Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Climate Law Could Shape the Race for New York City’s Next Mayor

      by

      Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, has vowed to strictly enforce the measure, Local Law 97, which calls for potentially expensive upgrades to buildings to curb greenhouse emissions.Zohran Mamdani’s campaign for mayor has focused on the high cost of living in New York City and the lack of affordable housing.But Mr. Mamdani’s embrace of an ambitious climate law — called Local Law 97 — could have as much impact on the real estate sector as his better-known plan to freeze the rent on about a million apartments.Local Law 97, which was approved in 2019, calls for potentially expensive upgrades to the city’s largest buildings in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman, has said he intends to tighten enforcement of the measure. Some critics, however, warn that his approach would create a heavy financial burden on property owners.“Thousands of buildings are in trouble here, and Local Law 97 and rent freezes will be the end,” said Kenny Burgos, the chief executive of the New York Apartment Association, a landlord advocacy group.Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist who recently said that he didn’t believe there should be billionaires, has not been shy about asking the city’s affluent to subsidize his platform, which includes free buses and a $30 minimum wage. Mr. Mamdani has also called for freezing the rent on all rent-stabilized apartments, which has sent a chill through some corners of the real estate sector.He has promised to take the same approach in enforcing Local Law 97, saying in a mayoral forum earlier this year that he would back the measure by “taking on the real estate industry” in the pursuit of “climate justice.”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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Fires More DOJ Employees Who Worked for Special Counsel

      by

      The latest round of firings targets not just prosecutors but also support staff members who played a smaller role.The Trump administration fired another batch of nearly 10 Justice Department employees who once worked for the special counsel’s office that twice indicted President Trump, some in relatively minor roles, according to two people familiar with the matter.The dismissals on Friday were the latest sign that the administration was reaching deep into the inner workings of the Justice Department to find and expel not just people who had a direct part in investigating and prosecuting Mr. Trump during his four years out of office but also those who had played secondary roles in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith.The latest firings, which include at least two federal prosecutors, appeared to once again ignore traditional civil service protections and were said to be based on a broad assertion of presidential authority, according to two people who spoke about the moves on condition of anonymity to avoid discussing a politically sensitive subject.At least seven others who were fired had served as support staff to Mr. Smith’s office, the two people said. They helped manage the office, handling tasks like overseeing financial records, performing paralegal services or conducting information security.Since the early days of Mr. Trump’s second term, the president’s aides have repeatedly sought to fire, punish or demote the people who worked on the cases against him as well on cases stemming from the attack on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.The purging from government ranks of anyone associated with these cases has been sporadic, with fresh batches of firings coming at different intervals and often without much explanation, other than the citing of Article II of the Constitution, which defines the powers of a president.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Court Seals Records in Ken Paxton’s Divorce Case

      by

      The order meant details in the case, which involves allegations of adultery, would not be public as the Texas attorney general challenges Senator John Cornyn in the 2026 primary.A state court on Friday ordered records in the divorce of Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas to be sealed, a day after his wife, State Senator Angela Paxton, filed a petition that accused Mr. Paxton of adultery.The order to seal the records in the case, in the 429th District Court in Collin County, north of Dallas, came after a request from Mrs. Paxton’s lawyer. This means that further details of the high-profile split would not be available to the public in a case that could significantly affect the race for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas.Mr. Paxton, a firebrand conservative who is popular among Republican voters, is challenging Senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary in 2026. Mr. Paxton has been leading in public polling.In a statement on Thursday, Mrs. Paxton said that she had filed for divorce “on biblical grounds” and “in light of recent discoveries,” suggesting that new events in their relationship had prompted her decision. The divorce petition said that the couple had not been living together since June 2024 and that the grounds for divorce included that Mr. Paxton “has committed adultery.”Mr. Paxton said the couple’s relationship was strained by the pressures of public life and “countless political attacks” in his own statement on Thursday. He asked for privacy.The divorce announcement came as a shock in Texas. Mrs. Paxton had remained at her husband’s side through years of criminal investigations, a state court indictment for securities fraud and an impeachment at the State Capitol in which Mr. Paxton was accused of abusing his office by doing favors for a real estate investor who helped him conceal an extramarital affair.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

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What the ‘Exhausted Majority’ Really Wants

      by

      It’s probably not Elon Musk’s new party.It’s probably not Elon Musk’s new party.The New York TimesThe New York Times columnists Michelle Cottle and David French discuss whether the moment might be right for a third party. And French tells the story of the time he briefly considered a run for president as a third-party candidate.What the ‘Exhausted Majority’ Really WantsIt’s probably not Elon Musk’s new party.Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.Michelle Cottle: I’m Michelle Cottle, and I cover national politics for New York Times Opinion, and I am here with the Opinion columnist David French today. David, hello.David French: Michelle, it’s great to be with you. And it’s just the two of us.Cottle: I know, which means we get to get extra juicy digging into Elon Musk. This week he announced he wants to launch a new national political party.Now, there is a long history of — how do I put this gently? — underwhelming third-party attempts in this country. Does anybody even remember that there is a Forward Party at this point?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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Aware of Trump’s Desire for Retribution, Experts Appear Shy to Speak Up

