US Politics

The bipartisan bill combining an overhaul of US immigration policy and security measures at the US-Mexico border with nearly $100bn in foreign aid on Wednesday has failed to garner enough votes to move forward in the US Senate, although voting continued.More details as they happen. There are already 49 No votes. Sixty Yes votes in the 100-strong chamber are needed to pass bills.Frustration as GOP rejects a bipartisan border compromise, only to demand another If you’re just catching up on today’s senate Republican vote to reject a bipartisan border deal, followed by GOP demands that amendments with border provisions be allowed for a standalone foreign military aid bill, here are some perspectives:And from a bit earlier:Still waiting on a senate vote on $95bn foreign aid packageThis is Lois Beckett, picking up our live politics coverage from Los Angeles.We are still waiting on a vote to see whether the senate will proceed with debate over a proposed $95b military assistance bill for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.Some details on the current conversations among Republican senators from Punchbowl News and HuffPost:The focus will shift to the US supreme court tomorrow, where justices will consider a case challenging Donald Trump’s ability to appear on presidential ballots, after advocacy groups argued his involvement in the January 6 insurrection should disqualify him. Here’s the Guardian’s Rachel Leingang with more on those efforts:A US supreme court case that could remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot is the culmination of several years of work by left-leaning watchdog groups to reinvigorate the 14th amendment and its power.A Colorado case that found Trump couldn’t run for re-election there was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), though other groups and individuals have filed lawsuits and petitions in many states trying to remove Trump under the 14th amendment’s third clause. The clause says that people who were in office and participated in an insurrection against the US can’t hold office again.Some of the challenges have gone through the courts, while others have appealed directly to elections officials in charge of placing candidates on the ballot. Colorado was the first ruling to decide against Trump, so it is headed to the supreme court at the former president’s behest. Because of how consequential and rare the issue is, it was expected that the high court would eventually be the arbiter of how the clause applied in the modern era.The Senate is now voting on whether to begin debate on the $95b military assistance bill for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.That vote needs only a simple majority to succeed, but the story doesn’t end there. Fox News reports that Democrats want the measure to pass quickly, but, as with most legislation in the Senate, will need at least nine Republican votes to do that. The GOP is demanding that majority leader Chuck Schumer allow amendments be made to the bill – including some measures dealing with immigration, even after the party just a few minutes ago voted down a bill to make major changes to how the US deals with migrants and asylum seekers:As we wait to find out if Republicans will vote to provide military aid to Ukraine and Israel without hardline border policies, Punchbowl News reports that a key GOP lawmaker is warning that approving the bill could hurt the party’s chances in the November elections.That’s the argument made in a party strategy meeting by senator Steve Daines of Montana, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is tasked with winning the party seats in Congress’s upper chamber:Republicans are tipped to retake control of the Senate in November. For Democrats to maintain their one-seat majority, Joe Biden would have to win re-election, and the party would have to win two of the three seats they are defending representing Ohio, West Virginia and Montana – all red states. That’s assuming their lawmakers in safer seats are re-elected, and the Democrats fail to defeat Republican senators representing Texas, Florida, or any other red state.The bipartisan bill combining an overhaul of US immigration policy and security measures at the US-Mexico border with nearly $100bn in foreign aid on Wednesday has failed to garner enough votes to move forward in the US Senate, although voting continued.More details as they happen. There are already 49 No votes. Sixty Yes votes in the 100-strong chamber are needed to pass bills.The White House is focused on getting a Ukraine aid package through the US Congress, the White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Wednesday, adding there was no “plan B”, Reuters reports.
We believe we still can and will deliver aid for Ukraine,” Sullivan told reporters during a joint press conference with the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.
Stoltenberg said it was vital Congress agreed on continued support for Ukraine in the near future.Stoltenberg said there was no imminent threat to any Nato ally, but added:
We must sustain our support and that is a responsibility for all allies.”
The US Senate is currently voting on the bipartisan border and foreign aid bill that a group of lawmakers has been working on for months and unveiled on Sunday. But the bill appears doomed, despite Republicans having insisted on immigration reform to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Legislation needs 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate, where Democrats hold a wafter-thin majority, so GOP support is needed to pass bills.Arizona independent US senator Kyrsten Sinema just told the chamber that the Republican abandonment of efforts to pass immigration reform legislation was “shameful”.Sinema (who switched from the Democratic party to become an independent not long after the midterm elections in 2022, when Republicans won control of the House), said that many Republican senators may just want to ignore a bill involving tightening border security, but Arizona could not afford that as it is dealing with the increase in migration every day.Republican senator James Lankford of Oklahoma spoke on the floor of the Senate moments ago to say that Americans were telling Congress to “do something” about the increase in migration at the US-Mexico border.