US Politics

In the aftermath of the supreme court’s decision to strike down race-conscious admissions at universities in June, progressive Democrats have turned their outrage into motivation. They are now using their fury to power an impassioned campaign against a different admissions practice that they consider unjust and outdated: legacy admissions.The century-old practice gives an advantage to the family members of universities’ alumni, a group that tends to be whiter and wealthier than the general pool of college applicants. Critics argue that legacy applicants already enjoy an unfair leg up in the admissions process and that university’s preference toward those students exacerbates existing inequalities in higher education.As the country adapts to a post-affirmative action world, progressives are ramping up the political and legal pressure on universities to scrap their use of legacy admissions. A Democratic bill, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York, and a civil rights inquiry at the Department of Education could represent a serious threat to legacy admissions.“Though the supreme court gutted race-conscious college admissions, make no mistake, affirmative action is still alive and well for children of alumni and major donors, and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding it,” Merkley told the Guardian.The origins of legacy admissions policies date back to the 1920s, when Jewish and immigrant students began attending America’s elite universities in larger numbers. Concerned over this growing trend, college leaders implemented a range of admissions preferences, such as legacy status, designed to benefit the white Protestant applicants who had populated university classrooms for centuries.Despite the ignominious roots of legacy admissions, the practice persists at many of the country’s most prestigious universities, including every member of the Ivy League. Colleges defend the practice as beneficial for building strong alumni communities across generations and encouraging financial contributions, even though one analysis found “no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving”.Progressives have mocked legacy admissions as “affirmative action for the privileged”, and the supreme court’s decision against race-conscious admissions has reinvigorated their efforts to end the widely unpopular practice altogether. According to one Pew Research Center survey conducted last year found, 75% of Americans believe alumni relations should not be considered in the admissions process.“Many of the legacy kids simply would not have gotten in had they not had legacy [preference],” said Rashad Robinson, president of the racial justice group Color of Change. “This is the result of a system that was designed to operate exactly the way it’s operating.”Last month, Merkley and Bowman reintroduced their bill, the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, to prohibit universities participating in federal student aid programs from giving an admissions advantage to the relatives of alumni or donors. Noting the financial advantages legacy students often enjoy in the college admissions process, Merkley suggested those applicants do not require additional assistance to gain entry to elite universities.“As the first in my family to go to college, I know the struggles facing students whose parents have never been through the process,” Merkley said.According to an analysis conducted by the Harvard research group Opportunity Insights, legacy students were only slightly more qualified than the average applicant to elite private colleges, but were nearly four times more likely to be admitted than those with the same test scores. The boost appears to disproportionately harm students of color, as one study found that white students account for 40% of Harvard’s total applicant pool but nearly 70% of the university’s legacy applicants. Opportunity Insights’ research also concluded that legacy applicants are more likely to come from wealthy families, giving them more access to resources like private education and preparation courses for standardized tests.“Children of donors and alumni may be excellent students, but they are the last people who should get reserved seats, enabling them to gain admission over more qualified students from more challenging backgrounds,” Merkley said.The battle over legacy admissions has now also attracted the attention of the Department of Education. Last month, the department opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard’s use of legacy admissions following a complaint filed by the group Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of three racial justice organizations. The complaint accused Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by giving an admissions edge to the children of donors and wealthy alumni.“We know that schools like [Harvard] set students up for success – and for great success – and introduce them to new innovative ideas and a great network,” said Michael Kippins, a litigation fellow with Lawyers for Civil Rights. “They should reflect the type of diversity that we see in our communities the same way that we would want fair access for anything else.”Olatunde Johnson, a professor at Columbia Law School, viewed lawsuits against colleges’ legacy admissions policies as somewhat inevitable after the supreme court’s decision on affirmative action.