, big and small, formal and informal, all over the country. By the end of the year, up to 1.5 million people had taken part in demonstrations. People organized themselves organically through social media, YouTube and Telegram channels.The opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya at a presidential campaign rally in Maladzechna, Belarus, in 2020.Sergei Gapon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThere have been setbacks, of course. Our reliance on the internet made us susceptible to shutdowns and censorship — websites blocked, media outlets raided — and the regime’s merciless repression, over time, diminished some people’s appetite for protest. What’s more, we struggled to persuade state and security officials to defect, a prerequisite for the felling of the regime.In response, we’ve built a new civil society based on a network of solidarity funds, striking committees, citizen media, mutual aid organizations and volunteer groups — often coordinated through secure messaging or even printed newspapers. And we have sought, through our comprehensive plan for national reconciliation, to persuade those not involved in state crimes against Belarusians to join us. The strength of our movement lies in horizontal networks, informal communities and the shared belief in a Belarus that is free, lawful and democratic.My husband was jailed for daring to run against our president, so I ran in his place.And the world has united around us. Sometimes Belarus — as I discovered when meeting the leaders of 31 countries — is one of the few subjects on which a country’s political groups agree. Now we’re calling for a high-level international conference to develop a road map for a peaceful and negotiated way out of the crisis. Mr. Lukashenko, of course, may try to obstruct such efforts. But we believe it’s possible, through holding a free and fair election under international observation in the next six months.As I emphasized in my recent meetings with President Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, democratic countries have a moral obligation to support us: Belarus is on the front line of the struggle between autocracy and democracy. International support has been heartening, but more can be done. We want the democratic community to develop and expand aid programs — such as Denmark’s support for independent media and Germany’s funding for students — for Belarusian civil society.And the regime must be targeted. We welcome the sanctions announced by the European Union and the United States on the regime’s enterprises and individuals funding or carrying out repression: It’s now crucial to remove any loopholes Mr. Lukashenko and his allies may exploit. The regime should also be cut off from international funding coming from the United Nations, the World Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development — and denied access to financial support from the International Monetary Fund. What’s more, the dictatorship in Belarus should be brought before international courts to answer for its crimes.After all, it’s not just about Belarus. The regime has become a security problem for all of Europe. In May, in an act of wanton aggression, the regime forced the landing of a European plane to capture a journalist. Just this month, a Belarusian community leader was found hanged in Kyiv. Unless we contain the bandit at large in the middle of Europe, no European citizen is safe.The regime, to be sure, could try to buy time for itself — by imitating reform and trying to trade the release of political prisoners for a softening of sanctions, as some state diplomats have suggested. The world should not be fooled. Instead, through strong and united support, the democratic nations across the globe can help Belarus step out of dictatorship and into freedom.Svetlana Tikhanovskaya (@Tsihanouskaya) is a Belarusian opposition leader.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

Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, wants New Yorkers to take him seriously as a mayoral candidate against Eric Adams.Curtis Sliwa is certainly no novice in the art of grabbing headlines in New York City.As the founder of the Guardian Angels, Mr. Sliwa and his trademark red beret became a staple at high-crime areas and at news conferences following high-profile crimes. Years later, he found a new life as a popular AM radio host; survived a shooting that left him with five bullet wounds; and testified at a federal trial against John A. Gotti, the Gambino crime family scion.But now that Mr. Sliwa is the Republican candidate for mayor in New York City, he finds himself in an unusual position: He cannot seem to get voters’ attention.