More stories

  • in

    US attorney resists pressure from Trump to prosecute Letitia James

    A career federal prosecutor in Virginia has told colleagues she does not believe there is probable cause to file criminal mortgage fraud charges against New York attorney general Letitia James, according to a person familiar with the matter.The prosecutor, Elizabeth Yusi, oversees major criminal cases in the Norfolk office for the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and plans to soon present her conclusion to Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally, who was installed as the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia last month. Yusi’s thinking was first reported by MSNBC on Monday.The justice department declined to comment. The US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia did not return a request for comment.The case sets up another high profile confrontation between the justice department and Trump, who has fired attorneys who have refused to punish his enemies. Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience, was put in the role at the urging of Trump after her predecessor concluded there wasn’t probable cause to file criminal charges against James Comey, the former FBI director. Halligan personally presented the case against Comey to a grand jury after she was appointed and secured a two-count indictment.Trump has openly asked Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, to prosecute James, who led a civil fraud case against the president that led to a $500m fine, which was recently overturned by a New York state appellate court.William Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency head and a staunch Trump ally, made a criminal referral of James to the justice department in April, alleging she may have committed mortgage fraud. Pulte pointed to mortgage documents related to a 2023 Norfolk, Virginia, home James helped purchase for her niece in which James appeared to indicate on a document she intended to use the home as her primary residence. James was serving as the attorney general of New York at the time.Prosecutors empaneled a grand jury in May to investigate, but struggled to build a case against James, despite pressure from Trump allies. Emails from the time of the home purchase and other mortgage documents show James clearly indicating that she did not intend for the home to be her primary residence. That evidence makes it difficult for prosecutors to prove that James knowingly lied on the mortgage documents.Multiple prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia have either been fired or resigned in recent weeks as Trump has increased pressure on the office to bring charges against Comey and James.Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, resigned on 19 September after facing pressure from Trump to file charges. Maya Song, a top Siebert deputy, was also fired in late September. Michael Ben’Ary, a top national security prosecutor in the office, was also fired last week after Julie Kelly, a pro-Trump media personality, falsely accused him of working on the Comey case.“The leadership is more concerned with punishing the President’s perceived enemies than they are with protecting our national security,” he wrote in his farewell letter to colleagues.“Justice for Americans killed and injured by our enemies should not be contingent on what someone in the Department of Justice sees in their social media feed that day.” More

  • in

    Judge refuses to block Trump’s deployment of national guard to Illinois

    A federal judge will not immediately block national guard troops from being deployed in Illinois after a lawsuit from the state against the president on Monday.Troops from Texas could be deployed to Chicago later this week, and Trump is also seeking to federalize the Illinois’national guard. A similar effort to deploy troops to Portland was blocked by a judge in Oregon.Illinois sued the Trump administration on behalf of the state and the city of Chicago on Monday after the president ordered national guard troops to deploy in the state against the governor’s wishes.The Illinois attorney general, Kwame Raoul, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Donald Trump from calling up the state’s national guard or sending in troops from other states “immediately and permanently”.“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.Trump has gone after Democratic-led cities, sending in military to clamp down on protests and aid in his deportation agenda. He has declared war on Chicago, threatening for weeks to send in more troops while immigration agents scoured the city for people to deport, and local residents protested against his crackdown.Raoul argues that these efforts to send in guard troops against a state’s will infringe upon the state’s sovereignty and self-governance while leading to unrest and harm for the state’s residents.“It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police. It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue,” Raoul wrote.Illinois’s governor, JB Pritzker, said the Trump administration had not discussed plans to federalize the state’s national guard or to send in troops from other states.“We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” he said in a statement. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois national guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”A Trump-appointed judge in Oregon blocked Trump from sending in troops to Portland. Governor Gavin Newsom of California is also fighting against troops being sent from his state to Oregon. Troops from Texas were going to be sent to Portland and Chicago, with the blessing of Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott.Trump administration officials have railed against the ruling, saying a judge cannot prevent the president from moving troops. “Today’s judicial ruling is one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen – and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat,” Trump adviser Stephen Miller wrote on X.Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, also signed an executive order to prohibit federal immigration agents from using city-owned property to conduct their operations, which comes after “documented use” of public school parking lots and a city-owned lot as staging sites, Johnson said in a press release.“We will not tolerate Ice agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority. ICE agents are detaining elected officials, tear-gassing protestors, children, and Chicago police officers, and abusing Chicago residents. We will not stand for that in our city,” Johnson said in a statement.At a press briefing on Monday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that cities like Chicago were refusing to cooperate with troops because they don’t like the president. She claimed Trump wants to make cities safer.“You guys are framing this like the president wants to take over the American cities with the military,” she said. “The president wants to help these local leaders who have been completely ineffective in securing their own cities.” More