“The supreme court opened the door to that challenge by leaving legacy and donor preferences untouched while it got rid of race-conscious affirmative action, so it made it kind of an easy target,” Johnson said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe predicted other universities would be closely watching the outcome of the civil rights inquiry into Harvard as they reconsider their own legacy admissions policies.“People might wait to see how this challenge is resolved because some of the broad contours of this complaint are going to mirror what people would do in future cases,” Johnson said. “Whatever kind of ruling there is, it’s going to have implications more broadly for other institutions, even without separate complaints or lawsuits.”Some colleges aren’t waiting on the federal government to make the change. The liberal arts college Wesleyan University announced last month that it would scrap its legacy admissions policy, joining other private institutions like Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University. The practice is already prohibited at a number of public colleges, including all schools in the University of California and the California State University systems.The trend of abandoning legacy admissions policies may accelerate in the face of mounting criticism from political leaders, including some Republicans. After the supreme court’s decision in June, South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott praised the ruling and simultaneously suggested universities needed to revisit their legacy preferences.“I think the question is, how do you continue to create a culture where education is the goal for every single part of our community?” Scott told Fox News. “One of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs.”Robinson is somewhat skeptical that a bipartisan coalition will materialize to meaningfully challenge legacy admissions, and the Republicans in control of the House have so far shown little appetite to take up Merkley and Bowman’s bill.But even if legacy preferences do come to an end, Robinson believes much more will need to be done to build a truly just college admissions process. After all, he said, the practice of legacy admissions is only one piece of a much broader system that disadvantages students of color.“Racism is like water pouring over a floor with holes in it. It will always find the cracks. So, yes, we should deal with legacy admissions. But I want to make sure that we don’t think that this is some sort of silver bullet,” Robinson said.“We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that those who are working every day to shut the doors of opportunity and access to those who have been excluded are not going to find other ways to to hold the side door open for people who look like them.” More

The US’ first serious legislative attempt to tackle the climate crisis, the Inflation Reduction Act, is hitting its first anniversary both lauded for turbocharging a seismic shift to clean energy while also weathering serious attack from Republicans.Joe Biden hailed the bill, which despite its name is at heart a major shove towards a future dominated by renewable energy and electric vehicles, as “one of the most significant laws in our history” when signing it on 16 August last year.And the White House is trying to use the first year marker to extol it as a pivotal moment in tackling the climate emergency.“It’s the largest investment in clean energy in American history, and I would argue in world history, to tackle the climate crisis,” John Podesta, Biden’s chief clean energy advisor, told the Guardian. “With any legislation it takes time to get traction, but this is performing above expectations.”Podesta said there has been an “enormous response” in take-up for the tax credits that festoon the $369bn bill, directed at zero-carbon energy projects such as solar, wind and nuclear, grants for bring renewables manufacturing to the US and consumer incentives to purchase electric cars, heat pumps and electric stoves.Here are the key points to know about the impact of the act so far as it approaches its anniversary on August 16:1A boom in clean energy investmentThere has been around $278bn in new clean energy investments, creating more than 170,000 jobs, across the US in the first year of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to an estimate by the advocacy group Climate Power. The White House claims that there will be twice as much wind, solar and battery storage deployment over the next seven years than if the bill was never enacted, with companies already spending twice as much on new manufacturing facilities as they were pre-IRA.“It’s been more impactful than I or other observers would’ve thought,” said James Stock, a climate economist at Harvard University.Stock said that while the Inflation Reduction Act won’t by itself eliminate planet-heating emissions in the US, it is the “first substantive step” towards doing so and should help propagate the next generation of hoped-for clean fuels, such as hydrogen, in its 10-year lifespan. “As the tax credits are uncapped, too, we will see a lot more invested than we expected,” he said. “We could easily see $800bn to $1.2tn.”2More people are buying electric vehiclesThe Inflation Reduction Act includes rebates of up to $7,500 for buying an electric vehicle, and this incentive appears to be paying off – EV sales are set to top 1m in the US for the first time this year. Moreover, over half of US drivers are considering an EV for their next purchase, polling has shown.This transition isn’t without its hurdles, however – there has been a shortage of key parts in the EV supply chain, many models still remain prohibitively expensive and unions have been unhappy at the lack of worker protections for many of the new plants that are popping up. Climate advocates, meanwhile, have questioned why similarly strong support hasn’t been given to public transit or e-bikes to help get people out of cars altogether.3It will slash US emissions, but not by enoughThe US is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the Inflation Reduction Act is widely forecast to slash these emissions, by as much as 48% by 2035, from 2005 levels, according to one analysis.These forecasts have a relatively wide range of estimates due to uncertainties such as economic growth but even in the most optimistic scenario the US will require further measures if it is to get to net zero emissions by 2050, as scientists have said is imperative if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.