US Politics

In an open letter to American librarians, Barack Obama has criticised “profoundly misguided” rightwing efforts to ban books from libraries in public schools.“Some of the books that shaped my life – and the lives of so many others – are being challenged by people who disagree with certain ideas or perspectives,” the former president wrote.“It’s no coincidence that these ‘banned books’ are often written by or feature people of colour, Indigenous people, and members of the LGBTQ+ community.”Obama’s letter on Monday supported Unite Against Book Bans, a campaign led by the American Library Association (ALA).Obama also appeared in a TikTok video posted by the Kankakee Public Library, from Illinois, which has found success with viral videos.The 44th president appeared at the end of the short video, which otherwise featured staff reading books subject to bans or attempted bans. Obama was shown reading and sipping from a library-branded mug. More videos are set to be released.The ALA has found that in US public schools last year, “a record 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship”, often by parent-led groups, “a 38% increase from the 1,858 unique titles targeted for censorship in 2021”.It adds: “Of those titles, the vast majority were written by or about members of the LGBTQ+ community and people of colour.”In his letter, Obama also cited “unfortunate instances in which books by conservative authors or books containing ‘triggering’ words or scenes have been targets for removal”.He added: “Either way, the impulse seems to be to silence, rather than engage, rebut, learn from or seek to understand views that don’t fit our own. I believe such an approach is profoundly misguided, and contrary to what has made this country great.”Obama is the author of his own bestselling books: Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope and A Promised Land, the last named the first volume of his political memoirs. His wife, Michelle Obama, is the author of the hit memoir Becoming and a recent follow-up, The Light We Carry.In his letter, Obama said writers “like Mark Twain and Toni Morrison, Walt Whitman and James Baldwin taught me something essential about our country’s character.“Reading about people whose lives were very different from mine showed me how to step into someone else’s shoes. And the simple act of writing helped me develop my own identity – all of which would prove vital as a citizen, as a community organizer, and as president.”Regarding school book bans, the former president also said it was “important to understand that the world is watching.“If America – a nation built on freedom of expression – allows certain voices and ideas to be silenced, why should other countries go out of their way to protect them?“Ironically, it is Christian and other religious texts – the sacred texts that some calling for book bannings in this country claim to want to defend – that have often been the first target if censorship and book banning efforts in authoritarian countries.” More

The chair of the US Congressional Progressive Caucus apologised for calling Israel a “racist state”.“I offer my apologies to those who I have hurt with my words,” Pramila Jayapal of Washington state said in a statement on Sunday.The day before, at Netroots Nation, a progressive event in Chicago, Jayapal addressed a group of pro-Palestinian protesters.She said: “As somebody that’s been in the streets and has participated in a lot of demonstrations, I think I want you to know that we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state.”Jayapal also said “the Palestinian people deserve self-determination and autonomy” and that “the dream of a two-state solution is slipping away from us”.Republican and pro-Israel groups seized on the comments. Ahead of a week in which the president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, will address Congress, Democratic House leaders also rebuked Jayapal.“Israel is not a racist state,” a statement from the leaders said, noting the “uniquely special relationship” between the US and Israel.Democratic leaders also said they “strongly support[ed] Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people” while remaining “firmly committed to a robust two-state solution where Israel and the Palestinian people can live side-by-side in peace and prosperity”.In her own statement, Jayapal prefaced her apology by saying she had been attempting “to defuse a tense situation … where fellow members of Congress were being protested”.“Words do matter and so it is important that I clarify my statement,” she said. “I do not believe the idea of Israel as a nation is racist.“I do, however, believe that [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s extreme rightwing government [in Israel] has engaged in discriminatory and outright racist policies and that there are extreme racists driving that policy within the leadership of the current government.”Far-right members of the Israeli government include Bezalel Smotrich, who has described himself as a “fascist homophobe” and is now finance minister, and Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the Jewish Power party and minister for national security.Earlier this month, the UN condemned Israel for using excessive force in military raids on Jenin, in the West Bank.Jayapal said: “I believe it is incumbent on all of us who are striving to make our world a more just and equitable place to call out and condemn these policies and this current Netanyahu government’s role in furthering them.”Punchbowl News obtained a draft statement from a group of House Democrats who voiced “deep concern” about Jayapal’s Chicago remarks but said they appreciated her retraction.Jayapal retweeted thanks for her retraction from J Street, a pro-Israel Democratic group.It said: “Netanyahu’s far-right coalition is deepening the occupation and doing untold harm to Israel’s democracy. To truly support a secure, just, peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians, the US needs to push back against discriminatory and destructive policies.” More