“I’m a cognoscenti of local politics for years since I was a kid — I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said in an interview. “This is the first time in the history of local electoral politics that basically you have one person who has to fight to be heard even though I’m on the Republican Party line.”Mr. Sliwa readily acknowledges that in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans six to one, he is a severe underdog in his race against his Democratic rival, Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.Indeed, in the weeks since winning the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, Mr. Adams has visited the White House, appeared on “The View” and trumpeted himself as the future of the Democratic Party.Mr. Sliwa has had to contend with a far less glamorous path.Mr. Sliwa, in his trademark red beret, is often easily recognized in New York City.James Estrin/The New York TimesHe has welcomed reporters into his 320-square-foot studio apartment, giving individual guided tours of his odd living arrangements with 16 rescue cats. He has held a series of news conferences, but few have received any coverage of note.And when Mr. Sliwa did something he almost never does — remove his iconic red beret at a recent rally — the move was lampooned when it revealed a tan line that brought to mind a black-and-white cookie.Through it all, Mr. Sliwa remains rather sanguine.“Who at the age of 67 is running around wearing a red beret and a red satin jacket and going out there like a crime fighter and a superhero from our days reading comic books?” Mr. Sliwa said on a recent morning while drinking tea on a bench near his apartment on the Upper West Side.“That’s a bit eccentric,” Mr. Sliwa added.A woman interrupted: “You better be the next mayor. I believe in you.”Another passer-by urged him to visit Albany to fix bail reform. A paramedic asked for a photo together and told him that he had worked with the Guardian Angels in Times Square in 1992.Mr. Sliwa might be a celebrity in New York, but he has failed so far to generate momentum as a candidate. He still has not qualified for public matching funds — a benchmark that even his Republican rival, Fernando Mateo, accomplished before he was trounced by Mr. Sliwa in the primary. Mr. Sliwa won with nearly 68 percent of the vote.At a recent news conference, Mr. Sliwa spoke out against vaccine mandates.Stephanie Keith for The New York TimesMr. Adams has already raised millions of dollars, is determined to raise at least $5 million more and is acting like his victory is inevitable. Mr. Sliwa has raised about $590,000 and has only $13,000 on hand.Mr. Sliwa faces other obstacles. He has never run for office, has no experience in government and has never managed a significant budget. He has received criticism for making racist and sexist comments over the years, including wearing a sombrero on NY1 to imitate Latino immigrants; after making lewd remarks about Melissa Mark-Viverito, then the City Council speaker, he was suspended by NY1 for roughly a month. (He has apologized for both incidents.) He also admitted in 1992 that the Guardian Angels had faked injuries as publicity stunts.“Curtis Sliwa destroyed his credibility long ago when he admitted he faked a kidnapping and other crimes for publicity and regularly spewed vile comments that mocked the diversity of New York,” Evan Thies, an Adams spokesman, said. “Every word that comes out of his mouth is either wrong or offensive or both.”Still, Mr. Sliwa argues that he can appeal to a broad swath of New Yorkers: conservatives, independents, animal lovers, Andrew Yang supporters and voters who want a change from Mayor Bill de Blasio, an ally of Mr. Adams. Mr. Sliwa also hopes that left-leaning Democrats who have doubts about Mr. Adams will sit out the election.Mr. Sliwa is running on a law-and-order message, but his Democratic opponent, Eric Adams, is a former police captain.Lev Radin/Sipa, via AP ImagesMr. Sliwa’s major policy proposal is property tax reform. He wants to make institutions like Madison Square Garden pay more taxes — an idea embraced by Mr. Yang. Mr. Sliwa recently backed another Yang idea: a pilot program for universal basic income. His plan would give 500 New Yorkers $1,100 a month.Mr. Sliwa has also focused on a law-and-order message, promising to hire thousands of police officers. But running against Mr. Adams — a former police captain — makes it harder for him to distinguish himself, said Peter T. King, the former longtime Republican congressman who endorsed Mr. Sliwa for mayor.“Probably any of the other candidates would have made it easier for Curtis because he could make the argument that they were defunding the cops,” Mr. King said. “It’s much harder to make that argument against Eric Adams.”“As someone who is pro-cop, these are the two best candidates from my perspective that we could have,” Mr. King added.Mr. Sliwa is also unabashedly courting animal lovers. He wants New York City to create a major no-kill shelter similar to an ambitious effort in Austin, Tex., and to offer a $1,000 debit card to people who rescue a cat from an animal shelter.Mr. Sliwa lives with his wife and 16 rescue cats in a 320-square-foot studio apartment on the Upper West Side.James Estrin/The New York TimesHis feline collection began when he moved in with his fourth wife, Nancy Sliwa, in an apartment steps from Central Park six years ago. She had rescued cats for years, and they took in ones that were sick or abandoned.The cats roamed their apartment on a recent morning and gathered in a front window to watch pigeons. The walls were lined with “Curtis Sliwa for Mayor” signs, a collage of large cat photos and news clips of Mr. Sliwa over the years. A cat named Hope climbed onto the dining table; Tuna sauntered across a photographer’s lap; Apollo and Athena hid in a closet.The apartment did not smell bad.