“Even though we passed the IRA you ain’t seen nothing yet,” said Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, in promising a fresh climate bill recently. But given the riven nature of US politics, the prospects of such legislation is remote in the near term.A more likely way to bridge the emissions gap will be a raft of regulatory actions by the Environmental Protection Agency, such as new standards to cut pollution from cars, trucks and power plants, as well as progress by individual states. “We basically need everything to go right,” said John Larsen, a partner at Rhodium group, an energy analysis organization4The IRA has so far escaped Republican cuts – but Biden is fighting to get creditThe legislation was a breakthrough moment following decades of obfuscation and delay by Congress despite increasingly frantic warnings by climate scientists over global heating, with the bill itself borne from months of torturous, comprise-laden negotiations with Joe Manchin, the coal baron senator from West Virginia who held a swing vote for its passage.But the legislation has already faced the threat of repeal from Republicans, who universally voted against it, with the GOP’s first bill after gaining control of the House of Representatives this year gutting key elements of the Inflation Reduction Act. This is despite the majority of clean energy investments flowing to Republican-led districts.Biden has also faced the ire of climate progressives for somewhat undercutting his landmark moment with an aggressive giveaway of oil and gas drilling leases on public land, including the controversial Willow oil project in Alaska, and for incentivizing the use of technologies such as carbon capture that have been criticized as an unproven distraction at a time when the world is baking under record heatwaves.“Biden has an atrocious track record on fossil fuels, and that needs to change,” said Jean Su, an attorney and climate campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity who called on Biden to declare a climate emergency. There needs to be a “sea-change in this administration’s approach” on the climate crisis, according to Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator. “No more green lighting fossil gas projects. No more stalling on a climate emergency. Now is the time for us to live up to the full promise of the Inflation Reduction Act.”Polling shows the majority of American voters disapprove of Biden’s handling of the climate crisis and only three in 10 have heard that much about the Inflation Reduction Act at all. Such perceptions will need to be turned around if the US president is to help secure the legacy of the bill in next year’s election.“We are going at a record clip to try to address this climate crisis,” said White House adviser Podesta. “I know people want us to hurry up and I wish we could produce a net zero economy immediately but this is a global transition that’s never occurred in human history. We need to get this job done.”The IRA act has not pleased leaders in the EU who have attacked it for being “protectionist” though some have argued they should instead be investing along similar lines.Clean energy investment has gone to red statesNo Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act but most of the investment that has been triggered by the bill has been funneled into projects in GOP-held Congressional districts. An emerging ‘battery belt’ is forming in the US south, with battery and electric vehicle plants popping up in states such as Georgia, Tennessee and Texas.“The IRA has been absolutely critical for us in terms of giving market certainties to go bold and big in our investment,” said a spokeswoman for QCells, a solar manufacturer that has embarked upon a major expansion in Georgia.5Renewables are booming – but there’s a transmission bottleneckIf the future wasn’t renewables before the IRA, it certainly is now – more than 80% of new electricity capacity this year will come from wind, solar and battery storage, according to federal government forecasts. The framers of the legislation hoped it will create a sort of virtuous circle whereby more renewable capacity will push down the cost of already cheap clean energy sources, seeding yet further renewable deployment.Solar panels may be dotting California and wind turbines sprouting off the east coast, but without the unglamorous build-out of transmission lines much of the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act may be lost.Not only is there a lack of physical poles and wires to shift clean energy from one part of the country to another, many clean energy projects are facing interminable waits, lasting several years, to be connected to the grid at all. There is more than 1,250 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity actively seeking grid connection, which is about equal to the entire existing US power plant fleet.“Something’s going to have to change to get this deployment online,” said Larsen. “Beyond that it will be about building stuff at scale, very, very quickly.” More

