Elections

Former President Donald J. Trump and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, spoke over the phone late this week amid mounting concern in Kyiv that a second Trump administration would spell the end of American support in Ukraine’s fight against Russia.Ukrainian officials worry that if a re-elected Mr. Trump kept to his vow to end the war quickly — he has suggested that he could end it in one day — it would allow Russia to keep the territory it occupies and leave it in a position to attack Ukraine again.In a social media post about the call, which took place on Friday, Mr. Trump said that, as president he would “bring peace to the world and end the war that has cost so many lives.” He said both Russia and Ukraine “will be able to come together and negotiate a deal that ends the violence.”Mr. Zelensky said in a statement on Friday that he had underlined in the call “the vital bipartisan and bicameral American support for protecting our nation’s freedom and independence.” He said he and Mr. Trump had agreed “to discuss at a personal meeting what steps can make peace fair and truly lasting.”It was the first call between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump since the former American president left office in 2020. Although the Ukrainian authorities have tried to remain neutral in the U.S. presidential campaign, officials have started building bridges with Mr. Trump’s camp, hoping to shape his views on Ukraine.Oleksandr Kraiev, the head of the North America Program at Ukrainian Prism, a Kyiv-based think tank, said Ukrainian diplomats had been working on strategies to persuade Mr. Trump to continue supporting Ukraine, mindful that he can be unpredictable in foreign policy. The Republican Party’s platform does not include the word Ukraine, referring only to a broad goal of restoring “peace in Europe.”Mr. Kraiev said that Kyiv could frame its objectives as in being in line with two of Mr. Trump’s top interests: his image as a strong leader and his defense of the American economy.“We can connect with Trump on these two specific topics,” Mr. Kraiev said. More

An estimated 3,400 flights to, from and within the United States were canceled on Friday because of a tech outage. That made it the worst day of the year for flight cancellations.Airlines made progress toward containing the fallout from a tech outage that disrupted global travel on Friday, though some flight delays and cancellations extended into Saturday.In all, about 3,400 flights to, from and within the United States were canceled on Friday, according to FlightAware, a company that tracks flight information. That made it the worst day of the year for flight cancellations, beating Jan. 15 when airlines besieged by bad winter storms canceled nearly 3,200 flights in the United States.Delays and cancellations on Saturday appeared on track to be much lower than on Friday. Airlines had canceled a little more than 1,000 flights as of midday, with Delta Air Lines and United Airlines among the hardest hit, according to FlightAware.“Delta teams in airports, on board flights, on the phones and in messaging are working tirelessly to care for customers as the airline works to put flight crews and aircraft back in position following the disruption,” the airline said in a statement. Most of the flight cancellations on Saturday were concentrated in the morning and early afternoon, Delta said.Several carriers said they would waive fees and fare differences or offer refunds for affected passengers. The Transportation Department said that carriers may also have to compensate some travelers for food, lodging and transport.The outage on Friday was caused when CrowdStrike, a widely used cybersecurity provider, issued a flawed software update to Microsoft devices. Soon after, airlines and many other businesses and institutions began suffering technical failures. For airlines, a wide range of systems were affected, including those that calculate aircraft weight, check in customers, issue boarding passes and manage call center phone lines.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

Every Tuesday and Friday, Ezra Klein invites you into a conversation about something that matters, like today’s episode debriefing the 2024 Republican National Convention with Claire Gordon. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.Transcripts of our episodes are made available as soon as possible. They are not fully edited for grammar or spelling.I Watched the Republican Convention. The Democrats Can Still Win.Ezra Klein discusses the anti-system populism on display at the 2024 G.O.P. convention — and what this might mean for the Democrats.[MUSIC PLAYING]EZRA KLEIN: From New York Times Opinion, this is “The Ezra Klein Show.”It is Friday, July 19. It is the morning after the final night of the Republican National Convention. And there is a lot to say about who the Republicans are showing themselves to be or showing themselves to want to be, a lot to say about what is about to happen potentially with the Democrats and Joe Biden. And so I’m joined by my great showrunner and senior editor, Claire Gordon, who is going to turn the tables on me a bit and ask the questions today. So, Claire, thank you so much for being here.CLAIRE GORDON: It is my pleasure. And I’ll just start right there with what stands out to you as different about Trump and the Republican Party’s sales pitch in 2024 compared to last time?EZRA KLEIN: What was interesting to me across the Republican Convention and something I see some of my liberal friends honestly grappling with and some of them still trying to deny, is that the Republican Party itself is changing. It is coming into line behind the thing that it thinks Donald Trump is.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