“We have to decide if we are going to do that or not, if we are going to do nothing, or do something,” he said.He said the bill that looks doomed is “a bill put together by a bipartisan effort – welcome to the US Senate”.Lankford worked across the aisle with Democrats Patty Murray and Chris Murphy and independent senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to prepare the complex bill that implements immigration reforms, toughens the US-Mexico border, and funds more aid for Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as Taiwan. At almost 400 pages, he said it took months of complicated work.But he said he had Republican colleagues who believed lies they read on social media rather than the text of the bill itself. One unnamed fellow GOPer told him: “If you are trying to move a bill that solves the border crisis during the election, I will do everything to destroy you,” Lankford said. And they have done so, he said, by signaling they would not support a bill Republicans had said was sorely needed.Washington state’s Democratic senator Patty Murray is on the floor of the US Senate now, lambasting Republicans who are obstructing the border and war aid spending legislation, and thanking her Republican fellow senator, James Lankford, of Oklahoma, who just spoke passionately.Murray talked of Ukraine’s defense against Russian president Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s offensive against Hamas, and the need for more US funds for those allies, and said: “Today is a critical vote. Today is a critical day to decide.” She asked if senators would keep their word when they negotiate with each other.Both she and Lankford are lamenting the fact that legislation in front of the Senate to implement border reforms and boost funds for Ukraine and Israel is on the brink.“And lets not forget there is the [US-Mexico] border,” she said. “The site of so many Republican photo ops.”“That’s the moment we are in, by voting it down, Republicans will be telling our allies our word cannot be trusted, telling dictators like Putin that our threats are not serious,” she said.“And telling the American people they do not want to solve the crisis at the border, they want to campaign on it – you do not let a fire burn so that Donald Trump can campaign on the ashes,” Murray said.Hours after the House descended into farce yesterday evening when Republicans failed to impeach the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, and blocked legislation to send military aid to Israel, the Senate is taking a crack at approving a complex bill to tighten immigration policy while assisting both Israel and Ukraine. If that legislation does not pass, and there’s plenty of reason to believe it will not, since Republicans say they no longer like the border security changes, the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said they’ll vote on a bill that solely contains funds for Kyiv, and for the counterattack against Hamas. Will that attract the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, and, if it does, will it make through the House, where Ukraine foes are plenty? We’ll find out soon enough.Here’s what else is going on today:
Joe Biden says he will support the Israel-Ukraine aid bill, even if it does not include immigration policy changes.
The Mayorkas impeachment will die in the Senate, predicted Oklahoma’s Republican senator James Lankford, who negotiated the ill-fated immigration policy bill.
Nikki Haley had a terrible night in Nevada, where she came in second in the primaries to “none of these candidates”. This morning, she blamed the Republican party’s problems on Donald Trump, who appears on course to win its presidential nomination.
The big question looming over the Senate is: will either version of the Israel-Ukraine aid bill, one of which contains immigration policy changes, the other which does not, receive enough votes to pass?To succeed, either legislation will need to receive 60 votes, meaning at least some Republicans will have to sign on.Punchbowl News reports that John Thune, the number-two Republican in the Senate, was mum about how his lawmakers were feeling:Independent senator Bernie Sanders says he will oppose the legislation to provide military aid to Israel, citing the widespread destruction and civilian casualties caused by its invasion of Gaza.“Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas’s terrorism, but it does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people. Since this war began over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed and 67,000 wounded – two-thirds of whom are women and children. Over 1.7 million people have been driven from their homes and have no idea as to where they will be in the future. Almost 70% of the housing units in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged,” the Vermont lawmaker said.“This bill provides $10bn dollars more in US military aid for the Netanyahu government to continue its horrific war against the Palestinian people. That is unconscionable. That is why I will be voting NO.”Joe Biden will sign legislation to send new military aid to Ukraine and Israel, even if it does not contain policy changes intended to stop migrants from crossing the southern border, the White House announced.Here’s what spokesman Andrew Bates had to say:
We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians. Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not. We must still have reforms and more resources to secure the border. These priorities all have strong bipartisan support across the country.
Whether the Senate manages to pass any legislation today is a different matter.The Senate will this afternoon take two votes on approving aid to Israel and Ukraine, one on a bill that will include hardline immigration policies, and one without, the chamber’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer announced.“I have scheduled a vote on the supplemental that includes strong bipartisan border reforms that Republicans have demanded for months,” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. He went on:
Now, if Republicans blocked this national security package with border legislation that they demanded later today, I will give them the opportunity to move forward with the package without border reforms. This package will otherwise be largely the same. It will have strong funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, help for innocent civilians in Gaza and funding to the Indo Pacific. The legislation on the floor today is one of the most important security packages the Senate has considered in a very long time. So the onus is on Senate Republicans to finally take yes for an answer.
Last year, Republicans blocked Senate passage of a bill to provide aid to Israel and Ukraine, demanding that the Democrats agree to pass a law to stem the flow of migrants across the US border with Mexico. But after Joe Biden and his allies announced their support this week for hardline policies intended to do that, the GOP said they were no longer interested – reportedly because Donald Trump pressured them to do so.It’s unclear how Senate Republicans will vote today. In his speech, Schumer warned the party that they would be doing Trump’s bidding and harming national security if they block both pieces of legislation.“It would be an embarrassment for our country, an absolute nightmare for the Republican party if they reject national security funding twice in one day. Today is the day for Republicans to do the right thing when it comes to our national security,” Schumer said.“Why are the Republicans doing all this? Why have they backed off on border when they know it’s the right thing to do? Two words, Donald Trump.” More