Democrats in Congress are making a new push to get the long-dormant proposed Equal Rights Amendment enshrined into law. As legislation, it would guarantee sex equality in the Constitution and could serve as a potential legal antidote to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which removed the federal right to an abortion.

“In light of Dobbs, we’re seeing vast discrimination across the country,” said U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York in an interview July 13, 2023. “Women are being treated as second-class citizens. This is more timely than ever.”

Gillibrand, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri and other Democratic lawmakers are arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment, often referred to as the ERA, has already been ratified by the states and is enforceable as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to recognize women’s rights have faced major challenges for the past century. Most recently, in April 2023 Senate Republicans blocked a similar resolution that would let states ratify the amendment, despite an expired deadline.

I’m a scholar who studies gender and politics. Here’s a quick summary of how the country got to this point and the barriers that still exist to adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.

Members of the National Organization for Women demonstrate outside the White House in 1969 for the Equal Rights Amendment.
Bettmann/Contributor

‘Ladies against women’

Women’s rights advocates argue that sex discrimination is a pervasive problem that could be resolved by the ERA. Even though the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law, women’s rights are not explicitly guaranteed.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which took away a woman’s right to an abortion, women’s rights advocates argue that the ERA is critical in the post-Dobbs world. The amendment could help protect women’s access to reproductive health services, including abortion and contraception.

Proponents also believe that the ERA can be used to push back against legislation that threatens the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

The push for equal rights first heated up in the 1920s after women gained the right to vote.

Alice Paul, a suffragist, proposed the first version of an Equal Rights Amendment in 1923. The language of the legislation, which is very similar to the amendment Democrats are currently championing, guaranteed equal rights under the law, regardless of a person’s sex.

The proposal was adopted and turned into proposed legislation by two Kansas Republicans, Sen. Charles Curtis and Rep. Daniel Anthony Jr., and was brought up during every congressional session between 1923 and 1971 without success.

The idea of an Equal Rights Amendment, however, gained momentum among politicians and the broader public. World War II opened many doors for women, who filled gaps in the labor force while men were off fighting. During this time, women were welcomed into politics, onto juries, openly wooed by educational institutions and encouraged to take up male-dominated majors such as math, science and technology.

The fledgling feminist group, the National Organization for Women, adopted the passage of the ERA in its 1967 Bill of Rights for Women and began staging massive demonstrations and lobbying politicians in the late 1960s and early 1970s in an effort to get Congress to pass the amendment.

Finally, in 1972, the ERA passed both houses of Congress. The amendment had seven years to be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 states.

While 30 states ratified the ERA in 1972 and 1973, the amendment ultimately came up three states short of approval by the 1979 deadline.

This was in large part due to the efforts of conservative women’s organizations opposed it. Conservative women said that the ERA was a threat to family and child-rearing, because it would disrupt traditional gender roles. They also believed women would lose, among other things, their exemptions from the draft and combat duty.

At the same time, for a number of reasons, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota and Kentucky rescinded their ERA ratifications between 1972 and 1982. Some state legislators argued that the amendment was too controversial given its potential to upend traditional gender roles and legalize what they called “abortion on demand.”

States such as Illinois and Florida became battlegrounds for liberal and conservative women fighting over the amendment. Feminists successfully lobbied Congress to extend the ERA’s ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. The ERA, however, was not ratified by the three states needed to ensure its passage. In 1982, conservative women proclaimed the Equal Rights Amendment officially dead.