Conservative US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas has been condemned for maintaining “unprecedented” and “shameless” links to rightwing benefactors, after ProPublica published new details of his acceptance of undeclared gifts including 38 vacations and expensive sports tickets.Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, rendered an especially damning verdict.“Unprecedented. Stunning. Disgusting. The height of hypocrisy to wear the robes of a [supreme court justice] and take undisclosed gifts from billionaires who benefit from your decisions. 38 free vacations. Yachts. Luxury mansions. Skyboxes at events. Resign,” she posted.From the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic judiciary committee chair, said: “The latest … revelation of unreported lavish gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas makes it clear: these are not merely ethical lapses. This is a shameless lifestyle underwritten for years by a gaggle of fawning billionaires.”The ProPublica report followed extensive previous reporting, by the non-profit and competitors including the New York Times, of undisclosed gifts to Thomas from a series of mega-rich donors.Supreme court justices are nominally subject to ethics rules for federal judges but in practice govern themselves.Durbin said Thomas and Samuel Alito, another arch-conservative justice who did not declare gifts, had “made it clear they’re oblivious to the embarrassment they’ve visited on the highest court in the land.“Now it’s up to Chief Justice [John] Roberts and the other justices to act on ethics reform to save their own reputations and the court’s integrity. If the court will not act, then Congress must continue to” do so.Roberts has rejected calls to testify, saying Congress cannot regulate his court. Durbin has advanced ethics reform but its chances are virtually nil, with Republicans opposed in the Senate and in control of the House.Thomas denies wrongdoing, claiming never to have discussed with his benefactors politics or business before the court and to have been wrongly advised about disclosure requirements. Nonetheless, condemnation was widespread.Adam Schiff, a House Democrat running for Senate in California, said: “The scope of Justice Thomas’ undisclosed receipt of luxury vacations from billionaires takes your breath away. As does this court’s arrogant disregard of the public. Every other federal court has an enforceable code of ethics – the supreme court needs the same.”Thomas joined the court in 1991, becoming the second Black justice in place of the first, Thurgood Marshall.Sherrilyn Ifill, former director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal fund, said Thomas had created “a crisis and we need to start treating it as such. Our profession, the Senate judiciary committee, newspaper editorial boards, and the chief [justice] will need to summon the courage needed to call for what, by now, should be the obvious next step.”Robert Reich, a former US labor secretary now a Berkeley professor and Guardian columnist, pointed to what that “next step” might be, saying Thomas “must resign or be impeached if [the supreme court] is going to retain any credibility”.Only one justice, Samuel Chase, has ever been impeached – in 1804-05. He was acquitted in the Senate. In 1969, the justice Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment, over his acceptance of outside fees.Now, Republican control of the House renders impeachment vastly unlikely. Nor is Thomas likely to resign, particularly as Democrats hold the Senate, able to reduce conservative dominance of the court should a rightwinger vacate the bench.Nonetheless, calls for Thomas to go continued.Ted Lieu, a California congressman, said Thomas “has brought shame upon himself and the United States supreme court … no government official, elected or unelected, could ethically or legally accept gifts of that scale. He should resign immediately”.Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a campaign group, said: “If three times makes a pattern, what does 38 times make? We’ll tell you: the fact that Clarence Thomas has taken 38 luxury trips with billionaires without disclosing them means this kind of ethical lapse is part of his lifestyle. He needs to resign.” More

The devastating fires in Hawaii, where at least 53 people have died after a conflagration that engulfed the historic town of Lahaina, were worsened by a number of factors including climate change, scientists have said.Rising global temperatures and drought have helped turn parts of Hawaii into a tinderbox ahead of one of the deadliest fires in modern US history, with these conditions worsened by strong winds from a nearby cyclone.Katharine Hayhoe, the chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, said that global heating is causing vegetation to dry out, priming it as fuel for an outbreak of fire. “Climate change doesn’t usually start the fires; but it intensifies them, increasing the area they burn and making them much more dangerous,” Hayhoe tweeted.Nearly a fifth of Maui, the Hawaiian island where the fires have occurred, is in severe drought, according to the US Drought Monitor. The island has experienced other serious fires in recent years, with blazes in 2018 and 2021 razing hundreds of homes and causing the evacuation of thousands of residents and tourists.Experts say that wildfires in Hawaii are now burning through four times the amount of area than in previous decades, in part due to the proliferation of more flammable non-native grasses but also rising global temperatures.