Black and Hispanic voters are deserting the Democratic party in numbers that will present a concern for Joe Biden’s re-election effort, a poll has found.Among Black Americans expressing a party preference, the Democratic lead over Republicans has dropped by almost 20% in only three years, according to the Gallup survey.The Democratic lead among Hispanic adults and adults aged 18 to 29, meanwhile, also slid by almost the same degree, leaving the party with only a modest advantage.Both groups, but especially Black voters, were key ingredients of the alliance that gave Biden a more than 7m-vote advantage over Donald Trump in the 2020 election.The loss is only partially offset by modest gains among college-educated Americans, both with or without college degrees, Gallup found.“These shifts in the party affiliation of key subgroups provide the demographic backstory for how Democrats went from enjoying significant leads over Republicans between 2012 and 2021, to slight deficits in 2022 and 2023,” the research company said in a statement accompanying the survey.“The 27% of US adults identifying as Democrats and the 43% identifying as or leaning Democratic are both new lows in Gallup’s trend.”The drop in support of non-Hispanic Black voters will perhaps be most alarming for the Biden re-election campaign. In 2020, the Democratic party held a 77-11 percentage point advantage over Republicans in that demographic, which has sunk to a 66-19 lead.Similarly, there is only a 12-point gap, 47-35, in Hispanic adults supporting Democrats, compared with a 31-point lead in 2021, and a 36-point margin in 2016.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden has acknowledged that his support from Black voters has fallen, and he embarked on a messaging offensive last month trying to win them back, beginning with a campaign appearance at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, the scene of a 2015 racist massacre.The president urged the Democratic National Committee to put South Carolina first on the party’s primary calendar to reflect the importance of Black voters. Despite low turnout, Biden won the 3 February primary easily. More

