Elections

For Barry Levine, a former top journalist at the supermarket tabloid, the former president’s trial was its own kind of tear-jerker.Even before former President Donald J. Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal, a verdict was being delivered on The National Enquirer.The no-holds-barred supermarket tabloid was once famous for publishing salacious stories about celebrities and politicians. Now it may be better known for suppressing them.“It’s just a tragedy for the paper,” said Barry Levine, the publication’s former executive editor, sitting in the living room of his one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan on a recent morning.Was he being overly dramatic? Perhaps.Even among those who consider it a guilty pleasure, The Enquirer can hardly be described as a national treasure. But try telling that to Mr. Levine, a swashbuckling journalist who worked there from 1999 until 2016 and whose professional and personal identity was shaped by it.“I grew up with the romantic vision of ‘The Front Page,’ the press cards and hats, the larger than life personalities of Fleet Street reporters who did whatever they had to do to get the story,” Mr. Levine said. “I was in love with that type of journalism — and I found it at The National Enquirer.”Mr. Levine at his apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.Hiroko Masuike/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

In the last few years, many Americans have gotten stuck in their starter house.Buying your first home has long been a milestone of adulthood. So has selling your first home and moving into something bigger. But in the last few years, many Americans have gotten stuck in their starter house.That’s because the U.S. housing economy is being hammered by three forces: the highest interest rates in around two decades, record home prices and near rock-bottom inventory. “Home affordability is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” Daryl Fairweather, Redfin’s chief economist, told me.Many of those who bought their homes in recent years are unable to trade up, hampering the ability of the group behind them to purchase its own starter homes. In today’s newsletter, we’ll look at how the housing market trapped both groups.Twice as expensiveIn the past, the starter home served as a bridge: Families just starting out would squeeze into a smaller home and build equity. With time, as their careers grew and their incomes increased, they cashed in the equity and moved to something bigger.But now that process has hit a wall. “The trade-up buyer has just disappeared,” Sam Khater, chief economist of Freddie Mac, said.A majority of homeowners — six out of 10 — have mortgages with interest rates that are locked at 4 percent or lower. With rates now hovering around 7 percent, most people who buy a home today will pay much more interest on their new mortgage.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

The voting is very likely to put a woman in the country’s presidency for the first time ever, showcasing the immense strides that females have made in Mexico’s political scene.Mexicans will vote on Sunday in an election that is groundbreaking on several fronts: it’s set to be the largest race in the country’s history, it’s already among the most violent in recent memory, and it will likely put a woman in the presidency for the first time ever.The two main contenders, who have largely split the electorate between them according to polls, are women. The front-runner is Claudia Sheinbaum, a climate scientist representing the ruling party and its party allies. Her closest competitor is Xóchitl Gálvez, a businesswoman on a ticket that includes a collection of opposition parties.Ms. Sheinbaum has had a double-digit lead in the polls for months, but the opposition has argued those numbers underestimate the true support for their candidate. In an interview, Ms. Gálvez said “there is an anti-system vote,” and if Mexicans turned out in force on Sunday, “we will win.”“She’s in the mind-set where she’s ahead by 30 points,” said Ms. Gálvez, of her rival. “But she’s going to have the surprise of her life.”Xóchitl Gálvez, a businesswoman and former senator, heads a ticket that includes opposition parties from the right, center and left.Lorenzo Hernández/EPA, via ShutterstockThe contest showcases the immense strides in Mexico’s politics made in recent years by women, who weren’t even allowed to vote in the country until 1953. Both the top candidates come with considerable experience; Ms. Gálvez was a senator and Ms. Sheinbaum governed the capital, one of the largest cities in the hemisphere.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

Last Thursday, Sonia Sotomayor helped protect the country from Donald Trump, and she did it in an unexpected way — by defending the National Rifle Association.Let me explain.Attempts to target the free speech of political opponents are often the first sign of a decline into authoritarianism. As Frederick Douglass wrote in 1860, after an angry mob shut down an abolitionist event in Boston, “No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech.”“Liberty,” he went on, “is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down.”That’s exactly right, and that’s why Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court upholding the free speech rights of the N.R.A. against a hostile attack from a Democratic official in New York has ramifications well beyond New York politics and well beyond the battle over gun rights. By upholding the free speech rights of the N.R.A., the Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional wall of protection against vengeful government leaders, including Trump.Here’s what happened. In 2017, Maria Vullo, who was then the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, began investigating the N.R.A. Carry Guard insurance program. As the court’s opinion explains, Carry Guard was an insurance affinity program in which the N.R.A. offered insurance that “covered personal-injury and criminal-defense costs related to licensed firearm use” and even “insured New York residents for intentional, reckless and criminally negligent acts with a firearm that injured or killed another person.”Under the affinity program, the N.R.A. would offer the insurance as a member benefit and various insurance companies, including Chubb Limited and Lloyd’s of London, would underwrite the insurance and the N.R.A. would take a cut of the premium payments.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