  • in

    US shutdown enters second week as Senate votes again on funding bill

    The US government shutdown entered its second week on Monday, with Democratic and Republican lawmakers making no apparent progress towards reaching a deal to restart funding, while the Trump administration warned it was moving forward with plans to slash the federal workforce.Many agencies and departments closed their doors and told employees to stay home last Wednesday, after Congress failed to approve legislation to continue the government’s authority to spend money.Democrats have refused to back any bill that does not include an array of healthcare-centered concessions, but Congress’s Republican leaders have refused to negotiate over their demands until government funding is restored. Later on Monday, the Senate will vote for a fifth time on the party’s competing proposals to reopen the government, but neither measure appears to have enough votes to advance.“We hope that the vote will not fail, because this administration wants to reopen the government,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.Leavitt said that if the shutdown stretches on, a program thats pays for food for low-income mothers and children would exhaust its funding, while government employees would miss a paycheck, though federal law entitles them to back pay. She also reiterated the Trump administration’s threats to fire federal workers.“We don’t want to see people laid off. But, unfortunately, if this shutdown continues, layoffs are going to be an unfortunate consequence of that,” Leavitt said.In the days since the shut down began, Russ Vought, the director of the White House office of management and budget, has cancelled funding for energy projects in several states, as well as transportations developments in Chicago and New York – all of which are areas governed by Democrats.But though he warned before funding lapsed that he would use it as an opportunity to deepen cuts to the federal workforce, those have largely not yet taken place.Asked about when layoffs may be announced, Leavitt replied: “We’ll see how the vote goes tonight.”Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have shown no signs of budging from their demands in the days since the shutdown began. Speaker Mike Johnson has kept the House on recess for a second straight week, in a bid to pressure Senate Democrats to provide the roughly eight votes the Republican funding bill is expected to need to advance in the upper chamber.“The ball is in the court of the Senate Democrats. There’s only a handful of people in the country who can solve this problem,” Johnson told a press conference.The Democratic minority has largely stuck to their demands that any legislation to fund the government includes an extension of premium tax credits for people covered by Affordable Care Act health insurance. Created under Joe Biden, the credits are set to expire at the end of the year, and costs for 20 million enrollees of the plans will rise if they are not extended.The party has also included in their funding bill a reversal of the Republican cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor and disabled, as well as a restoration of funding for public media outlets like PBS and NPR, and a prohibition on Donald Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission” to undo congressional appropriations.The Senate’s Republican majority leader John Thune has held four votes on the two parties’ bills in the past weeks. No Republicans have supported the Democratic proposal, while only three members of the minority – John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Angus King of Maine – have backed the GOP bill.In an interview on CBS News, Schumer said he and the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, would be willing to negotiate with Trump and the Republican leadership, but they have refused. And while he has “encouraged” his lawmakers “to sit and talk to Republicans”, those conversations were not promising.“The Republicans offered nothing,” Schumer said. “The only way this will ultimately be solved is if five people sit together in a room and solve it.”Several recent polls have shown Democrats with a narrow edge in the public’s opinion of a shutdown. A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll found that 53% of respondents held the GOP responsible for the shutdown, as opposed to 47% who blamed the Democrats. Seventy percent of those surveyed opposed the shutdown overall.Johnson reiterated that he would not call the chamber back into session until government funding is restored. He has also said he will only swear in newly elected Democratic representative Adelita Grijalva once the House returns to work.Grijalva is set to be the 218th lawmaker to sign a petition that will force a vote on a bill to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Johnson and Trump oppose releasing the files, and Thomas Massie, an iconoclastic Republican representative who has led the charge to make the documents public, accused Johnson of keeping the House out of session to delay that vote.“Why are we in recess? Because the day we go back into session, I have 218 votes for the discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files,” Massie said, adding that Johnson “doesn’t want that to be the news”.Joseph Gedeon contributed reporting More