Four years ago the Republican convention was a bizarre spectacle, a cross between a Napoleonic fantasy and a Leni Riefenstahl movie. The dominant image was of an imperial dynasty laying claim to forever rule. I expected more of the same when I tuned in on Monday night to watch this year’s convention, but amped up even further by the weekend’s terrifying near-miss assassination attempt.What I saw instead was an even-toned, inclusive performance that seemed designed to resemble conventions of a more, well, conventional era, or perhaps just entertainment-world award shows. The lineup of speakers offered racial, gender and even ideological diversity — including the Teamsters’ president, Sean O’Brien, who announced from the main stage that his organization was “not beholden to anyone or any party.”You don’t have to agree with Donald Trump on everything was a consistent talking point. As for the shooting, it had been instantly mythologized as a miracle of survival: Speaker after speaker, including Trump himself, credited the Almighty with saving the former president so he could save America. There was no reference to the speculation, multiplying across the internet, that the deep state was behind the assassination attempt. Even Donald Trump was, by his standards, cogent and calm.While one half of the electorate was being served this bland spectacle, the other half struggled to follow a dispiriting and confusing story in which the stakes in the presidential election are existential — and the only man who can save American democracy is President Biden. Even as more and more funders, political operatives and ordinary Democratic voters said that he should withdraw his candidacy, the campaign told them to put their faith in a frail, diminished man — worse than that, it insisted that he was neither frail nor diminished.In the interview with Lester Holt that was broadcast on the first night of the Republican convention, Biden’s most energetic moment came when he lashed out at the press for criticizing him rather than his opponent — a favorite tactic of demagogues everywhere. If the media criticize him, then the media are bad. If the polls show a lack of support for his candidacy, then the polls are wrong. If his allies are trying to save him from himself, then they are no longer his allies. The president and his campaign have adopted the habits of the monster they promise to save us from.The week felt like an emotional reprise of the early months (or was it years?) of the Trump presidency. Every day, it seemed, brought news that felt like it would change history. We assimilated it and moved on, getting up in the morning, going about our business, pausing to express shock at another piece of news, and starting the cycle over again. We developed the ability to feel simultaneously shaken and bored, dismayed and indifferent. As media outlets engaged with Trump’s lies — some enthusiastically and others because it could not be avoided — we grew accustomed to an ever growing gap between reality as we experienced it and the ways in which it was reflected back to us by politicians and journalists.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

Israel has few options to retaliate for the attack in Tel Aviv, which made clear the weakness of its air defense system against unmanned aircraft and heightened concerns about the threat of Iranian-backed militias.Israel faces a strategic dilemma over how best to retaliate for the drone attack on Tel Aviv claimed by Yemen’s Houthi militia, which is based thousands of miles from Israel’s southern borders.The attack, which struck an apartment building early on Friday near the United States diplomatic compound, killing one person and wounded several others, has heightened concerns in Israel about the threat of Iran. Tehran funds and encourages militias opposed to Israel throughout the region, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, in addition to the Houthis in Yemen.On a technical level, the attack highlighted the weakness of Israel’s air defense system against unmanned aircraft, which travel at slower speeds, fly at lower altitudes and emit less heat than high-velocity rockets and shells. According to military experts, those factors make it harder for drones to be tracked by radar and intercepted by surface-to-air missiles.Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, has vowed revenge for the attack, but analysts said this weekend that Israel had few obvious options against a militia that shares no common border with Israel and has appeared undeterred by earlier displays of force by Western powers.One immediate, short-term response, some analysts said, might be a cease-fire deal between Hamas and Israel, a move that could halt attacks from Hamas’s allies, like the Houthis and Hezbollah in Lebanon. While the Houthis’ opposition to Israel long preceded the war in Gaza, the group had rarely attacked Israeli interests before it began.A truce in Gaza could “prompt some kind of a lull for a while” in Yemen and Lebanon, said Relik Shafir, a former general in the Israeli Air Force.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