In 2023, conservative women’s groups like the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America continue to make the same arguments against the ERA. Instead of focusing on the battlefield, however, the groups argue that the ERA will eliminate restrictions on abortion and erase “women-only safe spaces” like bathrooms and locker rooms.

Protesters gather to call for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in Washington, D.C., in September 2022.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Another chance?

Since 2017, three more states – Nevada, Illinois and Virginia – have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, bringing the total to 38 states, which is the number required to ratify the ERA and officially make it the 28th Amendment. That is why Democrats believe they have legal standing.

Some constitutional experts see Democrats’ latest attempt to codify the ERA as a political stunt rather than a legitimate legal move. To some extent, I think this may be true.

More than a dozen states have ERA equivalents that protect women’s equal rights in their constitutions. And four states, including New York, have active ERA initiatives.

The current push for Democrats to pass the ERA seems to be largely about advocating for abortion access and mobilizing abortion rights supporters ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

About half of the states across the U.S. have enacted restrictive abortion laws over the last year, with some states banning the procedure altogether. State ERA efforts, like the one in New York, are a response to these bans.

The renewed push for the ERA makes the fight over abortion access, once again, a national battle. In the current polarized political environment, abortion access promises to serve as a political lightening rod in coming years.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Dec. 13, 2018. More

Abortion providers in Iowa have filed a lawsuit to block state Republicans’ latest attempt to ban the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people even know they are pregnant.Last week, Iowa lawmakers passed a six-week ban on abortion in a rare special legislative session, called by Governor Kim Reynolds, who signed the bill on Friday afternoon. The law takes immediate effect, further shrinking the options available to people seeking abortions in the midwest.“In a rare and historic special session, the Iowa legislature voted for a second time to reject the inhumanity of abortion and pass the fetal heartbeat law,” Reynolds said on Friday.The move to restrict abortion in Iowa came less than one month after a deadlocked state supreme court blocked enforcement of a near-identical six-week ban. Reproductive justice advocates across the country condemned Reynolds’ decision to call a special session on abortion.“Every dirty trick in the book is being used to pass these extremely unpopular abortion bans,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity (Urge), a progressive advocacy group that supports abortion rights.“They don’t want to do it in the light of day, that’s why we’re seeing these special sessions, that’s why we’re seeing bans passed in the middle of the night,” she added.Abortion providers in Iowa said they were unsurprised that the state GOP used a unique legislative tool for the sole purpose of restricting reproductive freedom. Francine Thompson, executive director of the Emma Goldman Clinic – one of two abortion providers in Iowa and a plaintiff in the new lawsuit – said the ban’s passage was expected yet appalling.She said there was a cruel irony to the timing of the governor’s announcement of the special session, which came just after Independence Day, “a day we typically associate with celebrating our freedom from oppressive and tyrannical governments”.Staff at the Emma Goldman Clinic spent hours this week on the phones with nervous patients confused by the legal status of abortion in Iowa.“Since Dobbs, the phone lines are always jammed,” Thompson said. “The most recent calls are not really in an attempt to get seen before the law goes into effect, but are clients seeking information to wade through the chaos of rapidly changing access and the myriad of restrictions in surrounding states.”The six-week ban is confusing, in part, because it closely resembles a 2018 law that was blocked by an Iowa district judge years before Roe v Wade was overturned. Earlier this year, Reynolds asked the Iowa supreme court to reverse the district judge’s decision. The state justices split 3-3, leaving the lower court’s order in place, meaning the 2018 ban remains unenforceable.The lawsuit against the new six-week ban is expected to reach the Iowa supreme court, which last year ruled that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion.But last month, the 3-3 deadlock happened after one justice, Dana Oxley, opted to recuse herself from the case because of a conflict of interest with her old law firm. It is unclear if Justice Oxley will recuse herself again, causing another split ruling.Iowa Republican lawmakers might not care about the outcome of the legal battle. They win political points with their core, conservative voter base simply by reconvening at the state capital to pass an abortion ban.“Because of gerrymandering, Iowa Republicans aren’t really worried about losing to a Democrat, but they are at a real risk of being primaried,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at University of California, Davis.If the ban is struck down, Republicans can blame the courts, a convenient boogeyman in the tug-of-war over state abortion law. The good-faith attempt to pass a six-week ban is enough to reassure anti-abortion lobbying groups and socially conservative donors.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionZiegler said ideological posturing is especially important for Governor Reynolds ahead of the Iowa caucus, which helps select the Republican presidential nominee. Reynolds’ endorsement could therefore change the future of her party.But first, Ziegler said, the governor “needs to prove her conservative credentials” on abortion.Reynolds signed the ban at the Family Leadership Summit, a gathering of evangelical Christians and social conservatives in Des Moines. The event attracted 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls such as Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, and the former vice-president Mike Pence.Just as Reynolds was signing the six-week ban, attorneys for Planned Parenthood and the Emma Goldman Clinic asked an Iowa judge to temporarily block the six-week ban from taking effect while litigation proceeds. That decision is expected this week.Dr Emily Boevers, an Iowa OB-GYN at one of the state’s last remaining rural hospitals, braced for an anxious weekend. She volunteers her weekends providing abortion care at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Iowa City, though she does not offer abortions in her everyday work at the hospital.Boevers is one of two OB-GYNs in her home county – the other is expected to retire this fall. She is worried that the six-week ban could drive doctors in her specialty out of Iowa, worsening the region’s existing shortage of maternal healthcare providers.“North of me, there is not another hospital for 50 miles,” said Boevers.She said the criminalization of abortion brings “a level of hostility towards obstetric care in all its components” that will “invariably harm” the already dwindling OB-GYN workforce in Iowa.“Forcing experts in women’s health to withhold care from our patients, it goes against many of our moral codes,” Boevers said. “As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I trust my patients to make the best decision for their situation.” More