Record levels of migration are straining an immigration system left nearly broken by decades of congressional inaction.Republicans have spent years amplifying scenes of turmoil and tragedy at the southern border, but Democratic leaders are also worried now, particularly big-city mayors and blue state governors who are demanding more federal resources to shelter and feed an influx of migrants.With many voters now saying immigration is a top priority, what exactly is happening at the US border to make so many people concerned?There has been a surge of encounters at the US borderSince the pandemic there has been a spike in global migration, coinciding with Joe Biden’s presidency. Across the globe, people are fleeing war, political insecurity, violence, poverty and natural disasters. Many of those in Latin America, in particular, travel to the US in search of safety.View image in fullscreenIn the last three years, the number of people attempting to cross the US’s southern border into the country has risen to unprecedented levels.In the month of December 2023 alone, border patrol agents recorded 302,000 encounters (these include apprehensions and immediate expulsions), a new high. The monthly average from 2013 to 2019 was 39,000.Arrivals are coming from more countriesThe collapse of Venezuela, political instability in Haiti, violence in Ecuador, a crackdown in Nicaragua, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, repression in China and other conflicts have fueled a historic shift in migration patterns.Mexico was the single most common origin country for US border encounters in 2023, but Mexican nationals made up less than 30% of the total share, compared with more than 60% a decade ago.Their journey is more perilousNearly 9,000 people attempting to reach the US from the south have been recorded missing or dead in the Americas in the past 10 years, according to the Missing Migrants Project.Some never make it through the notorious Darién Gap at the southern end of Central America, where a US deal with Panama and Colombia to stop migrants in their tracks has caused an outcry.The vast majority of recorded fatalities (5,145), however, occur at the US-Mexico border crossing, according to the project’s data.Many of the deaths occurred in southern Arizona when people attempted to cross open desert, miles from any roads.Fatalities are also concentrated along the treacherous stretch of south-western Texas where the Rio Grande river becomes the borderline. Further inland, hundreds of deaths have been recorded in the sparse, humid scrubland around Falfurrias.View image in fullscreenTheir cases languish in courtsThe border rules are complicated: some people apprehended at the border will face expedited deportation, but others will enter formal deportation proceedings and qualify for temporary release into the US, with a date to appear before a judge.Resolving those immigration cases and asylum claims can take years. The backlog of immigration cases has grown steadily – there were an astounding 3.3m cases pending as of December 2023, but just 682 immigration judges. That means the average caseload is more than 4,500 per judge.In the meantime …People arriving often find themselves in unofficial camps all along the US border. Some are waiting to cross, others have been met by US border patrol, yet others have been turned away. Some border states such as Texas have put tens of thousands of people awaiting their asylum claims on buses and sent them to other states, including California and New York, without their knowledge or permission.As for Congress, it continues to argue over clamping down on unlawful border crossings and alleviating the deepening humanitarian crisis – an increasingly irreconcilable divide between those who want to expand the immigration system and those who want to restrict it.View image in fullscreen More