  • in

    Jane Goodall said she would launch Trump and Musk on one-way trip into space

    In a lifetime studying the behavior of chimpanzees, Jane Goodall became something of an authority on the aggressiveness of alpha male adults. Now, in an interview released just days after her death, the famed primatologist reveals what she would do with Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other human beings she saw as showing similar traits: launch them on a one-way trip into space.The insight into Goodall’s thinking comes in the Netflix documentary Famous Last Words, recorded in March and kept under wraps until her death last week at the age of 91.“There are people I don’t like, and I would like to put them on one of Musk’s spaceships and send them all off to the planet he’s sure he’s going to discover,” Goodall tells interviewer Brad Falchuk during the revelatory 55-minute special discussing her life, work and legacy.Would Musk, the SpaceX founder and Trump ally with a penchant for apparent Nazi-style salutes and firing thousands of federal workers, be among them, Falchuk wanted to know.“Oh, absolutely. He’d be the host. You can imagine who I’d put on that spaceship. Along with Musk would be Trump and some of Trump’s real supporters,” she said.“And then I would put [Russian president Vladimir] Putin in there, and I would put [China’s] President Xi. I’d certainly put [Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off.”It is not the first time that Goodall, a champion of environmental advocacy, has been critical of Trump in particular.In a 2022 interview with MSNBC she said he exhibited “the same sort of behavior as a male chimpanzee will show when he’s competing for dominance with another. They’re upright, they swagger, they project themselves as really more large and aggressive than they may actually be in order to intimidate their rivals.”In the Netflix interview, the first in the streaming network’s new series capturing the thoughts of iconic world figures to be broadcast only after their death, Goodall further explained her thinking.“We get, interestingly, two types of alpha. One does it all by aggression, and because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And you know, they last much, much longer,” she said.She also examined the “politicization” of behavior, and what her studies had taught her about aggressive behaviors shown by groups of humans and chimpanzees when confronted with something they perceived as hostile, even if no threat existed.“Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and the hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive,” she said.“It’s contagious,” she added. “Some of these demonstrations that turn aggressive, it sweeps through them. They all want to become and join in and become aggressive. They’re protecting their territory or fighting for dominance.”Falchuk asked if she believed it was the same for humans. “Probably, sometimes yes. But I truly believe that most people are decent,” she said.“My biggest hope is raising this new generation of compassionate citizens, roots and shoots. But do we have time? I don’t know. It’s a really grim time.”Goodall, born in London five years before the start of the second world war, likened the fight against the darkness of present-day politics to Britain standing up to Nazi Germany, and the “spirit of obstinance” shown by Winston Churchill.“That doesn’t mean you don’t have moments of depression, but then you come out of it and say, ‘OK, I’m not going to let them win,’” she said.“It’s like Churchill in the war, his famous speech, we’ll fight them on the beaches, we’ll fight them in the streets and the cities, then he turned aside to a friend and was heard to say, ‘and we’ll fight them at the ends of broken bottles because that’s all we’ve bloody well got’.”Goodall, in a post-interview address to camera, ended with a message of encouragement for those fighting against political oppression and the climate emergency.“Even today, when the planet is dark, there still is hope. Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing,” she said.“And if you want to save what is still beautiful in this world – if you want to save the planet for the future generations, your grandchildren, their grandchildren – then think about the actions you take each day. Because, multiplied a million, a billion times, even small actions will make for great change.” More

