Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares98 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Opens Civil Rights Inquiry Into a Long Island Mascot Fight

      by

      President Donald Trump is weighing in on a school mascot dispute at Massapequa High School, where some parents are upset that a Chiefs mascot and logo must go under a state rule.Federal education officials said on Friday that they had opened a civil rights inquiry into whether New York State could withhold state money from a Long Island school district that has refused to follow a state requirement and drop its Native American mascot.The announcement came shortly after President Trump expressed his support for the district, in Massapequa, N.Y., in its fight against complying with a state Board of Regents requirement that all districts abandon mascots that appropriate Native American culture or risk losing state funding.The Massapequa district, whose “Chiefs” logo depicts an illustrated side profile of a Native American man in a feathered headdress, is one of several that have resisted making a change.The name of the town, a middle-class swath of the South Shore where most residents voted for Mr. Trump in the November election, was derived from the Native American word “Marspeag” or “Mashpeag,” which means “great water land.”In announcing the investigation, Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said that her department would “not stand by as the state of New York attempts to rewrite history and deny the town of Massapequa the right to celebrate its heritage in its schools.”JP O’Hare, a spokesman for the state Education Department, said in a statement that state education officials had not been contacted by the federal government about the matter.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares170 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Pardons Paul Walczak, Whose Family Sought to Publicize Ashley Biden’s Diary

      by

      The pardon of Paul Walczak, who had been convicted of tax crimes, comes as the president uses clemency to reward allies and swipe at perceived enemies.President Trump on Wednesday pardoned a Florida health care executive whose mother played a role in trying to expose the contents of Ashley Biden’s diary.The pardon of the executive, Paul Walczak, was signed privately and posted on the Justice Department’s website on Friday. It came less than two weeks after he was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4.4 million in restitution, for tax crimes that prosecutors said were used to finance a lavish lifestyle, including the purchase of a yacht.Mr. Walczak’s mother, Elizabeth Fago, who was also involved in the health care industry in Florida, is a longtime Republican donor and fund-raiser who played a role in a surreptitious effort to help Mr. Trump by undermining Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the 2020 presidential election.During the campaign, Ms. Fago was contacted by a man who was in possession of a diary kept by Mr. Biden’s daughter, Ashley, as she recovered from addiction, The New York Times previously reported.When first told of the diary, Ms. Fago said she thought it would help Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the election if it was made public, two people familiar with the matter later told The Times. The man, Robert Kurlander, circulated the diary at a fund-raiser at Ms. Fago’s house in Jupiter, Fla., in September 2020.Ms. Fago’s daughter passed along a tip about the diary to Project Veritas, a conservative group that had become a favorite of Mr. Trump’s. Project Veritas later paid $40,000 to Mr. Kurlander and an associate, Aimee Harris, for the diary.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares134 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Could Make Mars His Next Business Venture

      by

      Even as Musk’s work at the Department of Government Efficiency appeared to consume him, his top adviser created a set of companies named Red Planet I, II and III.Elon Musk is leaving his full-time Washington assignment next month to try to save Tesla (which has seen its stock battered), to keep up with SpaceX (which is positioned to do big business with the Trump administration) and to chart a new course for xAI, which he just combined with X itself.He’s a busy guy. So what’s another company — or three?Two months ago, even as Musk appeared consumed by his work at yet another job, at the Department of Government Efficiency, his top adviser, Jared Birchall, quietly created an intriguing-sounding set of limited-liability companies in Texas, whose existence has not been previously reported.Their names: Red Planet I, II and III.For the world’s richest man, who is pursuing an elaborate, decades-long plan to colonize Mars, this seemed no idle corporate filing.When Musk bought Twitter, after all, he formed three holding companies (X Holdings I, II and III) to execute the transaction.So, is he planning to buy Mars?Birchall hasn’t returned my requests for comment since I learned of the LLCs a few weeks ago. But he doesn’t typically take actions like this without his boss’s direction. He registered them on Feb. 25, listing himself as the manager of each and using an Austin address that other Musk entities have used.Still, it is surprising to see Musk take this step now, when he has so much on his plate and is already facing pressure to do less, not more. On a Tesla earnings call last week, he said he would substantially reduce the amount of time he spent on DOGE to spend more time on the car company, whose quarterly revenue is way down from a year ago.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares170 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Trump Order Ending Union Protections for Federal Workers