A New Orleans-area man who has reported that Israeli troops kidnapped his mother – a US citizen – from a family home on the occupied West Bank Palestinian territory is asking Joe Biden’s White House to follow through on the president’s recent promise to respond “if you harm an American”.Ibrahim Hamed said he realized that Biden’s remarks on Friday – “if you harm an American, we will respond” – came after the United States and Britain attacked Houthi targets in Yemen in retaliation for a drone strike that killed three US army troops. But he said the sentiment should apply equally even in the case of a Palestinian American who has been taken by Israeli troops.Israel collects billions in US security assistance annually. Biden has also been seeking $14bn more in aid for Israel as it wages a military campaign in Gaza after the 7 October attack by Hamas.“We’re paying our tax money to do what – to fund the people who are oppressing us?” Hamed said. “So when is this oppression going to stop?”Hamed’s impassioned remarks to the Guardian came a day after he said members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) went to a home in the occupied Palestinian town of Silwad where his mother, Samaher Esmail, lives part-time.In a prepared statement responding to a request for comment, the IDF said it had arrested Esmail “for incitement on social media”. The statement did not elaborate but said Esmail was arrested alongside others in Silwad who were then taken in “for further questioning”.Esmail remained in custody of the Israel prison service on Wednesday, a source with knowledge of her whereabouts said.Esmail’s arrest came shortly before the US’s top diplomat, Antony Blinken, embarked on a trip to Israel meant to forge a ceasefire in Gaza.A US state department spokesperson said the agency was aware of reports that an American citizen had been detained on the West Bank but declined to comment further. “The Department of State has no higher priority than the safety and security of US citizens overseas,” the spokesperson said. “We are seeking additional information and stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance.”Neighbors called Hamed’s family in the New Orleans suburb of Gretna and told him that several IDF troops had pulled up in military vehicles and dragged away Esmail, 46, while she was beaten, handcuffed and blindfolded.Hamed said he received videos and pictures of the scene that greeted his mother as she was being taken. He could not believe that about 10 IDF troops had shown up to get Esmail, who he said weighed 110lb.“She’s not even heavy. I’m like, ‘What is going on here?’” Hamed said, describing his reaction to the videos and his mother’s neighbors’ recollections. “I just never would have thought that they would have done this to – first – a woman and – second – a US citizen.”State business records in Louisiana show Esmail has owned a convenience store on the edge of New Orleans’s Bayou St John neighborhood since 2003. She was born in New York. And as one of the 122,500 to 220,000 Americans of Palestinian descent who the Arab American Institute Foundation estimates live in the US, Esmail raised four children who attended Patrick F Taylor Science and Technology Academy in the New Orleans suburb of Westwego.Hamed and his brother, Suliman, graduated from New Orleans’s Xavier University and Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, respectively. Her two daughters, Yousra and Huda, are studying at the University of New Orleans.Esmail planned to return home to New Orleans in April to meet a newborn granddaughter and celebrate Yousra’s graduation from UNO. But those plans remained uncertain on Tuesday as Hamed said his family awaited word from the US embassy in Jerusalem on how to proceed.Hamed said no one had told him why Israeli troops took his mom captive until a reporter notified him of the IDF’s statement.He said he feared comments which she posted on social media that were critical of Israel’s West Bank occupation may have brought her unwanted attention from the IDF. But he said it was “bogus” for Esmail to be arrested for them.Also, Hamed wondered whether Esmail’s arrest may have partially resulted from her involvement in a legal proceeding that began after IDF troops roughed her up at a West Bank checkpoint in 2022.Hamed said his family is friends with that of the 17-year-old Gretna boy who was reported to have been shot dead on the West Bank in January by Israeli forces, Tawfiq Ajaq. Ajaq, who was also known as Tawfic Abdeljabber, had traveled there with his parents to reconnect with his Palestinian roots, his family has said.The mosque to which Esmail and Ajaq’s families belong, Masjid Omar, issued a statement demanding her immediate release, saying she does not have access to the medication that she takes to treat multiple illnesses. The Center for American-Islamic Relations also wrote a statement insisting that Esmail be freed.In addition to contacting the American embassy in Jerusalem, Hamed said he had solicited help from New Orleans’s congressman, the Democratic US House member Troy Carter. But he said he had “not heard anything government-wise” regarding his mother’s status.“There’s zero communication … I don’t know what’s going on,” Hamed said of his mother’s plight. “I feel as if they’re not giving enough attention to her.” More

Conservative outrage over the presence of a female pop star at professional football games is a sign of how many parts of American life and culture have taken on a partisan political flavor.

Partisanship doesn’t just apply to opinions about the dating lives of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. Food, too, is another aspect of the latest set of not-quite-political conflicts – including beverage brands and main courses. What you serve at your Super Bowl party, or what the host serves at the event you attend, can now be interpreted, or twisted, through a partisan lens.

Our public-opinion research shows that almost nothing today is free of partisanship – whether the item in question has anything to do with government action, political ideology or public policy, or not. At times, the issues that erupt into political skirmishes are the result of fanciful conspiratorial thinking, blatant misinformation or just the personal preferences of political leaders.

We have found that these developments, in which polarization invades parts of Americans’ lives that really aren’t political, deepen existing divides in society. These conflicts also make it harder to have fun in mixed political company, and harder to steer clear of accidentally offending someone at your Super Bowl party.

It’s an official sponsor of the Super Bowl, but Bud Light has been part of political controversy.
Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

An eye on Bud Light

Bud Light has long been one of the nation’s most popular beers. Politics has changed that.

In April 2023, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video to Instagram promoting a Bud Light contest. The anti-trans backlash was swift, with calls for boycotts of the beer coming from Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas.

By June 2023, Bud Light was no longer the nation’s best-selling beer, falling behind Modelo Especial. The company that makes Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch, saw a 10% drop in revenue in the second quarter of 2023, which it attributed primarily to the conservative objections to a trans person being associated with the brand.

Would you like this dish less if you knew Barack Obama liked it?
LauriPatterson/E+ via Getty Images

Making the nonpolitical political

In our book, “The Power of Partisanship,” we document that partisanship – psychological attachments to one of the two major political parties – in America has drastically increased since the 1950s.

We have found that more Americans identify as strong partisans than ever. We have also found that people’s political preferences are increasingly driven by negative emotions about the other party.