Elon Musk, David Sacks, Marc Andreessen and other influential figures in technology have endorsed former President Donald Trump. How did the Democrats lose Silicon Valley? Or did they?If you read the headlines this week about Elon Musk, David Sacks, Marc Andreessen and other influential figures in technology moving to support former President Trump’s re-election, it appeared a sea change had taken place in Silicon Valley, long considered a Democrat hotbed.The loudest donors in Silicon Valley are promoting Trump at a time when the tech world as a whole is ascending in Washington, with billionaires using their ballooning wealth and media foothold to exert influence. Their voices are made all the more prominent amid the conspicuous neutrality of Big Tech leaders like the Google C.E.O. Sundar Pichai and the Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg, who are possibly afraid of invoking Trump’s ire and employee backlash.It wasn’t always this way. But big technology’s relationship with government, once symbiotic, attracted new scrutiny from Silicon Valley’s libertarian masses after social media companies tamped down on misinformation, drawing accusations that they were ceding to an overstepping government.For some, the infractions were more personal. Musk was brushed off by President Biden over his anti-union stance and excluded from an electric vehicle event at the White House in 2021. Now Musk, who has voted for Democrats in the past and has said he created Tesla to help one of Biden’s biggest ambitions, preventing climate change, has become among the party’s biggest detractors.Then there are issues in California, like rising taxes and a crime wave in San Francisco; the anti-woke movement; and regulatory battles over antitrust, crypto, and artificial intelligence that have high stakes in Silicon Valley.The question now is whether Silicon Valley’s Trump boosters are heralding a larger shift in the tech world, or if they’re merely demonstrating that their voices are more powerful in politics than ever.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

Elizabeth Stromme’s noir about a writer for hire; Karen Tei Yamashita’s magic realist dystopia.Beth Coller for The New York TimesDear readers,A few years ago I interviewed a writer who in a past life worked as a transcriber for people who had suffered traumatic brain injuries. Listening over and over to patients describe life-changing pain, she realized their realities bordered on the supernatural, and that adopting language more commonly found in science fiction or fantasy was the most honest way to convey their distress.I thought of her earlier this summer, around the time I realized my knowledge of the Los Angeles literary canon was basically nonexistent. It was stupid I’d never thought to approach the city — which despite my years of visiting family there has never felt like terra firma — through novels. The books I recommend today are both set in the region, but that’s almost incidental. More important: They convey a sense of place that had previously eluded me, using fantastical, intentionally stylistic language, and somehow rank among the truest things I’ve read.—Joumana“Joe’s Word: An Echo Park Novel,” by Elizabeth StrommeFiction, 2003This unsung stunner could credibly be called “pre-gentrification noir” — two words I wouldn’t normally put in the same room together, let alone the same clause.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

Iryna Farion, a former lawmaker, was known for controversial campaigns to discredit Russian-speaking Ukrainians.A gunman shot and killed a far-right Ukrainian politician who stirred controversy with campaigns to promote the Ukrainian language and discredit Russian-speaking compatriots, the authorities say.The former lawmaker, Iryna Farion, was a highly divisive figure. A linguist who belonged to a hard-line nationalist party, she was despised by some for her denunciation of Russian-speaking fighters in elite Ukrainian military units. Many Ukrainians speak Russian, especially in eastern regions closer to Russia.Ms. Farion, 60, was shot in the head by a young man on a street in the western city of Lviv on Friday evening, and the Ukrainian authorities said early Saturday that they were still searching for the gunman, who fled the scene. Ihor Klymenko, Ukraine’s interior minister, said he believed she was targeted for killing.“This was not a spontaneous murder,” he told a news conference on Saturday, adding that it might have been politically motivated or a personal matter. He did not rule out possible Russian involvement.Several former officials also said Moscow might have been behind the killing in an attempt to sow divisions, while other people raised fears that the shooting could polarize society. President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Saturday, “All versions are being investigated, including the one that leads to Russia.”Mysterious deaths and assassinations were a feature of Ukraine’s political landscape before Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in 2022. But there had been no sign of any high-profile killings or attempted assassinations since the war broke out.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