      by

      An order signed by President Trump last month was aimed at stripping collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers.A federal judge in Washington blocked President Trump from ending collective bargaining with unions representing federal workers, stymying a component of Mr. Trump’s sweeping effort to strip civil servants of job protections and assert more control over the federal bureaucracy.Judge Paul L. Friedman of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents tens of thousands of federal workers across the government. Without including an opinion explaining his decision, Judge Friedman ruled that the executive order from Mr. Trump was unlawful, and he granted a temporary injunction blocking its implementation while the case proceeded.“An opinion explaining the court’s reasoning will be issued within the next few days,” Judge Friedman wrote in the two-page order.The order, if implemented, would strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers, effectively banning them from joining unions.Those unions have been a major obstacle in Mr. Trump’s effort to slash the size of the federal work force and reshape the government. With every stroke of the pen from Mr. Trump enacting new orders aimed at tightening control over the federal bureaucracy, federal worker unions have responded with lawsuits, winning at least temporary reprieves for some fired federal workers and blocking efforts to dismantle portions of the government.Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the union noted that it targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency.“The administration’s own issuances show that the president’s exclusions are not based on national security concerns,” the suit said, “but, instead, a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions.” More

    • 150 Shares143 Views

      in Elections

      My ‘Natural’ Hairdresser Uses Synthetic Chemicals. Can I Leave a Bad Review?

      by

      The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on responding to a small-business owner’s misleading claims.I’ve been going to a hairstylist who promotes his all-natural, organic dye as healthy for hair. I never questioned it, until at my most recent visit he dyed my hair the wrong color. When I asked him to fix it, he made it even worse, turning my hair a deep mahogany instead of the golden copper I requested. For two weeks he repeatedly insisted, via text, that he had done it correctly, and that I didn’t know what I wanted. His rude, angry responses made me too uncomfortable to ever return. Frustrated, I researched the dye brand he used and was horrified to learn that its key ingredient, ethanolamine, is potentially more damaging to hair than ammonia, and I’ve read that it could be carcinogenic.Now I’m torn. My hairstylist refunded my money, and I sympathize with him as a small-business owner, but I also feel compelled to warn people that his “healthy” dye may not be as safe as he claims. Am I obligated to speak up, or should customers be responsible for doing their own research? Would posting a negative review protect others or punish him by potentially putting his small business at risk? What’s the right thing to do? — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:I understand why you’re feeling torn. You don’t want to jeopardize someone’s livelihood over a disappointing experience, but you also feel a responsibility to speak up if others might be misled. Two key questions are whether your stylist knowingly misrepresented the product and whether it really poses health risks.It’s entirely possible he genuinely believed what he was saying. Companies often use carefully crafted language to make their dyes sound especially “natural.” Naturtint, for example, highlights its U.S.D.A. BioPreferred certification and touts “botanical-inspired formulas.” Aveda describes its hair-color line as “vegan.” Both brands still contain industrially synthesized chemicals. (Yes, chemists classify most carbon-containing compounds as “organic,” but that’s not how marketers use the term.) Your stylist may simply be parroting what the product reps told him.When it comes to safety, precision matters. Ethanolamine-based dyes may not be as gentle as their marketing suggests — some studies do indicate they can weaken hair more than ammonia does. Still, they’re far less harsh than the all-natural potash or slaked lime our ancestors once used. Like ammonia, ethanolamine helps open the hair cuticle so color can penetrate. It’s also a normal product of our body’s metabolism, though it’s industrially produced for commercial use. While it shouldn’t be combined with substances that can form harmful nitrosamines — a risk reputable brands are careful to avoid — ethanolamine is not classified as a carcinogen.Which brings us to your dilemma. If you do write a review, focusing on your personal experience — the color errors and how the stylist responded — would be the fairest and most helpful approach. There’s no clear legal definition of “natural” for cosmetic products; the status of ethanolamine is complicated; and unless you feel confident explaining it clearly, it may not be the most relevant detail to include.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares147 Views

      in Elections

      U.K. Folk Bands Use Centuries-Old Ditties to Discuss Prison Abolition, Trans Rights and the Gig Economy