Scroll down to reveal a hint for each category of today’s Connections, or head to the comments for community hints and conversation.Good morning, dear connectors. Welcome to today’s Connections forum, where you can give and receive puzzle — and emotional — support.Be warned: This article includes hints and comments that may contain spoilers for today’s puzzle. Solve Connections first, or scroll at your own risk.Connections is released at midnight in your time zone. In order to accommodate all time zones, there will be two Connections Companions live every day, dated based on Eastern Standard Time. Here is today’s board:If you find yourself on the wrong companion, check the number of your puzzle, and go to this page to find the corresponding companion.Post your solve grid in the comments and see how your score compares with the editor’s rating, and one another’s.Today’s difficultyThe difficulty of each puzzle is determined by averaging the ratings provided by a panel of testers who are paid to solve each puzzle in advance to help us catch bugs, inconsistencies and other issues. A higher rating means the puzzle is more difficult.Today’s difficulty is 2.8 out of 5.Need a hint?In Connections, each category has a different difficulty level. Yellow is the simplest, and purple is the most difficult. Click or tap each level to reveal one of the words in that category. 🟨 StraightforwardWAX🟩 ⬇️WRAP🟦 ⬇️HONEYCOMB🟪 TrickyVITAMINFurther ReadingWant to give us feedback? Email us: [email protected] to go back to Connections?Want to learn more about how the game is made?Leave any thoughts you have in the comments! Please follow community guidelines:Be kind. Comments are moderated for civility.Having a technical issue? Use the Help button in the Settings menu of the Games app.Want to talk about Wordle or Spelling Bee? Check out Wordle Review and the Spelling Bee Forum.See our Tips and Tricks for more useful information on Connections.Join us here to solve Crosswords, The Mini, and other games by The New York Times. More

La votación muy probablemente le otorgará la presidencia del país a una mujer por primera vez en su historia, lo que exhibe inmensos avances de género en la escena política de México.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Los mexicanos votarán este domingo en unas elecciones que son pioneras en varios aspectos: será la contienda más numerosa de la historia del país, ya se encuentra entre las más violentas en memoria reciente, y muy probablemente pondrá a una mujer en la presidencia por primera vez en la historia.Según las encuestas, las dos principales candidatas han dividido en gran medida al electorado. La que va en primer lugar es Claudia Sheinbaum, una científica ambiental que representa al partido gobernante y sus aliados. Su rival más cercana es Xóchitl Gálvez, una empresaria apoyada por una coalición de partidos de oposición.Por meses, Sheinbaum ha tenido una ventaja de dos dígitos en las encuestas, pero la oposición ha alegado que esas cifras subestiman el verdadero apoyo que tiene su candidata. En una entrevista, Gálvez afirmó que “hay un voto antisistema”, y que si los mexicanos acuden en gran número a las urnas este domingo, “ganamos”.“Ella está en su lógica de que tiene 30 puntos arriba”, dijo Gálvez, sobre su rival. “Pero pues se va a llevar la sorpresa de su vida”.Xóchitl Gálvez, empresaria y exsenadora, lidera una coalición que incluye partidos de oposición de derecha, centro e izquierda.Lorenzo Hernández/EPA, vía ShutterstockWe 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

The system of checks and balances established in the Constitution was meant to hold wayward presidents accountable, but some wonder how it will work if the next president is already a felon.The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come. He might not have anticipated all the particulars, such as the porn actress in the hotel room and the illicit payoff to keep her quiet. But he feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable. “Away with your president,” he declared, “we shall have a king.”That was exactly what the founders sought to avoid, having thrown off the yoke of an all-powerful monarch. But as hard as they worked to establish checks and balances, the system they constructed to hold wayward presidents accountable ultimately has proved to be unsteady.Whatever rules Americans thought were in place are now being rewritten by Donald J. Trump, the once and perhaps future president who has already shattered many barriers and precedents. The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy.And it raises fundamental questions about the limits of power in a second term, should Mr. Trump be returned to office. If he wins, it means he will have survived two impeachments, four criminal indictments, civil judgments for sexual abuse and business fraud, and a felony conviction. Given that, it would be hard to imagine what institutional deterrents could discourage abuses or excesses.Moreover, the judiciary may not be the check on the executive branch that it has been in the past. If no other cases go to trial before the election, it could be another four years before the courts could even consider whether the newly elected president jeopardized national security or illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election, as he has been charged with doing. As it is, even before the election, the Supreme Court may grant Mr. Trump at least some measure of immunity.Mr. Trump would still have to operate within the constitutional system, analysts point out, but he has already shown a willingness to push its boundaries. When he was president, he claimed that the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want.” After leaving office, he advocated “termination” of the Constitution to allow him to return to power right away without another election and vowed to dedicate a second term to “retribution.”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

After being convicted in a Manhattan courtroom, the former president still faces charges in three criminal prosecutions, all of which are tangled up in procedural delays.Former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan came to an end this week when a jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to upset his 2016 presidential campaign.But Mr. Trump is still facing federal charges, brought by a special counsel, in two cases: one in Florida, where he is accused of illegally holding on to classified documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, and one in Washington, D.C., where he’s accused of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He faces similar election-tampering charges in a third case brought by a local prosecutor in Georgia.The proceedings — all of which are bogged down in delays — can be confusing to keep track of. Here are updates on where each of them stands.Federal Documents CaseThe federal indictment against Mr. Trump in the documents case.Jon Elswick/Associated PressIn this case, Mr. Trump is accused of illegally holding on to a large amount of sensitive national security material after leaving office and then plotting to obstruct repeated efforts by the government to get it back. The charges were brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to oversee the federal investigations into Mr. Trump.The case is tied up in efforts by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to have the charges against him dismissed before they go to trial. To that end, the lawyers have filed a barrage of motions attacking the indictment on a number of grounds. Those include claims that Mr. Smith was improperly appointed to his job and that he filed the charges as part of a politicized effort to harm Mr. Trump.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