“You change the litter three times a day,” Mr. Sliwa said.Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Sliwa have been public figures in New York City for decades. Mr. Sliwa said they first met in the 1990s when Mr. Adams ran for Congress against Representative Major Owens. Mr. Sliwa has two sons with his former girlfriend, Melinda Katz, the Queens district attorney, and used to see Mr. Adams when he attended events with Ms. Katz.“Some Democrats were adversarial,” Mr. Sliwa said. “Eric Adams was always friendly.”Mr. Sliwa first rose to fame in New York in 1979, when he formed the Guardian Angels.Bettmann Archive, via Getty ImagesWhen the men ran into each other at a Memorial Day parade in Staten Island earlier this year, Mr. Sliwa thanked Mr. Adams for defending the Guardian Angels in an essay in The New York Daily News in 2019. Mr. Adams told Mr. Sliwa that the ferocity of his primary debate with Mr. Mateo surprised him.“I said, ‘Eric, if I get into the general election, you can expect some of that — that’s for sure,’” Mr. Sliwa said. “Because you know me. I come at you from the streets.”Mr. Sliwa is unlikely to win, but he could get more votes than people expect, said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor emeritus of political science at Hunter College.“He might do surprisingly well,” Professor Sherrill said. “He is more of a natural candidate than the last two Republican candidates for mayor. He has huge name recognition.”Mr. Sliwa is already attacking Mr. Adams over questions of where he lives and about his close relationship with Frank Carone, a Brooklyn power broker, and he said he was looking forward to their debates in October.He said that an Adams administration would be plagued by conflicts of interest.“All it’s going to be is pure cronyism,” he said. “If you helped Eric, you’ll be rewarded. If you’ve been loyal to the Kings County Democratic machine, you’ll be rewarded.”Before running for mayor as a Republican, Mr. Sliwa led the Reform Party of New York State.James Estrin/The New York TimesMr. Sliwa would seem to have few political favors to return. Before joining the Republican Party last year, he led the Reform Party of New York State; in 2018, the last statewide election, the Reform Party drew the fewest votes for governor among 10 parties on the ballot.Mr. Sliwa said he plans to hold a town hall event with Mr. Yang’s supporters in the coming weeks. He expressed admiration for Mr. Yang, who, like Mr. Sliwa, ran as an outsider who argued that the city was on the wrong course.“Adams is embraced by de Blasio and Cuomo, and we’re supposed to expect him to do anything different?” Mr. Sliwa said.He continued to press that message at a flurry of recent events, including ones where he denounced Mr. de Blasio’s vaccine mandate for restaurants and gyms, opposed teaching critical race theory in schools and argued against building a new jail in Queens.The events were not well covered. Mr. Sliwa was undeterred.“I’ve done press conferences in my life in which nobody showed up,” he said. “I don’t take it as a slight. I know the deck is stacked against me.” More

Democrats fear that if the pandemic or the situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen, their party may lose the confidence of the moderate swing voters who lifted it to victory in 2020.With President Biden facing a political crisis that has shaken his standing in his party, Democrats across the country are increasingly worried about their ability to maintain power in Washington, as his administration struggles to defend its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and stanch a resurgent pandemic that appeared to be waning only weeks ago.While Americans watched devastating scenes of mayhem at the Kabul airport and ascendant Taliban forces last week, the steady drumbeat of bipartisan criticism left many Democrats frustrated and dismayed at a White House they viewed as having fumbled the end of the country’s longest war on multiple fronts.On Capitol Hill, lawmakers announced congressional investigations into the administration’s handling of the withdrawal, as a handful of Democratic lawmakers weighed whether calling for the resignation of Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, would help the president “reset the narrative,” according to a Democratic House member, speaking on the condition of anonymity.The harrowing images appalled even the president’s staunchest supporters, many of whom — like a majority of the American public — support the decision to remove American troops from Afghanistan. But some of them worry the execution of the withdrawal has undermined Mr. Biden’s central campaign promise to restore a steady hand to governance, particularly on issues of national security.Interviews with more than 40 Democrats, lawmakers, strategists and party officials show a White House at a pivot point. If the virus continues to worsen or the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates further, many of the president’s allies fear he will lose the confidence of the moderate swing voters who lifted his party to victory in 2020. Already, Democrats in battleground districts have been sounding alarms that the party needs to become more aggressive with their messaging, particularly on the economy and the efforts to combat the surge in coronavirus cases fueled by the highly contagious Delta variant.There are plenty of other reasons for Democrats to be worried: Historically, the president’s party loses seats in the midterm elections and the Republican advantage in redistricting has only increased those odds.For many establishment Democrats, the Taliban’s rapid seizure of Afghanistan was the first time during Mr. Biden’s administration that they found themselves creating any daylight between themselves and the president.“I consider Afghanistan a bone-headed mistake, unforced error,” said David Walters, a former Oklahoma governor who is now a member of the Democratic National Committee’s executive committee. “There is no real excuse. This was morally and politically a disaster and just bad policy.”Yet, so far, most of the party has walked a fine line between expressing dismay at the current situation while not publicly denouncing the White House’s role in it.“Afghanistan definitely has entered the conversation in a big way. We’ve done six or seven town halls in the last week and Afghanistan has come up in all of them,” said State Senator Jeff Jackson of North Carolina, an Army veteran who fought in Kandahar and is now running for the U.S. Senate. “It’s pretty clear there are concerns. They’ve seen the images we’ve all seen.”Still, when asked about the administration’s responsibility for the evacuation of Afghans who risked their lives to support U.S. troops, Mr. Jackson offered a tempered critique.“It should have been a much higher priority for the current administration,” he said.On a conference call on Friday organized by the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, four House members who served in the military — two Democrats and two Republicans — tried to tamp down the political recriminations, but their frustrations peeked through. Representative Kai Kahele, Democrat of Hawaii, acknowledged that the “optics” could not “get any worse than an entire airfield of Afghans running around a taxiing C-17, having that aircraft take off and have Afghans fall to their deaths.”Representative Kai Kahele, Democrat of Hawaii, is a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.Kelsey Walling/Hawaii Tribune-Herald, via Associated PressWhether that kind of restraint will hold remains a major question for the White House. Administration officials believe that the public remains on their side, with polling showing firm support for the withdrawal, and that any political fallout from the current crisis will fade long before the midterm elections. But Republicans are salivating over what they see as an opportunity to push a broader narrative of a weak and incompetent White House, furthering the caricature of Mr. Biden as a bystander in his own administration.“​​Democrats are universally satisfied with their president. They think he’s kept his promises and they blame Republican obstruction for anything that he hasn’t gotten,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who recently consulted with the White House on its pandemic response. “That said, there’s a certain point when Democrats will begin to question whether he’s got the right stuff.”Mr. Biden has offered a defiant defense of both his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and his handling of the resurgence of the virus. After a campaign that promised bipartisan comity and a desire to extend a hand across the aisle, Mr. Biden has begun blaming Republican governors, some of whom have banned mask mandates in their states, for prolonging the pandemic and threatening the safe return to in-person schooling.He has attributed the swift collapse of the government in Kabul and tumultuous scenes at the airport there to the refusal of Afghanistan’s military to fight in the face of the Taliban advance. On Friday, Mr. Biden offered his most extensive remarks about the situation in a news conference, a tacit acknowledgment by the administration that its earlier response had failed to assuage concerns.“I made the decision,” he said, while acknowledging that the United States received conflicting information before the operation about how quickly Afghanistan’s government might fall. “I took the consensus opinion.”Mr. Biden’s response was a sharp departure for a politician who spent decades stressing the importance of human rights while cultivating a folksy, feel-your-pain persona.Meighan Stone, an expert on women’s rights and foreign policy with the Council on Foreign Relations, said Democratic women spent years hearing about the plight of Afghan women and many were disappointed in what they saw as Mr. Biden’s callous response in this moment of crisis.“It’s been deeply disappointing to see the lack of empathy communicated,” said Ms. Stone, who also sits on the board of Indivisible, a national network of local liberal groups. “There’s a profound disconnect between President Biden’s remarks and the images women are seeing on TV and social media of Afghan women and girls in need.”Strategists in both parties caution that the midterm elections are still more than a year away, leaving far from certain the long-term political effect of both the Delta variant and Afghanistan on Democrats’ narrow control of the Senate and House.Understand the Taliban Takeover in AfghanistanCard 1 of 5Who are the Taliban? More