As a result of this increased partisanship, political leaders have more power than ever to introduce new issues and ideas into the public discussion, and use them divisively – even topics that have nothing to do with politics. And leaders’ views affect those of the public.

We found that this partisan phenomenon extends to food. For instance, Donald Trump likes meatloaf and Barack Obama likes chili. We surveyed people and asked them about their political views and their food preferences. Some of them we told of Trump’s and Obama’s preferences, and some we did not.

Democrats whom we told that Trump likes meatloaf rated that dish significantly lower than Democrats whom we had not told of his preference. Likewise, Republicans we told about Obama’s preference for chili rated it less favorably than Republicans from whom we kept that information.

Would you like this meal less if you knew Donald Trump liked it?
bhofack2/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Menu planning

So, when it comes to planning your menu, our research offers some advice.

For a party of Democrats, chili – possibly with an arugula salad on the side – is a safe bet. But meatloaf would be a better choice for a party of Republicans. You could reinforce those choices by accompanying the dishes with photos of the politicians with their favorite dishes.

Other foods also divide Americans. Consider steering clear of Coca-Cola if you are having Republicans over: The company criticized Georgia’s 2021 law that shortened early voting and made it more difficult to vote by mail.

If you order takeout, some Democrats might be reluctant to eat Chick-fil-A because of company leaders’ past opposition to LGBTQ rights and marriage equality. But more recently, it’s Republicans who have criticized the fast-food chain for hiring an executive focused on diversity, equity and inclusion – and for shifting the company’s donations to be less political.

In general, we recommend doing a quick online search to make sure you are up on your social network’s preferences of the day. That’s the best way, though not guaranteed, to avoid serving up something that has recently become politicized by partisan media or party elites.

You might not be up for that much work. Or perhaps you are one of the few Americans left with friends who identify with both political parties.

A safe bet: People of all partisan stripes like lasagna.
JoeGough/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In that case, based on the research in our book, we suggest serving salmon or lasagna. Both are foods that appear to be resistant to partisan cues and are well-liked by members of both parties. Or maybe just throw a potluck, hope for the best, and you may even learn something new about your guests’ political views. Perhaps your guests will rise above partisanship and just enjoy the event.

The old advice to avoid talking about politics and religion in mixed company is evolving. For Americans, almost anything can be political now – from what’s on the table to what’s in the dresser or closet, and even what music we’re listening to.

When elites take positions, partisans follow their leaders. That means every cultural gathering, from the Thanksgiving table to the Super Bowl couch, can be invaded by political conflict. We don’t know about you, but we just want to watch the game. More