      by

      A New York Times investigative reporter explains how a problem he encountered while reporting reveals something important about the second Trump era.This week, my colleague Eileen Sullivan and I reported that the Secret Service took the extraordinary step in May of surveilling the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a day after he posted a photo that President Trump’s allies claimed contained an assassination threat.The story raised questions about whether Comey was tailed not because he was a legitimate threat but as part of a retribution campaign Trump has promised to wage against those he sees as his enemies.To nail down the story, we had to do one of the most challenging tasks we face as reporters: pry loose details from the inside of a federal investigation.But there was also something unexpectedly difficult about that story, compared with similar stories I’ve reported over 20 years at The New York Times. Some of the people we’ve previously called on to provide outside expertise refused to speak with us this time.Tonight, I’m going to take you behind the scenes of our reporting, and explain why the speed bump we hit may be a sign of something more significant.A chill in WashingtonWhen we write a story like this, we reach out to experts who can put what we are writing about in context. Drawing on their work experience or academic expertise, they can help us — and our readers — understand whether and why an incident we are covering is unusual, or which laws might apply to it.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Secret Service Suspends Six Agents Over Trump Assassination Attempt

      by

      The announcement comes near the anniversary of the shooting at Donald J. Trump’s campaign rally in Butler, Pa.The Secret Service said on Thursday that it was suspending six agents involved in securing the site of a campaign rally where a gunman tried to assassinate Donald J. Trump last summer.The suspensions range from 10 to 42 days, without pay, the agency said in a statement just days before the first anniversary of the shooting. It did not give a sense of timing for the suspensions or name the agents, citing privacy law. All six had been placed on restricted duty after the rally while the agency conducted an internal review.The Secret Service came under intense scrutiny after a 20-year-old gunman was able to fire several shots at Mr. Trump while he spoke onstage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13, 2024. A volunteer firefighter in the crowd that day, Corey Comperatore, was killed and two other attendees were injured. The gunman was killed by the Secret Service.It was the first assassination attempt since 1981 to wound a current or former president — a bullet grazed Mr. Trump’s ear. There were immediate demands for changes at the Secret Service, and the agency’s competency was called into question.Multiple inquiries into the failures, including from Congress, came to similar conclusions and led to dozens of recommendations to change systemic problems. In the midst of the scrutiny, there was a second attempt on Mr. Trump’s life. While Mr. Trump golfed in Florida in September, agents shot at a suspect who was hiding near the outer edge of the course.But the sense of urgency to address the issues at the Secret Service dissipated after Election Day. The lawmakers who demanded accountability and changes have said very little publicly about the agency since Mr. Trump returned to the Oval Office.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In South Carolina, Newsom Tests the Presidential Waters (Without Saying So)

      by

      Gov. Gavin Newsom of California met with Democratic voters in an early primary state that has become pivotal in presidential races.On a sweltering summer afternoon inside the oldest Black church in rural Laurens County, S.C., the pews were packed to welcome Gov. Gavin Newsom.It is unusual for a California governor to spend time in the conservative South, especially one who rose to power by championing same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization and electric cars. But here he stood, thousands of miles from home, bowing his head for an opening prayer as light filtered through stained-glass windows in the sanctuary.“Rejoice in hope,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said later as he began to address about 300 people in the brick church. Officially, Mr. Newsom toured small towns in South Carolina this week on a mission to embolden Democrats in the heavily Republican state. But it was obvious that Mr. Newsom was also laying groundwork that could prove beneficial if he runs for president in 2028.Many Democrats nationwide are still trying to figure out Mr. Newsom. Some viewed him skeptically a few months ago when he challenged Democratic orthodoxy in podcast conversations with conservatives.There have also been questions about how well Mr. Newsom’s coastal California image would play in other states. He owns boutique wineries in the Napa Valley, and he became known for dining at the French Laundry, an exclusive restaurant, when he attended a party there during the Covid-19 pandemic. Satirists and late-night comedians have made his slicked-back hair a defining characteristic.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Schumer Says Trump Bill Boosts Democrats’ Hopes in 2026 Midterm Elections

      by

      The top Senate Democrat said the law would lead to widespread pain for voters, imperiling Republicans who supported it and allowing his party more openings to contest control of the Senate.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said Thursday that the passage of President Trump’s domestic policy agenda had boosted Democrats’ hopes of claiming the Senate majority in the 2026 midterm elections, handing them a winning economic message as they seek to contest an expanded map of states around the country.“The three issues we’re going to most campaign on: costs, jobs, and health care,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters, across the street from the Capitol. “Those affect average people and every state.”He argued that the sweeping law to extend tax cuts and slash social safety net programs would hurt not just those who rely on Medicaid — which will be cut by nearly $1 trillion — but by a broad swath of Americans. “It’s going to raise insurance costs even if you don’t have Medicaid,” he said. “Your electricity costs will go up by 10 percent. Even not poor people, it goes across the board. And it’s hitting at the same time that your costs are going up because of tariffs.”As they search for ways to connect with voters ahead of the midterm elections, House and Senate Democrats have been poring over polling and research that shows their likely best bet is focusing on the Republicans’ cuts to health care and food assistance programs for working people in order to help pay for tax cuts that provide the biggest benefits to the wealthy.A recent poll conducted by Blue Rose Research on behalf of the Senate Majority PAC, an outside group aligned with Democrats, found that 50 percent of voters said they were less likely to support their representative in the upcoming election if he or she had voted for the bill. That number included 49 percent of swing voters and 17 percent of voters who supported Mr. Trump in the 2024 election.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