The group, which includes most Black members of Congress, remains publicly united. But in private, an influx of new members who think differently about its purpose are making a play for the future.The Congressional Black Caucus is the largest it has ever been, jumping to 57 members this year after a period of steady growth. The 50-year-old group, which includes most Black members of Congress and is entirely Democratic, is also more diverse, reflecting growing pockets of the Black electorate: millennials, progressives, suburban voters, those less tightly moored to the Democratic Party.But while a thread of social justice connects one generation to the next, the influx of new members from varying backgrounds is testing the group’s long-held traditions in ways that could alter the future of Black political power in Washington.The newcomers, shaped by the Black Lives Matter movement rather than the civil rights era, urge Democrats to go on the offensive regarding race and policing, pushing an affirmative message about how to overhaul public safety. They seek a bolder strategy on voting rights and greater investment in the recruitment and support of Black candidates.Perhaps more significant than any ideological or age divide, however, is the caucus’s fault line of political origin stories — between those who made the Democratic establishment work for them and those who had to overcome the establishment to win.Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, a Democrat and the most powerful Black lawmaker in the House, said in an interview that the group still functioned as a family. But that family has grown to include people like Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, an outspoken progressive who defeated a caucus member in a hotly contested primary last year, and Representative Lauren Underwood of Illinois, whose district is overwhelmingly white.“There was not a single member of the caucus, when I got there, that could have gotten elected in a congressional district that was only 4 percent African American,” Mr. Clyburn said, referring to Ms. Underwood.“We didn’t have people in the caucus before who could stand up and say, ‘I know what it’s like to live in an automobile or be homeless,’” he said of Ms. Bush, whose recent dayslong sit-in on the Capitol steps pushed President Biden’s administration to extend an eviction moratorium.In interviews, more than 20 people close to the C.B.C. — including several members, their senior aides and other Democrats who have worked with the group — described the shifting dynamics of the leading organization of Black power players in Washington.Representative Lauren Underwood of Illinois serves a district that is overwhelmingly white.Sarah Silbiger/The New York TimesThe caucus is a firm part of the Democratic establishment, close to House leadership and the relationship-driven world of political consulting and campaigns. However, unlike other groups tied to party leaders, the caucus is perhaps the country’s most public coalition of civil rights stalwarts, ostensibly responsible for ensuring that an insider game shaped by whiteness can work for Black people.Today, the C.B.C. has swelling ranks and a president who has said he owes his election to Black Democrats. There is a strong chance that when Speaker Nancy Pelosi eventually steps down, her successor will be a member of the group. At the same time, the new lawmakers and their supporters are challenging the group with a simple question: Whom should the Congressional Black Caucus be for?The group’s leadership and political action committee have typically focused on supporting Black incumbents and their congressional allies in re-election efforts. But other members, especially progressive ones, call for a more combative activist streak, like Ms. Bush’s, that challenges the Democratic Party in the name of Black people. Moderate members in swing districts, who reject progressive litmus tests like defunding police departments or supporting a Green New Deal, say the caucus is behind on the nuts and bolts of modern campaigning and remains too pessimistic about Black candidates’ chances in predominantly white districts.Many new C.B.C. members, even those whose aides discussed their frustration in private, declined to comment on the record for this article. The leadership of the caucus, including the current chair, Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, also did not respond to requests for comment.Miti Sathe, a founder of Square One Politics, a political firm used by Ms. Underwood and other successful Black candidates including Representative Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat, said she had often wondered why the caucus was not a greater ally on the campaign trail.She recounted how Ms. Underwood, a former C.B.C. intern who was the only Black candidate in her race, did not receive the caucus’s initial endorsement.In Ms. Underwood’s race, “we tried many times to have conversations with them, to get their support and to get their fund-raising lists, and they declined,” Ms. Sathe said.Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, an outspoken progressive, defeated a caucus member in a hotly contested primary race last year.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesRepresentative Ritchie Torres of New York, a 33-year-old freshman member, said the similarities among C.B.C. members still outweighed the differences.“It seems one-dimensional to characterize it as some generational divide,” he said. “The freshman class — the freshman members of the C.B.C. — are hardly a monolith.”Political strategy is often the dividing line among members — not policy. The Clyburn-led veterans have hugged close to Ms. Pelosi to rise through the ranks, and believe younger members should follow their example. They have taken a zero-tolerance stance toward primary challengers to Democratic incumbents. They have recently pushed for a pared-down approach to voting rights legislation, attacking proposals for public financing of campaigns and independent redistricting committees, which have support from many Democrats in Congress but could change the makeup of some Black members’ congressional districts.And when younger members of Congress press Ms. Pelosi to elevate new blood and overlook seniority, this more traditional group points to Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi — committee chairs who waited years for their gavels. The political arm of the Black caucus reflects that insider approach, sometimes backing white incumbents who are friends with senior caucus leaders instead of viable Black challengers.Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the chairman of the caucus’s political action committee, said its goal was simple: to help maintain the Democratic majority so the party’s agenda can be advanced.“You don’t throw somebody out simply because somebody else is running against them,” he said. “That’s not the way politics works.”Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the most powerful Black lawmaker in the House, said the group still functioned as a family.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesIn a special election this month in Ohio to replace former Representative Marcia Fudge, the newly appointed housing secretary and a close ally of Mr. Clyburn’s, the caucus’s political arm took the unusual step of endorsing one Black candidate over another for an open seat. The group backed Shontel Brown — a Democrat who is close to Ms. Fudge — over several Black rivals, including Nina Turner, a former state senator and a prominent leftist ally of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.Mr. Meeks said the caucus had deferred to its ranking members from Ohio, including Ms. Beatty and Ms. Fudge. Mr. Clyburn also personally backed Ms. Brown. In the interview, he cited a comment from a campaign surrogate for Ms. Turner who called him “incredibly stupid” for endorsing Mr. Biden in the presidential primary race. “There’s nobody in the Congressional Black Caucus who would refer to the highest-ranking African American among them as incredibly stupid,” Mr. Clyburn said.Ms. Turner, a progressive activist, defended the remark and said the caucus’s endorsement of Ms. Brown “did a disservice to the 11 other Black candidates in that race.” She argued that Washington politics were governed by “a set of rules that leaves so many Black people behind.”“The reasons they endorsed had nothing to do with the uplift of Black people,” Ms. Turner said, citing her support of policies like reparations for descendants of enslaved people and student debt cancellation. “It had everything to do about preserving a decorum and a consensus type of power model that doesn’t ruffle anybody’s feathers.”Privately, while some Black members of Congress were sympathetic to Ms. Turner’s criticism, they also regarded the comment about Mr. Clyburn as an unnecessary agitation, according to those familiar with their views. Last year, several new C.B.C. members across the political spectrum grew frustrated after concluding that Democrats’ messaging on race and policing ignored the findings of a poll commissioned by the caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The poll, obtained by The New York Times, urged Democrats in swing districts to highlight the policing changes they supported rather than defending the status quo.But the instruction from leaders of the caucus and the Democratic campaign committee was blunt: Denounce defunding the police and pivot to health care. “It was baffling that the research was not properly utilized,” said one senior aide to a newer member of the Black caucus, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to voice the frustrations. “It could have helped some House Democrats keep their jobs.”The caucus is perhaps the country’s most public coalition of civil rights stalwarts, ostensibly responsible for ensuring that an insider game shaped by whiteness can work for Black people.