An African American man whose grandfather dropped out of school to pick cotton. A daughter of Indian immigrants raised in the Sikh faith. A son of Cuban immigrants, an Indian-American entrepreneur, a Black talk radio host and a former undercover CIA officer who is mixed race.A casual observer might assume that these candidates for the White House in 2024 must be from the same Democratic party that produced Barack Obama. In fact, they are all contenders in the Republican presidential primary field – the most diverse in the party’s history.But what should be an important breakthrough for a party long criticised for racist dog-whistling is overshadowed by some significant caveats. First, the opinion polls are dominated by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, two white men whose words and deeds have alienated many Black voters.Second, they are, critics say, seeking to benefit from identity politics and deny the existence of racism at the same time. Senator Tim Scott, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, Miami mayor Francis Suarez, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, conservative radio host Larry Elder and ex-congressman Will Hurd refer to their own struggles but are reluctant to acknowledge a wider social and historical context.“It’s great to see the quality and diversity of the candidates who have emerged and are emerging,” said Michael Steele, who was the first Black chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). “It does matter what they say and how they sound and how they represent not just Republican values but the values of the communities they come from, and that’s always been where the wheels start to come off. You can’t be authentically you if you’re parroting what white Republicanism is.”Steele’s elevation to RNC chairman after the 2008 election of Obama, America’s first Black president, implied that the party of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had finally recognised the need to broaden its appeal. There was early vindication in 2010 when Steele successfully backed Haley for governor of South Carolina, Scott for Congress in the same state and Susana Martinez for governor of New Mexico.But the following year, Steele lost his re-election bid to Reince Priebus, a white man from Wisconsin who would later become Trump’s White House chief of staff. When Republicans were defeated by Obama again, the RNC produced an “autopsy report” that urged them to diversify or die. Yet in 2016 Trump effectively tore that up with attacks on immigrants and Muslims that were cheered by white nationalists. He lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.There have been gains and setbacks since then. In last year’s midterm elections, the RNC said its lineup of candidates was more diverse than ever: 32 Latinos, 22 Black candidates, 11 Asian Americans and two Native Americans. Among them was Herschel Walker, who denied the existence of racism and lost a Senate race in Georgia to Raphael Warnock, a Democrat steeped in the civil rights legacy of Martin Luther King.Now the presidential primary candidates vying to take on Joe Biden, an 80-year-old white man, seem unwilling to discuss racial politics, except in the past tense or with an individual anecdote rather than a societal diagnosis. Haley, the first Asian American woman to compete for the Republican nomination, has described the discrimination that she and her family suffered as immigrants in the south while rejecting the idea of systemic racism.Launching his presidential campaign, Scott, the sole Black Republican in the Senate, spoke of feeling angry and disillusioned until a mentor “told me in the most loving way possible to look in the mirror and to blame myself”, leading Scott to choose “personal responsibility over resentment. I became the master of my fate.”It was a message that implied: if Scott could live the American dream, any Black person can. He accordingly likes to frequently swipe at the left with lines such as, “My life disrupts their narrative. The truth of my life disrupts their lies,” – even though has in in the past described incidents in which he was racially profiled by police, including US Capitol police.Steele, for one, is not impressed. He said: “Tim knows me, he knows I’m not going to sugarcoat shit; I’m going to be straight up. That’s just playing to a white audience because that’s not his own experience. He’s the one who told us of the time he was profiled as a member of Congress. So what are you talking about?“You can be aspirational about your own story and your own future while at the same time being honest and recognising the history of your story as it’s related through your parents, grandparents, neighbours, friends, who I would probably argue with Tim would not necessarily view their experience with America as exclusively, ‘I did all this by pulling myself up by my bootstraps and white America appreciated me as an American’. That’s just not how that narrative plays out.”Republicans have taken pains to reject the New York Times’s 1619 Project and the concept of slavery being part of America’s origin story. A fashionable reflex is to selectively quote King’s “I have a dream” speech about a nation where children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” in an effort to justify colour blindness. This is seen by critics as disingenuous cherry picking from a civil rights leader who also highlighted police brutality and systemic poverty.Like previous Black Republican candidates, such as Herman Cain and Ben Carson, this year’s field has little incentive to dwell on the party’s divisive past and risk being accused of going “woke”. Leah Wright Rigueur, a political historian at Johns Hopkins University, told the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America podcast: “There is no reward for calling the party out on racism or bigotry. There’s none for Black Republicans.