  • in

    Boom time for US billionaires: why the system perpetuates wealth inequality

    To many Americans, the economy of the past five years has been rough. Prices have soared yet pay remains stagnant. High mortgage rates have made buying a home a dismal prospect. The unemployment rate has been creeping up.Most people have indicated they are delaying major life decisions, including having kids or switching jobs, because of the instability. But for a very small group of people, the last five years couldn’t have been any better.The wealth of the world’s billionaires grew 54% in 2020, at the height of the pandemic. And even amid all the economic instability, the stock market has only continued to grow. This growth has largely benefited just a small number of Americans: 10% of the population owns 93% of stock market wealth.As uneven as this distribution seems, it’s the system working as it is currently designed.In his new book Burned by Billionaires, inequality researcher Chuck Collins argues that the system that perpetuates wealth inequality is purposely opaque to most Americans.“[The wealthy] have bought their jets, they’ve bought their multiple houses and mansions, but now they’re buying senators and media outlets,” Collins told the Guardian in an interview. “We’re now entering this other chapter of hyper-extraction where the wealthy are preying on the system of inequality.”Collins, a director at the Institute for Policy Studies, is no stranger to wealth. A great-grandson to Oscar F Mayer, the founder of the meat processing brand, he is a member of the Patriotic Millionaires, a non-partisan group of wealthy Americans who advocate for higher taxes for the rich and higher wages.To help others understand what exactly it means to be “wealthy” in the US, Collins borrows a concept from journalist Robert Frank who, in a 2007 book on the rich, imagined the different levels of wealth as “Richistan” villages: Affluent Town, Lower Richistan, Middle Richistan, Upper Richistan and Billionaireville.To modernize the concept, Collins categorizes these “wealth villages” based on income levels. At the lowest tier, Affluent Town, are the 10 million Americans who have a household income of at least $110,000 and an overall wealth of over $1.5m. The villages get more exclusive as wealth goes up: Lower Richistan has 2.6 million households who have wealth between $6m and $13m; Middle Richistan has 1.3 million households who have assets worth an average of $37m; while Upper Richistan, made up of 130,000 Americans (roughly the size of a small city) has between $60m to $1bn in wealth.Altogether, the residents of these villages make up the top 10% of the wealth income distribution, about 14 million Americans altogether, though their experiences vary dramatically.“You could be in Lower Richistan, and you’re still sitting in the coach section of a commercial plane,” Collins said. “Whereas in Upper Richistan, you’re flying in a private jet. That’s a really different cultural experience. You fly private, you have no stakes in the commercial aviation system. You don’t care if the whole system shuts down – you’re set.”The highest hill in “Richistan” is Billionaireville, which is made up of about 800 American billionaires who are some of the world’s wealthiest. The power that this group has far surpasses those who are simply affluent, let alone the average American who doesn’t reside in “Richistan” at all.But Collins thinks the progressive slogan “billionaires shouldn’t exist” or “abolish billionaires” misses the point and has a “whiff of exterminism” to it.“It’s the distinction between individual behaviors and a system of rules and policies,” Collins said. “We should be concerned about an economic system that funnels so much wealth upward to the billionaires.”In other words, it’s not about the billionaires themselves, but about the system that allows them to have an enormous amount of influence and control over society today.To understand how wealth at the billionaire level works, Collins breaks it down into four parts: getting the wealth, defending the wealth, political capture and hyper-extraction.When many Americans think about wealth, they usually think solely about the first step, Collins said. People can create a modest amount of wealth through starting or running a successful business, which could get them residency in Affluent Town.But getting to Billionaireville requires serious investment and strategy in those next three steps. Collins describes what he calls the “wealth defense industry”: the tax layers, accountants and wealth managers who use their expertise to ensure that the super rich are being strategic about their taxes.“Wealth defense professionals use a wide variety of tools such as trusts, offshore bank accounts, anonymous shell companies, charitable foundations and other vehicles to hold assets,” he writes.To further a wealth defense strategy, a family needs political support. Wealth of over $40m translates to political power, Collins says, and can be used to defend wealth and protect its accumulation. He notes that the 2010 landmark supreme court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed the wealthy to pump a seemingly unlimited amount of money into elections, which has dramatically increased the power the ultra-wealthy have on politics.The last stage is a different kind of wealth accumulation, one that Collins calls “hyper extraction”, to describe how the wealthy have come to touch nearly every single part of an Americans’ everyday life largely through private equity, which allows wealthy individuals to invest in private companies.“Private equity is looking for those corners of the economy where they can squeeze things a little bit harder,” Collins said. “One thing I don’t think people understand is these billionaire private-equity funds are what happens when so much wealth is parked in so few hands, and they can kind of turn around and say, ‘Where else can we squeeze money out of the economy?’ Healthcare? Great. Mobile home parks? These people can’t go anywhere, [so] you can raise their rents.”Collins writes about the Mars family, best known for their dominance in the confectionary market, with M&Ms, Snickers and Skittles, but who have also cornered the pet industry. Along with being the biggest owner of pet care products in the US, the Mars family owns more than 2,500 pet care facilities across the US.The effects of this inequality go beyond the wealth getting wealthier. It’s about people paying more for their healthcare, rent and vet bills without seeing any meaningful wage increases. And Collins said the pain and frustration of this kind of society can lead to deep discontent.“The most powerful oligarchs understand people are being left behind [and] are economically suffering,” Collins said, adding that Republicans have been good at tapping into a potent “phony populism”.“They can basically project this message that actually, Democrats are elitists. They just care about rich Hollywood executives and woke politics, and the people who care about you are over here. They’re the Donald Trumps of the world. They hear your pain, they feel your pain,” he said.The irony, Collins points out in his book, is that Trump has appointed a string of billionaires to his cabinet. Along with Elon Musk, who had a brief but powerful role as head of the so-called “department of government efficiency”, which oversaw massive cuts to the federal workforce, Trump’s secretaries for commerce, treasury, education and the interior are also all billionaires.His cabinet, along with help from Republicans in Congress, helped him pass his huge tax bill, which will make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.While Republican continue to argue that immigration and bad trade agreements are the source of everyone’s economic problems, “the question becomes: Will the Democratic party, which has also been captured by the billionaires and big money, be able to meaningfully address the underlying harms?” Collins said.Democrats, he argues, know what policies are needed to “reverse the updraft of wealth”, including deep changes to the tax system, increasing the minimum wage and strengthening unions.Collins recalled four years ago, when the Democrats were in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Democrats introduced the $4.3bn Build Back Better bill, which would have seen deep investments in the climate crisis, Medicaid, housing and childcare, among other things. The bill was going to be partially funded through changes in the tax system, including higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy and closing out tax loopholes.But while the bill passed the House in November 2021, it ultimately died in the Senate because two centrist Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, blocked it. Both Manchin and Sinema have since both left their Senate seats.“It was so, so close, and the bill really did reflect the will of the majority of people who really want lawmakers to solve some of these urgent problems,” Collins said. “Oligarchic power is not about creating so much as blocking. It’s easier to block than it is to make something meaningful happen, but the muscle memory is there. We know what that looks like.”Collins is optimistic that there can be change, but said it would require sustained political momentum.“It may be before we know it that the pendulum swings back, and then it really is about maintaining a sustained really popular movement to make progress on this extreme inequality we’re living in,” he said. “We can fix this. It is fixable.” More