“We can say there are conditions that are consistent with wildfire, wildfire size and expansion that are changing as climate changes,” Erica Fleishman, a climate scientist at Oregon State University told CNN. “And some of the things that we’re seeing with this wildfire in Maui are consistent with some of the trends that are known and projected as climate changes.”Hawaii is experiencing increasingly dry conditions, with scientists calculating that 90% of the state is getting less rainfall than it did a century ago, with the period since 2008 particularly dry.The growing susceptibility of Hawaii to major fires was highlighted by a 2015 study that found that rainfall has been 31% lower in the wet season since 1990, in selected monitoring sites on the islands. The state, known for its volcanoes and lush forests, is in parts drying out as global heating continues to escalate.The flames that tore through Lahaina, meanwhile, were fanned by winds from the passing Hurricane Dora and the climate crisis is causing an overall increase in strong cyclones in the central Pacific. The influence of the cyclone upon the fires surprised scientists, given that Dora was churning around 500 miles away from Maui.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Hurricane Dora is very far away from Hawaii, but you still have this fire occurrence here,” said Pao-Shin Chu, Hawaii’s state climatologist. “So this is something we didn’t expect to see.”Those concerned about the climate crisis, meanwhile, called for further efforts to combat global heating from Joe Biden, who has declared a federal disaster in Hawaii. “We need to take action immediately or else it will get even worse,” said Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator.“The extreme wildfires in Lahania, in this summer of climate disasters, are yet more proof that we are in a climate emergency and this crisis is killing us,” said Kaniela Ing, a climate activist and indigenous leader in Hawaii. More

When and why did so-called food deserts first emerge? How has the fast food industry become so powerful? And despite the growing rate of obesity in the US, why are politicians not stepping in to improve nutrition?
This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Dr Eduardo J Gómez of Lehigh University, on how his new book Junk Food Politics taught him about the power of lobbyists

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

Over the past few weeks, there’s been a lot of talk of UFOs. Which isn’t unusual in the US – over the decades, it has become for many enthusiasts a kind of obsession. But what is unusual is that recently this UFO chatter has gone beyond internet forums, YouTube channels and kooky podcasts. Now it’s arrived in Washington. In the past few years, the Pentagon has said pilots are seeing things up in the sky that they can’t explain. And a few weeks ago, spaceships got their day in Congress Adam Gabbatt has the enviable task of covering UFOs for the Guardian and he was there. He tells Michael Safi how the hearing unfolded and where the investigation is going next. And the Republican congressman Tim Burchett, who is co-leading the inquiry, explains why the latest hearing was a necessary step along the way to discovering what the US government really knows about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. More

From 3h agoFederal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.In court documents, prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team said they want the case before US district judge Tanya Chutkan to move to trial swiftly in Washington’s federal court. Prosecutors estimate that it will take four to six weeks to present their case.
This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues.
The team added:
Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.
Hello again, US politics live blog readers, it’s been a lively day in political news, which we do our best to bring you as it happens. There will be more live coverage on Friday but, for now, this blog is closing.Here’s where things stand:
Donald Trump has lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the New York writer E Jean Carroll.
The US supreme court has agreed to hear a challenge by Joe Biden’s administration to the legality of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would shield its owners, the Sackler family, from lawsuits.
The Biden administration asked Congress for $13bn in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8bn for humanitarian support, plus money to replenish the US federal disaster funds and fortify the US-Mexico border, in a package worth $40bn.
The House oversight committee intends to subpoena Joe Biden and Hunter Biden amid its ongoing investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings.
Federal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Joe Manchin, West Virginia’s Democratic US Senator, said he’s “thinking seriously” about becoming an independent.
Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, pleaded not guilty in Florida court to conspiring with the former president to obstruct the investigation into his possession of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received ‘unprecedented’ number of gifts from billionaire friends, according to a new report detailing even more largesse than previously revealed that has been showered upon the bench’s most conservative member.