“In fact, we have documented evidence that the Black Republicans who get support from within the party … are the ones who either support the party uncritically, who echo whatever the party’s standard bearer is saying, or who find this space to carve out where they don’t alienate their audience while also adhering to certain conservative principles.”Rigueur, author of The Loneliness of the Black Republican, added: “The latter is where Tim Scott is, and so that’s why you hear him say things like, ‘I have experienced racism on an individual level but I don’t believe America is a racist place.’ And so it becomes something which alleviates the conscience of the base, where they can say, well, it doesn’t affect me, that’s something he experienced, that’s his individual experience. That can be true, but it has nothing to do with me, and I can feel OK in this moment.”Although the current Congress has more Black Republicans than at any point since 1877, the number is still only five. Efforts to recruit diverse candidates and appeal to voters of colour have been repeatedly undermined by party leaders and allies. Trump, the runaway leader in primary polls so far, dined last year with Nick Fuentes, an outspoken antisemite and racist.Last month, the former president’s appointees to the supreme court were instrumental in ruling against affirmative action in colleges and universities. Scott told Fox News that it was “a good day for America”; Haley tweeted, “Picking winners & losers based on race is fundamentally wrong”; Ramaswamy told Politico: “Affirmative action is the single greatest form of institutional racism in America today.”This week Tommy Tuberville, a senator for Alabama, gave several media interviews in which he repeatedly declined to describe white nationalists as racist before finally backing down. And Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, said teachers should tell students that the Tulsa race massacre was not racially motivated.Tara Setmayer, a political commentator who received a torrent of online racist abuse following a recent TV interview, argues that the diversity of the Republican primary slate will not address the deeper malaise. “The irony in this is that the diversity is on paper and the party that claims that they’re so against affirmative action is seemingly intent on putting up racial numbers to show, look, we’re not racist, we have diversity. You can’t have it both ways.“Taking away the rights of women, the rights of minorities – these are all issues that are being advocated by a Republican party that wants to laud itself for ‘diversity’? They’re perfectly OK with a governor of a major state like Ron DeSantis banning diversity and inclusion programmes. They’re OK with book-banning on Black history. It doesn’t make sense.Setmayer, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project and former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, criticised Haley, Scott and others for denying that systemic racism has an impact on Black communities.“To try to whitewash that, I’m embarrassed for them, because you cannot tell me that they don’t go home at night and watch the news, read the newspaper, look at the bills and the laws that are being passed in their own states and the experiences of people of colour in this country and not acknowledge privately that, guess what, racism still exists in America.“It’s so disingenuous for them to say that, and Tim Scott more infuriatingly, given that he’s a Black man in the south, who himself claims he was racially profiled as a senator, but turns around and denies that there is still a problem with race in this country when he’s speaking in front of predominantly white audiences. He’s not going to go to the NAACP convention or the Urban League convention or speak in front of the Congressional Black Caucus saying those things.”The Democratic party remains more diverse by every measure. Some 80% of racial and ethnic minority members in the current Congress are Democrats. A new Pew Research Center analysis of last year’s midterm elections shows that 93% of Black voters supported Democrats while just 5% backed Republicans.Hispanic voters favoured Democratic candidates by a 21-point margin in 2022 – but that was a sharp drop from the 47-point margin they enjoyed in 2018. Such shifts give Republicans hope that they will continue to make inroads next year – with or without a Black nominee.Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist based in Columbia, South Carolina, said: “That word diversity means different things to different people and for us as Democrats, not only have we talked the talk when it comes to diversity, but we walk the walk with age, race, gender, geographics and demographics.“The browning of America is happening right before all of our eyes and, truth be told, is that Republicans have not given any voters of colour a reason to even think about joining their chorus.” More