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesMr. Clyburn makes no secret of his disdain for progressive activists who support defunding the police. In the interview, he likened the idea to “Burn, baby, burn,” the slogan associated with the 1965 Watts riots in California.“‘Burn, baby, burn’ destroyed the movement John Lewis and I helped found back in 1960,” he said. “Now we have defunding the police.” Mr. Meeks, the political point man for the caucus, said he expected its endorsements to go where they have always gone: to Black incumbents and their allies. Still, he praised Ms. Bush’s recent activism as helping to “put the pressure on to make the change happen,” a sign of how new blood and ideological diversity could increase the caucus’s power.But Ms. Bush won despite the wishes of the caucus’s political arm. And those who seek a similar path to Congress are likely to face similar resistance.When asked, Mr. Meeks saw no conflict.“When you’re on a team,” he said, “you look out for your teammates.” More

At a rally in Des Moines, Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz showed that many Republicans do not plan to move on from the Trump era.DES MOINES — Far from Washington, and even farther from their home congressional districts, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia found their people.As the two Republican lawmakers spoke at an “America First” rally in Des Moines, held in an auditorium that often hosts people with presidential aspirations, up was down and misinformation was gospel. Ms. Greene denounced Covid-19 vaccines to applause. Both declared former President Donald J. Trump the rightful winner of the 2020 election.These were facts, argued Eric Riedinger of Des Moines, 62, a small-business owner who attended the event and owns the website BigTrumpFan.com. And he would not vote for any Republican who failed to state this clearly, he said.“My biggest issue looking ahead: Stop the RINOs,” he said, using a pejorative conservative phrase for ‘Republicans in Name Only.’ “If they’re part of that infrastructure bill and supporting it, they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing.”The fringe of the Republican Party is sick of being called the fringe. Led by people like Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz, two upstart members of Congress with little legislative power and few allies in their party’s caucus, these conservatives believe they have assets more valuable than Washington clout: a shared language with the party’s base, and a political intuition that echoes Mr. Trump’s.In the months since the former president left the White House, Republican donors and party leaders have flocked to more established figures like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, stirring buzz for their presidential prospects. At the same time, right-wing Republicans like Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz are loudly making the case that the post-Trump version of the Republican Party won’t swing back toward the center but will double down on the former president’s most controversial qualities.With that in mind, the two Republicans traveled to Iowa with a message about their fellow conservatives. It was not enough, they suggested, to insult Democrats as traitors to America or to cast doubt on the effectiveness of Covid vaccines and the legitimacy of the 2020 election. They told rally attendees that winning back the House in 2022 would be useless without more “America First” Republicans and that beating President Biden would require a full embrace of Mr. Trump.They sought to up the rhetorical ante on issue after issue, creating new litmus tests for their conservative rivals in the process.“Last time Republicans had full control, the first year under President Trump, Republicans didn’t fund and build the wall,” Ms. Greene said to the crowd of about 200 people. “Republicans didn’t defund sanctuary cities, they funded them. And this is the one that blows my mind: They did not defund Planned Parenthood.”She added, “This time around, Republicans need to take back the House with people that are going to do as they say.”Mr. Gaetz said that unlike many Republicans in Congress, he and Ms. Greene did not take corporate donations, arguing that many in the party were “too often shills for big business.” (Both of them, especially Ms. Greene, have demonstrated small-dollar fund-raising prowess.)In interviews, Republicans who went to the rally or who have followed Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz from afar said the pair’s efforts should not be discounted. In 2016, Mr. Trump stormed through the Republican primary and swept to power after party leaders underestimated the grass-roots appetite for his openly anti-immigrant language, his insults toward G.O.P. leaders and his economic message that targeted some corporations.Ms. Greene visited the Republican Party booth at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines on Thursday.