Donald Trump has lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the New York writer E Jean Carroll, Reuters reports.The development comes just three days after the former US president lost his counterclaim for defamation against E Jean Carroll, the writer against whom he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and fined $5m.Carroll also continues to pursue a separate defamation case against him.The US supreme court has agreed to hear a challenge by Joe Biden’s administration to the legality of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would shield its owners from the Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic, Reuters reports.The court also paused bankruptcy proceedings concerning Purdue and its affiliates and said in a brief order that it would hold oral arguments in December in the administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement. The court’s new term begins in October.Purdue’s owners under the settlement would receive immunity in exchange for paying up to $6bn to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Stamford, Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin.At issue is whether US bankruptcy law allows Purdue’s restructuring to include legal protections for the Sackler family, who have not filed for personal bankruptcy.Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from creditors in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of lawsuits alleging that OxyContin helped kickstart an opioid epidemic that has caused more than 500,000 US overdose deaths over two decades.The Biden administration on Thursday asked Congress to provide more than $13bn in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8bn for humanitarian support through the end of the year, another massive infusion of cash as the Russian invasion wears on and Ukraine pushes a counteroffensive against the Kremlin’s deeply entrenched forces, the Associated Press writes.The package includes $12bn to replenish the US federal disaster funds at home after a deadly climate season of heat and storms and funds to bolster the enforcement at the southern border with Mexico, including money to curb the flow of deadly fentanyl. All told, it’s a $40bn package.While the last such request from the White House for Ukraine funding was easily approved in 2022, there’s a different dynamic this time.A political divide on the issue has grown, with the Republican-led House facing enormous pressure to demonstrate support for the party’s leader, Donald Trump, who has been very skeptical of the war. Meanwhile, American support for the effort has been slowly softening.White House budget director Shalanda Young, in a letter to House speaker Kevin McCarthy, urged swift action to follow through on the US “commitment to the Ukrainian peoples’ defense of their homeland and to democracy around the world” as well as other needs.The request was crafted with an eye to picking up support from Republicans, as well as Democrats, particularly with increased domestic funding around border issues – a top priority for the GOP, which has been highly critical of the Biden administration’s approach to halting the flow of migrants crossing from Mexico.Still, the price tag of $40bn may be too much for Republicans who are fighting to slash, not raise, federal outlays.Senate majority leader and New York Senator Chuck Schumer said:
The latest request from the Biden administration shows America’s continued commitment to helping Americans here at home and our friends abroad. We hope to join with our Republican colleagues this fall to avert an unnecessary government shutdown and fund this critical emergency supplemental request.”
Continuing on the issue of Jack Smith requesting a 2 January 2024 trial date for Donald Trump over the former president’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election while he was still in office:On Thursday in a court filing, the government also noted that Trump’s legal team had known about the facts of the case for at least a year after prosecutors first contacted them in June 2022 and one of the lawyers involved in that initial outreach, presumably Evan Corcoran, was at Trump’s arraignment.It also argued that Trump’s lawyers were wrong to characterize the Speedy Trial Act, which broadly mandates criminal cases to go to trial promptly, as existing for the benefit of the defendant and therefore allowing Trump to seek delays if he chooses.The speedy trial rules in fact exist to protect the rights of the public as well as the defendant, prosecutors wrote, citing an opinion from United States v Gambino that found: “The public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.”But the draft schedule proposed by the government, that would see evidence turned over to Trump through discovery completed by the end of August and jury selection at the start of December, is almost certain to be delayed because of complicating factors.The prosecution unexpectedly disclosed in a footnote that they intended to use classified information at trial, which means his case will be tried according to the time-consuming steps laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.Cipa essentially requires the defense to disclose what classified information they want to use at trial in advance, so the courts can decide whether to add restrictions. If the government feels the restrictions aren’t enough, they can decide whether they still want to continue with the case.While Cipa established a mechanism through which the government can safely charge cases involving classified documents, the series of steps that have to be followed means it takes longer to get to trial compared with regular criminal cases without national security implications.In asking the judge overseeing the criminal case against Donald Trump over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election to schedule the trial for the start of January 2024, the written filing from prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith set an aggressive timeline.Trump’s lawyers are expected to seek substantial delay, according to a person close to the former president.