  • in

    Why does the supreme court keep bending the knee to Trump? | Steven Greenhouse

    Two 0f the world’s best-known authoritarian leaders – Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president – have each had at least 15 years at their country’s helm to pack the courts with loyalists and to pressure and intimidate judges. And no surprise, judges in those countries have repeatedly done what Orbán and Erdoğan want.Donald Trump has not had the opportunity to pack the US supreme court to nearly the same degree. Nor has he, despite his brash, bullying ways, done much to pressure or browbeat the court’s nine justices. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative supermajority has ruled time after time in favor of Trump since he returned to office. The six conservative justices have fallen into line much like Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges, even though the supreme court’s justices have life tenure to insulate them from political pressures.With the court’s new term beginning on Monday, many Americans are dismayed that the conservative justices have been so submissive to Trump, the most authoritarian-minded president in US history. Notwithstanding the US’s celebrated system of checks and balances, the justices have utterly failed to provide the checks on Trump that many legal scholars had expected. In ruling for Trump, the chief justice, John Roberts, and the other conservatives have let him gut the Department of Education, fire Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board members, and strip temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The rightwing supermajority has also let Trump halt $4bn in foreign aid, fire tens of thousands of federal employees despite contractual protections and deport people to countries where they have no connection.In these and other cases, the supermajority has ceded huge power to Trump, for instance, by greatly reducing Congress’s constitutional power over spending as it let Trump unilaterally gut agencies and halt funding approved by Congress. What’s more, the court seems eager to snuff out independent, nonpartisan federal agencies by letting Trump fire agency chairs and commissioners without giving any reason, even though Congress approved laws explicitly saying those officials could only be dismissed for cause. (Pleasing corporate America, the court ordered last Wednesday that Lisa Cook can remain on the Federal Reserve Board, at least temporarily, while litigation proceeds over whether Trump can fire her as part of his effort to end the central bank’s independence.)“The chief justice is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America,” said J Michael Luttig, a highly regarded conservative former federal appellate judge.The conservative justices have repeatedly done Trump’s bidding even though they don’t begin to face the intense pressures that Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges face. Erdoğan has sometimes purged and blackballed judges seen as insufficiently loyal, while Orbán’s high-ranking allies have berated less obedient judges as “traitors”.The US supreme court has ruled for Trump in a startlingly high percentage of cases this year. It has issued 24 decisions from its emergency docket (often without giving any reasons) and ruled in Trump’s favor about 90% of the time.In doing so, the court has repeatedly vacated injunctions that lower courts had issued after concluding that Trump, with his 209 executive orders, had egregiously broken the law. Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, found that in Trump administration cases decided between 1 May and 23 June, federal district courts ruled against Trump 94.3% of the time (82 out of 87 cases), often after looking closely at the facts. In contrast, the supreme court ruled 93.7% of the time for Trump (15 out of 16 cases), often without taking a close look at the facts.“The supreme court has pulled the rug out from under the lower federal courts, and it has done so deliberately and knowingly,” Luttig said, adding that the court is “acquiescing in and accommodating the president’s lawlessness”.With the court siding so often with Trump, a new Gallup poll found that a record high 43% of Americans think the court is too conservative, higher than the 36% who think the court is “about right”. Moreover, the court’s overall approval rating has fallen to its lowest level since Gallup began measuring, dropping below 40% for the first time in August (before climbing slightly) – and down from nearly 60% in the early 2000s.Steven Levitsky, a political science professor at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die, voiced bewilderment that the court has been so obliging toward a president who he says is a clear threat to democracy. According to Levitsky, courts come under the thumb of authoritarian governments in several ways. One way is “ideological agreement”. He said the court’s most rightwing members, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, seem in fundamental agreement with Trump, but he said the other conservatives do not love Trump even if they often rule for him. Levitsky suggested that those justices are so hostile toward liberals and liberal arguments that they gravitate towards Trump’s side in case after case.Court packing is another way courts fall under an authoritarian’s sway. Orbán, Erdoğan and their legislative allies have appointed the overwhelming majority of their countries’ judges, while Trump has appointed three of the nine justices. With life tenure, the justices should in theory feel free from political pressure and able to rule against Trump. In the past, many justices have ruled against the presidents and parties that appointed them.Levitsky sees another phenomenon at work: abdication. Pointing to both Congress and the supreme court, he said: “The major institutions that have the authority and responsibility to stand up and stop an authoritarian have declined to do so.”In his view, the conservative justices may have made a major miscalculation. “They are overconfident about the strength of our institutions,” Levitsky said. “They don’t really think our democracy is in danger. They don’t think it can really happen here. I really think a majority of members of the US establishment are in that camp.”The conservative justices have increasingly embraced the unitary executive theory, a once fringe, four-decade-old notion that the president has sole, unlimited authority over the executive branch and should, for instance, be free to fire members of independent agencies along with hundreds of thousands of federal employees. “If they really believed that Trump was a threat to democracy, they wouldn’t be giving him so much power,” Levitsky said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court’s conservatives, Levitsky and many legal scholars say, are also engaged in appeasement. Roberts and the conservatives are “scared out of their minds that they will have to play chicken with Trump”, Levitsky said. “The worst thing for them is if the government ignores them and they don’t have any authority. They’re just terrified that Trump will trample on them and undermine their authority. Trump is not someone you want to play chicken with. They’re terrified of a big, high-profile fight with Trump.”In other words, the conservative justices are so eager to save face and avoid confrontation that they have often given a green light to what lower courts have seen as Trump’s lawlessness. Meanwhile, the three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – have written repeated, often angry dissents that chastise the supermajority for acquiescing to Trump’s lawlessness and steamrolling over parts of the constitution.One theory is that the conservative justices are deliberately giving Trump small victories – vacating lower courts’ injunctions and letting the president’s executive orders proceed and do their damage – as the justices wait for those cases to return to the supreme court, perhaps in a year or two. At that point, those cases would be fully briefed and argued, and the court would issue formal, longer rulings. Legal scholars hope, but are not optimistic, that the thus far compliant court will be more willing to defy Trump when the cases are fully briefed and argued, with the birthright citizenship and tariff cases most often mentioned.“What they’re doing,” Levitsky said, “is giving Trump small victories in an effort to placate him or preserve as much political capital for when the big fights come. It’s appeasement. Appeasement usually doesn’t work when you cede power to an authoritarian executive. It sends signals to society that no one is going to stop the guy. Ceding power to someone like Trump is really dangerous.”After Jair Bolsonaro, a rightwing Trump ally, was elected Brazil’s president in 2019, Alexandre de Moraes, a prominent member of Brazil’s supreme court, feared what he saw as Bolsonaro’s authoritarian tendencies. De Moraes cracked down on Bolsonaro’s efforts to spread disinformation on social media to undermine his opponents. When a mob of Bolsonaro’s allies stormed government buildings in January 2023, pushing for a coup d’etat, de Moraes led efforts to prosecute Bolsonaro. (Last month, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison after being convicted of plotting a coup.)“When Bolsonaro got elected, de Moraes realized that he’s a threat to democracy,” Levitsky said. “He thought that the Brazilian supreme court could be Chamberlain or Churchill.” (Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister, agreed to let Adolf Hitler take over a German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, as part of the Munich agreement, infamously declaring that the agreement would assure “peace for our time”.)“The [US] supreme court hasn’t wanted to be Churchill.” Levitsky said. “John Roberts has been Chamberlain. I think that is incredible destructive behavior.”

    Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

  • in

    Trump news at a glance: Democrats say administration refusing shutdown talks as president repeats threat of firings

    The Trump administration will start mass layoffs of federal workers if the president decides negotiations to end the government shutdown are “absolutely going nowhere,” a senior White House official has said.Kevin Hassett told CNN he still saw a chance that Democrats would back down, but added that Trump was “getting ready to act” if he has to.No tangible signs of negotiations have emerged between congressional leaders since Trump met with them last week. The shutdown began on 1 October, after Senate Democrats rejected a short-term funding measure that would keep federal agencies open through to 21 November. Democrats are demanding that funding include healthcare measures for low-income Americans.“They’ve refused to talk with us,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told CBS, saying the impasse could be solved only by further talks between Trump and the four congressional leaders.House speaker says Democrats aren’t serious about shutdown negotiation as Democratic leader blames RepublicansThe Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, accused Democrats of being “not serious” in negotiations to end the federal government shutdown, while the Democratic leader accused Republicans of driving the shutdown.Read the full storyUS struck another boat illegally carrying drugs off Venezuela coast, Trump saysUS forces on Saturday evening struck another vessel illegally carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump said on Sunday to thousands of sailors at a ceremony celebrating the US navy’s 250th anniversary.The United Nations has condemned the US strikes – which the US defends as countering “narco-terrorist” members of Tren de Aragua, designated a foreign terrorist organization, in international waters – as extrajudicial executions.Read the full storyNewsom to sue Trump as Pentagon sends California national guard to OregonCalifornia’s governor, Gavin Newsom, announced on Sunday that he is suing Donald Trump over the deployment of 300 California national guard personnel to Oregon.Newsom’s proposed lawsuit follows a federal judge’s ruling that blocked the Trump administration from deploying the Oregon national guard to Portland. US district judge Karin Immergut agreed with arguments it would inflame rather than calm tensions in the city.Read the full storyKristi Noem calls Chicago a ‘war zone’ after federal agents shoot womanKristi Noem, Donald Trump’s homeland security secretary, called Chicago “a war zone” on Sunday after federal agents shot a woman and the governor of Illinois accused the administration of fueling the crisis rather than resolving it.Speaking on Fox News Sunday morning, Noem took aim at the city’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, who has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s Ice raids and deployment of the national guard in Illinois, a measure he called “unhinged and unhealthy”.Read the full storyIsrael continues Gaza bombardment as Trump plan negotiators arrive in CairoNegotiators have arrived in Cairo before talks on Monday expected to focus on the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza and a broader end to the war, as Israel continued strikes on the Palestinian territory, killing 63 people in the last 24 hours.The US envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to join the talks, according to Israeli media, in addition to Israel’s negotiators and a Palestinian delegation headed by Khalil al-Hayya, the deputy head of the political bureau of Hamas.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    In a rare display of unity, out-of-power Democrats have embraced the risky politics of a government shutdown as their boldest effort yet to rein in a president whom many Americans and constitutional scholars now view as a threat to US democracy.

    Trump is intensifying his attacks on Soros little more than a year before the midterm elections for Congress, in what’s been described as a “chilling message to other donors”. The billionaire reportedly contributed more than $170m to help Democrats during the 2022 midterm cycle.

    The Trump administration is targeting 100m acres of forest across the country for logging. One critical wilderness area – Ohio’s sole national forest – could be wiped out.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened on 4 October 2025. More