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesNow, Mr. Gaetz and Ms. Greene appear intent on doing the same thing, to set the table for another presidential run by Mr. Trump or to send a warning shot to any would-be successors.If their bet is correct and the Republican base has left the Trump era wanting more of his bombastic style, it will have profound effects on the country’s political landscape. At minimum, Trump loyalists have shown themselves to be a stubborn force, threatening to pull additional congressional and presidential candidates into the waters of misinformation and racial intolerance.Kathy Pietraszewski, a 69-year-old rally attendee from Des Moines, said she had formally left the Republican Party after the 2020 election because she believed leaders were insufficiently supportive of Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the results. Recently, she has focused on speaking out against Covid vaccines, which is part of the reason she likes Ms. Greene.“I know what the globalist agenda is, and their one world order starts with a vaccine,” Ms. Pietraszewski said. “So my No. 1 issue is freedom.”Polling and voter registration data suggest she is not alone. The Republican base, unlike the Democratic one, has a much higher tolerance for politicians who criticize their own party, and many Republicans still want Mr. Trump to be involved in the party’s future, according to a recent Associated Press-NORC poll. Vaccine skepticism and distrust in the 2020 election results are also high among conservative Americans. In May, a Quinnipiac University poll found that two-thirds of Republicans believed Mr. Biden’s victory was not legitimate.However, both Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz face significant hurdles to advancing their political careers.Mr. Gaetz is the subject of a Justice Department investigation of whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him, according to people briefed on the matter. Ms. Greene has set off a series of controversies since she took office early this year, repeatedly using antisemitic and Islamophobic language and endorsing the executions of Democrats.Ms. Greene has since been stripped of her House committee assignments, but she has found an audience with Mr. Trump and his allies in the conservative media ecosystem. Several attendees at the Iowa rally said they had heard about her appearance there from a podcast run by Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser.“We know what American people want,” Ms. Greene said. “We know for a fact what you want. We don’t buy into the swamp.”In Washington, the two members of Congress are treated like little more than a media sideshow, a nuisance for Republican leaders. They do not have traditional legislative power, and antics like Ms. Greene’s promise to bring impeachment articles against Mr. Biden gain no traction in Congress.Their words support Mr. Trump’s core policies: cutting immigration, attacking liberal messaging on race and policing, targeting big tech companies. But Brian Robinson, a Republican strategist from Georgia, said there was a big difference between someone who excites activists and someone who has Mr. Trump’s universal name recognition and business-friendly persona.“A person like Marjorie Taylor Greene attracts crowds and attention because they are speaking to an audience that feels marginalized but also mobilized, because they’re angry,” he said.“But revving up certain segments of the party can also alienate other parts of the party,” he added, saying the same thing happens to Democrats.Michael Murphy, a Republican consultant based in California, said, “They fascinate the media,” but added that “as far as real muscle, even in the Republican primary, they’re just one of many factions.”Still, Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz may have the next-best thing, according to rally attendees, other close watchers of the Republican Party and even some liberals. They are messengers of the type of white grievance politics that Mr. Trump deployed nationally. They say openly what others will only hint at, no matter its factual basis or the risk of backlash. And they speak with the fearful moral urgency that many Republican voters feel.“It’s hard for me to think about 2024, because I don’t know if we’ll make it there,” Ms. Pietraszewski said, expressing dire worries about the country’s future. “With the Black Lives Matter and Marxism and critical race theory, I don’t know.”At the rally, Ms. Greene called Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is Somali-born, “a traitor to America.” Mr. Gaetz said that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, the first Black person to serve in that role, “might be the stupidest person to have ever served in a presidential cabinet in America’s history.” Ms. Greene declared that the United States faced a new “axis of evil” made up of the news media, Democrats and big tech companies. They both promised to support the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters who had been arrested.Each comment drew applause.“I’m not voting for anyone who won’t say Donald Trump had the election stolen from him,” said Ron James, a 68-year-old retiree from Des Moines. “And I don’t think anyone in that room would, either.” More