A US supreme court case that could remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot is the culmination of several years of work by left-leaning watchdog groups to reinvigorate the 14th amendment and its power.A Colorado case that found Trump couldn’t run for re-election there was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), though other groups and individuals have filed lawsuits and petitions in many states trying to remove Trump under the 14th amendment’s third clause. The clause says that people who were in office and participated in an insurrection against the US can’t hold office again.Some of the challenges have gone through the courts, while others have appealed directly to elections officials in charge of placing candidates on the ballot. Colorado was the first ruling to decide against Trump, so it is headed to the supreme court at the former president’s behest. Because of how consequential and rare the issue is, it was expected that the high court would eventually be the arbiter of how the clause applied in the modern era.Crew, a non-profit that has focused in part on Trump corruption issues since he took office, researched the 14th amendment and found it was “really built for this moment”, said Noah Bookbinder, the organization’s president. The group first brought a test case against a local elected official in New Mexico who participated in the January 6 insurrection. Couy Griffin, then a county commissioner in Otero county, New Mexico, was removed from office for violating the 14th amendment.“We would have ideally liked to bring a number more of those kinds of cases to really establish more of a track record and some more precedent,” Bookbinder said. “Donald Trump sort of forced our hand because this was the person who had really, really landed this attack on a democracy.”Crew challenged Trump just in Colorado, which became the first state to rule Trump ineligible, but it isn’t the only group working on 14th amendment cases. Another non-profit has been working on keeping Trump off the ballot for several years.Free Speech for People, an advocacy non-profit founded in the wake of the Citizens United ruling in 2010, focused on Trump corruption cases soon after the former president took office. It was among the first groups to call for Trump’s impeachment.In 2021, Free Speech for People wrote letters to secretaries of state around the country alerting them to the 14th amendment and how it would affect Trump if he ran again. In 2022, Free Speech for People challenged several members of Congress, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn, on 14th amendment grounds, though the cases weren’t successful at preventing them from running. Once Trump was officially a candidate, the group filed lawsuits challenging his eligibility in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois and Massachusetts.“Back in the middle of 2021, we were kind of a voice in the wilderness,” said Ben Clements, the board chair and senior legal adviser to Free Speech For People. “There wasn’t a lot of support for this view, and that’s obviously changed a lot.”The concept received a boost from two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who wrote a law review article in August 2023 arguing that Trump could not hold office again based on their reading of the constitution.Aside from the two major groups bringing cases, one man has filed lawsuits in various states without legal representation. John Anthony Castro, a Texas Republican and frequent candidate for various offices who says he is also running for president, has challenged Trump’s eligibility in the most states, with no success. Castro, a tax-return preparer, was recently indicted himself for filing false tax returns.And individual voters or groups of voters have challenged Trump’s eligibility in their states as well. In Maine, voters brought their challenge to the secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, who decided Trump should not be placed on the ballot there. Maine’s challenge is on hold pending the outcome of the supreme court case.Crew and Free Speech for People hope the supreme court gives a thorough ruling on all facets of the case to provide legitimacy for the court’s decision and indicate what should happen next. If Trump is removed from the ballot, challenges could pop up in many more states against the ex-president and others.“We really think as a legal and factual matter that the courts have to get into the meat of it,” Bookbinder, of Crew, said. “But we also think that that is better for the country for the court to give some clarity on the core issues.” More

Over 20 years after its launch, Apple’s online music store has found a surprising new life – as a battleground for online turf wars. Last week, at least five songs rose to the upper reaches of the Apple Music (formerly iTunes) download charts, powered by different internet factions. Nicki Minaj and Megan Thee Stallion fans waged war against each other as foot soldiers in the rappers’ feud; Britney Spears fans mass-bought the singer’s years-old songs Liar and Selfish as a way to troll her ex-boyfriend, Justin Timberlake, who released a song also called Selfish last month; and rightwing media influencer Ben Shapiro encouraged his fans to drive Facts, his new rap song with Canadian former wrestler Tom MacDonald, up the charts. Far from a measure of objective popularity, the chart reflected political biases, years-old feuds and outright pettiness.Fans mobilising to push certain albums or songs up the Apple Music download charts is nothing new – in 2018, a group of Mariah Carey fans mass-bought the singer’s 2001 flop Glitter as part of a campaign called #JusticeForGlitter. But musician and writer Jaime Brooks says that the cratering of the digital download market in recent years – around 152m digital songs were sold in the US in 2022, less than half of 2018’s 412m – has allowed campaigns that are smaller and far less coordinated than #JusticeForGlitter to disproportionately affect the charts. “I don’t think anybody’s actually using their phones and iTunes to listen to files any more, except people who have not upgraded their setup since 2012 – there are a lot of people like that in America, but not enough to sustain these huge numbers,” she says. “This [downloading] is a purely performative gesture – it only ever happens as a result of some kind of factional culture war that somebody has the money and inclination to try to represent on the charts.”Indeed, a lot of these sales campaigns have an implicit or explicit political meaning. Shapiro’s song, naturally, is part of an attempt to “own the libs”; Spears fans see their trolling of Timberlake as a kind of punishment for his perceived mistreatment of the singer when they dated, and for the unapologetic pose he has since adopted. In Megan’s song, she references Megan’s Law, a piece of legislation that requires the government to make information about sex offenders public, which many saw as a shot against Minaj, whose husband is a registered sex offender; Minaj’s song accuses Megan of falsely accusing Tory Lanez of shooting her.These relatively niche buying campaigns seem small fry in comparison with two campaigns led by the American conservative establishment last year. In July, Jason Aldean’s single Try That in a Small Town was sent to No 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 after its video was pulled from Country Music Television amid criticisms, including that it was racist, which Aldean denied. In August, the total unknown Oliver Anthony debuted at No 1 with his libertarian – and, some say, QAnon-pandering – single Rich Men North of Richmond.Kristin Robinson, a senior writer at Billboard, says the Aldean song in particular was not just driven by his fans, but by onlookers who saw the track as a cause to support. “Anchors on Fox News and other kinds of conservative talking heads led a fandom – not in the musical sense but in a political sense – to support that song,” she says. That both songs were in the country space, she says, only helped. “Country music still does quite well with sales in general, because country tends to be a bit of an older audience that has more buying power, or might not be as technologically savvy.”View image in fullscreenSales also have a disproportionate effect on the Billboard charts. A single sale counts for 150 streams, which is why astute fans tend to focus more on downloads than the kinds of “streaming parties” that some fanbases hold. Brooks says that education on the charts – the ways in which certain formats are weighted more heavily than others, and how a fairer chart might be implemented – has been led by K-pop fanbases. “They’ve developed among themselves a whole ideology about this type of thing, and they really did teach the pop fan community about how this stuff works,” she says. “That’s factoring into the current situation, where you had Megan fans organising to try to put big numbers on the board to fight back against Nicki.”Of course, few of these campaigns create their desired impact. While Megan’s Hiss debuted at No 1 – with around 100k in sales, 29.2m streams and 2.9m radio impressions – Shapiro’s song debuted at No 16, Timberlake’s at No 19 and Minaj’s at No 23. Brooks says that, either way, we’re likely to see more of this in coming years, as music consumption drops on the whole and pop music becomes more tied in with celebrity and politics. “Politics is sort of eating music – in the case of the Ben Shapiro thing, it’s enthusiasm driven by the political media industrial complex, and with Britney v Justin, it’s the celebrity industrial complex,” she says. “It’s all ultimately pointless – it’s people competing to be into the virtuous product v the non-virtuous product. But ultimately, it’s all the same shit.” More