“A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial,” prosecutors wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case in which the defendant – the former President of the United States – is charged with three criminal conspiracies.”The eight-page filing submitted to US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, who will hear arguments from both sides about the scope of the protective order in the case on Friday, argued it gave sufficient time to Trump to prepare a defense.Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to charges filed in federal district court in Washington that he conspired to defraud the United States, conspired to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructed an official proceeding, and engaged in a conspiracy against rights.Among other things, the government said Trump’s legal team already appeared to know what arguments they intended to make at trial and what pre-trial motions they intended to file and therefore were in a position to quickly go to trial.The prosecutors, for instance, sought to use the television appearances from Trump lawyer John Lauro – where he discussed potential legal defenses and the possibility of filing a motion to change the trial venue to West Virginia – against him.“It appears that defense counsel is already planning which motions the defendant will file,” prosecutors said in one footnote. “On CBS’s Face the Nation on August 6, 2023, Mr Lauro stated, ‘We’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file.’”More of this report in the next post.James Comer, the Republican chair of the House oversight committee, said his committee will eventually move to subpoena Joe Biden and Hunter Biden amid its ongoing investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings.Comer, speaking on Fox Business on Thursday, said:
This is always going to end with the Bidens coming in front of the committee. We are going to subpoena the family.
He added:
We know that this is going to end up in court when we subpoena the Bidens. So we’re putting together a case and I think we’ve done that very well.
His comments came a day after the House oversight committee issued a memo laying out their intention to accuse Joe Biden of corruption even without direct evidence that he financially benefited from foreign business dealings by his son. The memo outlined millions of dollars in foreign funds paid to Hunter Biden and his former associates while his father was vice-president, but it did not show a direct payment to Joe Biden.National security council spokesperson Adrienne Watson confirmed that the five Americans detained by Iran had been moved to house arrest, and said negotiations for their release were continuing.Watson described the transfer as “an encouraging step” – but adding that they should never have been detained in the first place. She said:
We will not rest until they are all back home in the United States. Until that time, negotiations for their eventual release remain ongoing and are delicate. We will, therefore, have little in the way of details to provide about the state of their house arrest or about our efforts to secure their freedom.
The Iranian Americans include businessmen Siamak Namazi, 51, and Emad Shargi, 58, as well as environmentalist Morad Tahbaz, 67, who also has British nationality, said Jared Genser, a lawyer who represents Namazi. The identity of the other two US citizens has not been made public.Freeing the five would remove a major irritant between the US and Iran, though the nations remain at odds on issues from the Iranian nuclear program to Tehran’s support for Shia militias in nations such as Iraq and Lebanon.Namazi, who in 2016 was convicted of espionage-related charges the United States has rejected as baseless, has been detained by Iran for more than seven years. His father, Baquer, was allowed to leave Iran in October for medical treatment after being detained on similar charges also rejected by Washington.Tahbaz was arrested in 2018 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for “assembly and collusion against Iran’s national security” and working for the United States as a spy. Shargi was convicted of espionage in 2020 and also sentenced to 10 years.Iranian Americans, whose US citizenship is not recognized by Tehran, are often pawns between the two nations, which are at odds over issues including Iran’s expanding nuclear program.In February, NBC News reported Washington and Tehran were holding indirect talks exploring a prisoner exchange and the transfer of billions of dollars of Iranian funds in South Korean banks currently blocked by US sanctions. If transferred, those funds could only be spent for humanitarian purposes.Any transfer could draw Republican criticism that Joe Biden had effectively paid a ransom for the US citizens and that Iran using that money for humanitarian purposes could free up funds for its nuclear program or to support militias in nations such as Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.Donald Trump is likely to oppose the schedule proposed by special counsel Jack Smith in the latest court filing.The former president’s lawyers have already suggested they will try to slow things down, citing the complexity of the case and Trump’s crowded legal and political schedule.Trump’s legal team is due to respond by next Thursday. US district judge Tanya Chutkan has indicated she will make a decision on the trial date at a 28 August hearing.Federal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.In court documents, prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team said they want the case before US district judge Tanya Chutkan to move to trial swiftly in Washington’s federal court. Prosecutors estimate that it will take four to six weeks to present their case.