      by

      Several rising British bands are using centuries-old ditties to discuss hot-button issues like prison abolition, trans rights and the gig economy.Think of English folk music and maybe thoughts come to mind of villagers lamenting lost loves or sailors bellowing tales of adventure at sea.But when the rising British folk band Shovel Dance Collective performs, its members want their listeners to think of more contemporary concerns.At the band’s shows, the singer Mataio Austin Dean sometimes introduces “The Merry Golden Tree,” a song about a badly treated cabin boy, as a tale of “being shafted by your boss” — a scenario many office workers might relate to.The group also performs “I Wish There Was No Prisons” and “A Hundred Stretches Hence”: probable 19th-century ditties that Alex McKenzie, who plays accordion and flute in the group, said could be thought of as pleas for prison abolition.Many folk songs “ring very true” today, McKenzie said: “There’s a very easy thread you can draw between what ordinary people were concerned about 100, 200 years ago, or whatever, and what we’re concerned with now.”Goblin Band performing at the Ivy House, a South London pub that regularly hosts folk nights.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares165 Views

      in Elections

      Uncertainty Over Trump’s Tariffs Paralyzes U.S. Businesses

      by

      Three months ago, things were looking pretty good for Tim Fulton and Ramper Innovations, a manufacturer of airplane equipment based in Sitka, Alaska.Mr. Fulton was spending his days inside his workshop doing what he loved: building the company’s main product — a fold-up conveyor belt that unfurls in the belly of a plane to load and unload cargo or luggage. He had an order from the U.S. Air Force that he was confident would serve as a catalyst and bring in new customers from Asia and the Middle East while luring potential investors.Then, the tariffs from President Trump struck.The New York Times heard from Mr. Fulton and hundreds of other American business owners who said they have been stunned into paralysis by Mr. Trump’s barrage of tariffs. They are reassessing their product lines and supply chains and even putting their operations on hold.Mr. Fulton, 66, was floored at the size of the tariffs and how quickly and chaotically they were applied. There were tariffs on Mexico and Canada and steel and aluminum. Mr. Trump hit dozens of countries with higher “reciprocal” tariffs he then put on hold when financial markets crashed. China struck back and the import tariff on Chinese goods ratcheted up to 145 percent.Even though Ramper makes its products in the United States and buys as much of its components as possible from American companies, there is no getting around the tariffs. Some essential parts, such as motorized and static rollers from Japan, are only available overseas. The raw materials needed to build other critical parts are also imported. Most of Ramper’s U.S. suppliers rely on imports for some part of their supply chain.Ramper raised its price 17 percent — a ballpark estimate for how much the tariffs would inflate its costs. Mr. Fulton also warned prospective customers that he may need to increase his price further if tariffs pushed his costs up by more than 5 percent. Prospective customers balked at the higher prices and the uncertainty of what the final price might be.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares156 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Judge Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

      by

      Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by the authorities, the F.B.I. director said in a social media post that he later deleted.F.B.I. Director Kash Patel said on Friday that agents had arrested a county judge in Milwaukee on charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. A spokesman for the U.S. Marshals confirmed the arrest of a sitting judge, a major escalation in the Trump administration’s battle with local authorities over deportations.The bureau arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by federal authorities, Mr. Patel wrote on social media. He later deleted the post for reasons that were not immediately clear. An F.B.I. spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Brady McCarron, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals, confirmed that the judge had been arrested by F.B.I. agents on Friday morning. The charging document against the judge was not immediately available in federal court records.The Trump administration has vowed to investigate and prosecute local officials who do not assist federal immigration enforcement efforts, denouncing what they call “sanctuary cities” for not doing more to assist federal apprehensions and deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants.The Milwaukee case involves a frequent flashpoint in that debate, when immigration agents try to arrest undocumented immigrants who are appearing in state court. Local authorities often chafe at such efforts, arguing they endanger public safety if people dealing with relatively minor legal issues feel it is unsafe to enter courthouses.In the first Trump administration, a local Massachusetts judge was indicted by the Justice Department on charges of obstructing immigration authorities. The charges were dropped after the judge agreed to refer herself to potential judicial discipline. More