Christopher Wray appeared stupefied. As the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified on Wednesday before the House judiciary committee, Republicans on the panel painted him as a liberal stooge abusing his power to punish Joe Biden’s political enemies.The accusations stunned Wray, a registered Republican who was appointed by Donald Trump and previously served in George W Bush’s administration.“The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background,” Wray told the committee.Some progressives share Wray’s disbelief. The two indictments of Donald Trump, as well as Hunter Biden’s plea deal with federal prosecutors and conspiracy theories about the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, have fueled Republicans’ accusations that the FBI and the justice department are unjustly targeting rightwing groups.Those allegations have somewhat complicated progressives’ longstanding criticism of the FBI over the bureau’s documented surveillance of liberal activists. Even as progressives denounce rightwing conspiracy theories about the FBI, they continue to push for an overhaul of the bureau’s surveillance and data collection methods.“If Republicans really care about FBI overreach of civil liberties, then they will get serious about the real reforms,” Representative Cori Bush, a Democrat from Missouri, said. “But that’s not really what they’re pushing right now. Instead, they’re still amplifying those conspiracy theories and trying to distract the public, to gaslight the country and distract us from Trump’s criminality.”Progressives’ skepticism of the FBI long predates Trump’s presidency. In 1956, the FBI launched its domestic counterintelligence program (Cointelpro) to infiltrate and discredit political organizations that the bureau considered suspicious. The program, which shuttered in 1971, resulted in the surveillance of many leaders in the anti-Vietnam war and civil rights movements, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr.Progressive activists’ concerns about FBI surveillance stretch into the present day. According to a 2022 memo declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in May, the FBI violated its own guidelines in running so-called “batch queries” related to 133 people “arrested in connection with civil unrest and protests” after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. The memo found that the FBI conducted similarly inappropriate inquiries of more than a dozen people suspected of participating in the January 6 Capitol attack.“The FBI for many decades – almost a century – has been sort of the chief secret police entity against the left and progressives,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the progressive Center for Constitutional Rights. “During that time, the right wing and Republicans have been the biggest cheerleaders of this illegal activity when aimed at communists, civil rights advocates, anti-war advocates, all the way up to [Black Lives Matter] protesters. That seemed to change in 2016, when they backed a lawless president who didn’t like that his illegal activities were being investigated.”Republicans’ sentiments toward the FBI have indeed shifted as Trump has come under increasing legal scrutiny, marking a notable sea change for a party that long claimed the mantle of law and order. When Trump was indicted on 37 federal charges last month for his alleged mishandling of classified documents, the former president’s congressional allies jumped to his defense, accusing the FBI and the justice department of exploiting its powers to target Republicans.Opening the hearing with Wray on Wednesday, Representative Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the judiciary committee, bemoaned the “weaponization of the government against the American people” and “this double standard that exists now in our justice system”.Jordan repeatedly suggested that Republicans and Democrats could work together on reforming the FBI’s data collection methods, specifically in the form of overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa). That law, which is currently set to expire at the end of the year, has long been a source of outrage on the left. One particularly controversial provision of Fisa, section 702, allows the FBI to carry out warrantless surveillance of targeted foreigners overseas, and the personal data of many Americans – including Black Lives Matter protesters – have been swept up in the expansive searches made possible by the law.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhen Representative Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, questioned Wray on Wednesday, she focused her queries on the FBI’s data collection methods and warned that Fisa would face “a very difficult reauthorization process”.During a press call on Wednesday, Jayapal expressed dissatisfaction with “the vagueness of the director’s answers” and suggested Democrats and Republicans could indeed work together to ensure a significant overhaul of Fisa.“I think that this is actually a bipartisan area of concern,” Jayapal said. “We have an opportunity here to ensure that any [Fisa] reauthorization that we pass contains some significant reforms that protect the privacy and the personal information of people across the country.”On the possibility of bipartisan Fisa reform efforts, Bush said she was “open to working with anyone who cares about real people and bringing about real change”, although she remained skeptical of Republicans’ commitment to the cause.“If that’s what they actually want to see, then yes, I’m open to working with them,” she said.Warren was even more dubious about bipartisan efforts to overhaul the FBI’s surveillance methods. Given Republicans’ decades-long history of endorsing the FBI despite its controversial tactics, he considered it unlikely that the party’s leaders would now embrace reform.“While the right and left may both see a problem with the FBI, I don’t see them agreeing on a reform solution,” Warren said. “The foundational challenge with federal law enforcement is that it broadly criminalizes communities of color and activists, and I think that, so long as those activists are environmental or [Black Lives Matter] ones, the right wing will be perfectly happy with the way things are going.” More