The US House of Representatives rejected a Republican-led bill on Tuesday that would provide $17.6bn to Israel, as Democrats said they wanted a vote instead on a broader measure that would also provide assistance to Ukraine, international humanitarian funding and new money for border security.The vote was 250 to 180, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage.Opponents called the Israel legislation a political ploy by Republicans to distract from their opposition to a $118bn Senate bill combining an overhaul of US immigration policy and new funding for border security with billions of dollars in emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and partners in the Indo-Pacific region.The standalone Israel bill would have provided $17.6bn in military aid for the country, which is strongly supported by the vast majority of lawmakers in both parties as it responds to the deadly 7 October attacks by Hamas.The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, had said the Senate bill was “dead on arrival” in the chamber even before it was introduced. And Senate Republican leaders said on Tuesday they did not think the measure would receive enough votes to pass.“This accomplishes nothing and delays aid getting out to our allies and providing humanitarian relief,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House appropriations committee, urging opposition to the Israel-only bill. “Our allies are facing existential threats and our friends and foes around the globe are watching, waiting to see how America will respond.”But 167 Democrats voted no after Biden had threatened to wield his veto, angered that the legislation appeared aimed at undermining the larger package, hammered out after months of negotiations with a bipartisan group of senators.The standalone bill was also opposed by 13 Republicans as it did not contain budgetary offsets that conservatives have been pushing for with every proposal for new spending.The Israel-only bill’s supporters insisted it was not a purely political stunt, saying it was important to move quickly to support Israel.One of Johnson’s first actions when he took office in the fall was to shepherd a bill through the House that would have provided $14.3bn to Israel.But it included steep cuts to the Internal Revenue Service, which Biden opposed.The ultra-conservative House Freedom caucus blasted Johnson for “surrendering” to pressure for an even larger package not offset by cuts.Biden’s Office of Management and Budget had said the Republican “ploy” would undermine efforts to secure the US border and support Ukraine against Russian aggression, while denying humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire of the Israel-Gaza conflict.But Johnson countered at a news conference on Tuesday that it was “outrageous and shameful” Biden would suggest vetoing support for Israel “in their hour of greatest need”.House Democratic leaders called the bill a “nakedly obvious and cynical attempt” to undermine the larger package, which ties the Israel cash to $60bn aid for Ukraine and $20bn for US border security but is deadlocked in Congress.“Unfortunately, the standalone legislation introduced by House Republicans over the weekend, at the 11th hour without notice or consultation, is not being offered in good faith,” the House Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, said in a letter to colleagues. More