This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues.
The team added:
Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.
West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, who has yet to decide whether to run for reelection next year or wage a long-shot third party bid for president, said he’s “thinking seriously” about becoming an independent.“I’m thinking seriously,” Manchin told West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday. He added:
I have to have peace of mind, basically. The brand has become so bad. The D brand and R brand … You’ve heard me say a million times, I am not a Washington Democrat.
Asked how seriously he was about becoming an independent, Manchin said he has “been thinking about that for quite some time” and that he wanted to “make sure that my voice is truly an independent voice”.Manchin, who earlier this year described himself as an independent Democrat, has been dropping hints for months that he might switch to become an independent. On Thursday, he said he was not yet ready to make an announcement about his future with the Democratic party immediately. “When I get ready to make a decision, I’ll come see you,” he told Kercheval.The US and Iran have reached an agreement to win the freedom of five imprisoned Americans in exchange for several jailed Iranians and about $6bn in Iranian government assets blocked under US sanctions, according to reports.Five Iranian-Americans were transferred from prison to house arrest, according to a lawyer for one of the prisoners. Jared Genser, counsel to Siamak Namazi, told CNN the move was an “important development”, adding:
While I hope this will be the first step to their ultimate release, this is at best the beginning of the end and nothing more.
In addition to Namazi, Emad Sharghi, Morad Tahbaz, and two others whose names have not been made public, were moved from Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, and are anticipated to be held at a hotel under guard by Iranian officials, until they are allowed to board a plane.The Biden administration has been engaged in negotiations to try to secure the release of the Americans from Iran, a country with which it does not have diplomatic relations. More

The White House is asking Congress for an additional $24bn in Ukraine aid “and other international needs” such as countering China, including $13.1bn for defense, senior administration officials revealed on Thursday.The US has so far given Ukraine more than $113bn in aid since Russia invaded in February 2021, making it Ukraine’s biggest funder in its defense against Russia.The extra funds would push total supplemental funding allocated by the US defense department for Ukraine to around $60bn to date, comprised of $43.9bn for security assistance and $18.4bn for military, intelligence, and other defense support, an administration official told the Guardian. Within the latest request for supplemental funds to Ukraine, the US is asking for $200m to counter the Russian mercenary Wagner group in African countries.Kevin McCarthy, the Republican speaker of the House, has previously expressed he would not back supplemental funding to Ukraine that would push defense spending above the total negotiated in the deal to avert a national default. That deal capped national security spending for the fiscal year ending 30 September 2024 at $886bn.“We don’t know how much longer this war is going to go on, or how much more assistance we might need to support Ukraine,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters on Thursday. “We won’t be bashful about going back to Congress beyond the first quarter of next year if we feel like we need to do that.”Republicans have been divided over Ukraine aid, with some vehemently opposing additional support while others say spending is not enough. Republican presidential candidates in 2024 Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, have been among the loudest detractors of increasing defense spending on Ukraine.In a letter to McCarthy, Shalanda Young, director of the US Office of Management and Budget – which administers the federal budget – wrote that the supplemental funds are necessary to support Ukraine and other vulnerable groups impacted by the war.“As the impacts of Russia’s war reverberate around the globe, the United States is committed to maintaining strong global opposition to Russia’s illegal war. At the same time, it is essential that we offer a credible alternative to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) coercive and unstable lending and infrastructure projects for developing countries around the world,” Young wrote.Young also pushed Congress to swifty authorize funding to uphold agreements with three Pacific Island nations, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, which allow the US military access to key bases near China in the Pacific Ocean in exchange for aid and other benefits.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe request, which totals around $40bn, also asks Congress to appropriate $12bn for disaster relief and about $4bn for managing the Southwest border, including combating the trade of illicit drugs, namely fentanyl. It allocates $60m to support pay increases for wildland firefighters as the US has seen a jump in extreme weather events. More