Progressives have vowed to hold the new Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, to his campaign pledge that as part of crime-control efforts in the city he will break with the controversial gunshot detection contractor ShotSpotter.Johnson gave the keynote speech this week at Netroots, the largest annual gathering of progressives in the country, taking place in Chicago, and amplified his campaign talk about a wider approach to safer streets.“Many people will make you believe that the only way in which you can have safe communities is by simply engaging in politics of old, by believing that the only answer to public safety is policing. That’s a failed strategy,” he told the gathering.However the progressive Democrat did not repeat his campaign trail commitments to pull the plug on ShotSpotter when the city’s current contract is up next year. For more than a decade, Chicago has used the company’s nearly 30-year-old gunshot detection system, deployed in high-crime areas and designed to direct police to shootings, but that in recent years has faced intense criticism for its methodology and the impact of its technology on communities of color.“He’s a rising star in progressive politics and we’re going to hold him accountable,” Granate Kim, campaign director at MPower Change, a Chicago-based Muslim digital advocacy organization, told a panel held at Netroots.Kim added that if Johnson did not break with ShotSpotter: “We would be very upset and take him to task nationally.”Johnson emerged as the unlikely winner from the left in the mayoral race in April, defeating former Chicago public schools CEO Paul Vallas, who had received an endorsement from the right-leaning police union. The two men had faced off after mayor Lori Lightfoot lost her bid for re-election.Johnson had said on his campaign website: “Chicago spends $9m a year on ShotSpotter despite clear evidence it is unreliable and overly susceptible to human error. This expensive technology played a pivotal role in the police killing of 13-year-old Adam Toledo.”Toledo, 13, was shot dead by police in 2021 after a chase and confrontation in which bodycam footage showed the boy with his hands in the air. The killing prompted protests in Chicago, and no charges were brought against the police.Amid criticism of the city’s procurement process as opaque, last fall, Lightfoot quietly extended the company’s contract to February 2024. Then in June, Johnson approved a $10m payment for ShotSpotter. A senior adviser in the mayor’s office blamed the authorization on an automated signature – but also did not commit to ending the contract next year.If Johnson continues the contract, the backlash from fellow progressives is likely to be swift.“We need Mayor Brandon Johnson to stand on his campaign promise of getting the contract canceled. It does not have to be that hard,” said Alyxandra Goodwin, a community organizer with Black Youth Project 100 in Chicago. Goodwin noted that the city’s upcoming budget season provided another opportunity to push the mayor and his allies to end the contract.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We need the mayor to propose a budget that does not have money for gunshot detection. And now we need city council to approve the budget that doesn’t have money for gunshot detection,” Goodwin added.Shotspotter has been deployed in more than 120 cities including Boston, New York and Denver, according to the company, which recently rebranded as SoundThinking. Research from the University of Michigan and Chicago’s own office of inspector general have raised questions over its accuracy and efficiency.A recent investigation by the Guardian, the Lucy Parsons Labs and the Oregon Justice Research Center, shed light on how ShotSpotter circumvented the public procurement process in Portland.While the city mulls the renewal, it’s also facing a federal lawsuit from the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University’s law school over Chicago police’s use of ShotSpotter. Lucy Parsons Labs, one of the plaintiffs in the class action suit, alleged that the deployment of ShotSpotter in predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods infringes on civil liberties and breaks the fourth amendment, said Alejandro Ruizesparza, co-director for Lucy Parsons Labs.“We are using that racial justice lens in our litigation to look at how cities that have contracts with private entities use this technology in a way that is particularly harmful to people of color and also poor people,” Ruizesparza said. “Maybe these companies should be paying reparations every time they hurt Black and brown people. That would really hurt their profit margin.” More

Florida governor and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has reduced campaign staff as his campaign has struggled to meet fundraising goals.Fewer than 10 staffers were laid off, according to an anonymous staffer, reported Politico. The staffers were involved in event planning and may be picked up by the pro-DeSantis super Pac Never Back Down. Two senior campaign advisers, Dave Abrams and Tucker Obenshain, left the campaign this past week to assist a pro-DeSantis nonprofit group.Sources within the campaign reported an internal assessment that the campaign hired too many staffers too early.“They never should have brought so many people on; the burn rate was way too high,” said one Republican source familiar with the campaign’s thought process to NBC News. “People warned the campaign manager but she wanted to hear none of it.”More shake-ups within the campaign are expected in the coming weeks after two months on the presidential campaign, with DeSantis still lagging substantially in second place behind former president Donald Trump.Even in DeSantis’s home state of Florida, Trump still has a 20-point lead over the governor, according to a recent Florida Atlantic University poll.“Early state voters are only softly committed to the candidates they select on a ballot question this far out – including many Trump supporters,” read an internal campaign memo obtained by NBC News as the DeSantis campaign is refocusing resources on early primary states. “Our focus group participants in the early states even say they do not plan on making up their mind until they meet the candidates or watch them debate.”The DeSantis campaign raised $20m since launching his presidential campaign, but over one-third of the donations were received during the first 10 days of his campaign, and financial fundraising data shows his campaign has been reliant on wealthy donors who have already reached their maximum permitted individual contributions. His campaign has spent significantly on a payroll of 90 staffers and fundraising efforts, including over $900,000 on merchandise, $883,000 on digital consulting, $867,000 on media placements and $730,000 on direct mail.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDeSantis faced scrutiny this week following an investigation by the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times reported several veterans resigned and reported abuse within Florida’s state guard training, likening training to a militia for the civilian disaster relief force. The governor reactivated the state guard in 2022 after it had been dormant since the end of the second world war.In May, DeSantis signed a bill to expand the state guard and make it permanent, expanding the group from 400 to 1,500 members and expanding its budget from $10m to $107.6m. More