US Politics

Democrats’ Ilhan Omar defence weakened by party’s own attacks over IsraelParty’s criticism of Omar’s Israel position has greased the path for Republicans to oust her from the foreign affairs committee The resolution that set in motion the removal of the only African immigrant, Muslim and former resident of a refugee camp on the congressional committee overseeing US foreign policy paid scant attention to Ilhan Omar’s views on anything but a single issue: Israel.“Omar has attempted to undermine the relationship between the United States and Israel,” said the author of the resolution, Republican congressman Max Miller. “She has disqualified herself from serving on the foreign affairs committee.”The Democratic leadership accused Republicans of a vendetta. Omar said she was targeted as a Muslim immigrant who “needs to be silenced”, and that “when you push power, power pushes back”.But Democratic attempts to defend the Minnesota congresswoman were undercut by the party’s own record of attacking Omar over her statements about Israel almost from the day she was sworn in four years ago, greasing the path for Republicans to vote her off the foreign affairs committee on Thursday.Several Jewish American organisations came out in support of Omar, including Jewish Voice for Peace Action, a group lobbying for a change in US policy on Israel.“These attacks on Representative Omar are about her identity as a Black Muslim progressive woman. But this cannot be removed from the fact that she wants to hold the Israeli government accountable and speak out for Palestinian human rights,” said its political director, Beth Miller.Miller said that while she welcomed the support of the Democratic leadership for Omar in Thursday’s vote, it was hamstrung by its own criticisms of her.“Since she got to office she has been vocally opposed to Israeli occupation and speaking out for Palestinian human rights. And time and time again members of her own party have attacked her for it,” she said.“The actions of the Democratic leadership, and the failure to not just defend her, but sometimes jump on attacks against her, has helped foster an environment that allowed this to happen.”Max Miller’s resolution to remove Omar repeatedly cited Democratic criticisms of her statements on Israel and allegations of antisemitism.“Congresswoman Omar clearly cannot be an objective decision-maker on the foreign affairs committee given her biases against Israel and against the Jewish people,” he said when introducing the resolution.Omar has apologised for the wording of some of her statements while sticking by her points, including criticism of the influence of groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israel money on US politics.Several liberal Jewish American groups, including J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and the New Israel Fund, said that none of Omar’s policies or statements merited her removal from the committee. They added that accusations against her by the Republican speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, seem “especially exploitative in light of the rampant promotion of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories by him and his top deputies amid a surge in dangerous right-wing antisemitism”.The groups noted that McCarthy himself had deleted a tweet accusing Jewish billionaires of trying to “buy” an election.But while Republican leaders may not really care about antisemitism, they are serious about defending Israeli governments from criticism. Many Democrats support them in that.Miller said the criticisms of Omar were less about the language she used than trying to silence her.“These attempts to smear and attack her, to police her language, are all part of attempt to silence and threaten anyone who trying to speak out against the Israeli government,” she said.As Omar’s record on the foreign affairs committee shows, she rarely drew public criticism from fellow Democrats even for strident criticisms of US foreign policy in other parts of the world, including accusations that it undermined democracy and helped to fuel terrorism.At a hearing on the erosion of democracy in sub-Saharan Africa in 2020, the Democratic chair at the time, Karen Bass, spoke of the US as “the global champion for democracy”. Omar, on the other hand, asked about the US counter-terrorism training of security forces responsible for massacres in Cameroon and of coup leaders in Mali.“This trend of supporting militarised brutality in the name of counterterrorism is widespread in the continent. I have mentioned Cameroon and Mali, but I could easily mention Somalia, Mozambique, Kenya, or a number of other countries in the continent,” Omar said.At a hearing on US-Africa relations a year earlier, Omar agreed with a witness from the conservative Heritage Foundation that Saudi Arabian promotion of Wahhabism in Africa “has contributed to the rise of jihadist thinking and terrorist recruitment on the continent”.Then Omar asked: “Is it fair to say that our unwavering support for the Saudi government has been counterproductive to our security goals in Africa?”.Omar also used the hearing to challenge claims by the US Africa Command, responsible for American military operations on the continent, that its escalating use of drone strikes in her homeland, Somalia, had not resulted in civilian casualties.None of this brought the attention or orchestrated backlash prompted by her views on Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.The Republican chair of the foreign affairs committee, Michael McCaul, made plain that his concern lay with Omar positions on this one issue.“It’s just that her worldview of Israel is so diametrically opposed to the committee’s. I don’t mind having differences of opinion, but this goes beyond that,” he said.Some of the most furious and, according to Omar’s supporters, unreasoned criticism came over a single tweet following a foreign affairs committee meeting in June 2021.Omar asked the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, about Washington’s opposition to international criminal court (ICC) investigations in Israel and the occupied Palestine territories, and Afghanistan shortly before it fell to the Taliban.The ICC reached a preliminary conclusion that both Israel and Palestinian armed groups have both committed war crimes that include the unjustified killing of civilians and Israel’s illegal construction of sprawling settlements in the occupied territories. In Afghanistan, the ICC is investigating actions by the Taliban, the former Afghan government’s forces, the US military and the CIA.Omar made it clear in her questions to Blinken that she agreed with the expansive nature of the court’s investigation and that she was not singling out one side in either conflict.“I would emphasise that in Israel and Palestine this includes crimes committed by the Israeli security forces and Hamas. In Afghanistan it includes crimes committed by the Afghan national government and the Taliban,” she told him.“So in both of these cases, if domestic courts can’t or won’t pursue justice – and we oppose the ICC – where do we think the victims of these supposed crimes can go for justice? And what justice mechanisms do you support for them?”The question was typical of the global perspective Omar brought to the foreign affairs committee, shaped by her early life amidst armed conflict in Somalia and in a United Nations refugee camp in Kenya. At its core was Omar’s persistent scrutiny of whether the US lives up to its self-assessment as a force for good in the world when, in this case, it shields itself and its friends from accountability.Blinken made no objection to the framing of the question, and lamented the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians. He said there was no need for ICC investigations because existing national courts in Israel and the US were sufficient to ensure accountability, a claim disputed by human rights organisations that have documented unprosecuted war crimes and crimes against humanity by both countries.The storm broke when Omar tweeted Blinken’s testimony with the comment: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the US, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked [Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.”Republicans came out of the gate claiming that single tweet was evidence of everything that was wrong with Omar.They said it exposed her hostility to Israel and America, and her antisemitism. They accused her of drawing “moral equivalence” between democratic governments and suicide bombers. Few cared that while Omar’s framing of her tweet may have been impolitic, it was not the congresswoman who linked Israel and Hamas, or the Taliban and the US military, but the ICC in its investigations.Republican Senator Tom Cotton resorted to what is widely regarded as a classic racist taunt to Omar to go back to where she came from: “[She] was a refugee from Somalia and America welcomed her. If she really believes America is a hateful country on par with the Taliban and Hamas, she’s welcome to leave.”It did not take long for Democrats to pile in as well. Fellow party members in Congress issued a statement claiming that Omar’s “false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups”.The Democrats urged Omar “to clarify her words”. The congresswoman responded by condemning the “constant harassment and silencing” from fellow Democrats.A few Democrats did come to her defence, including Representative Cori Bush.“I’m not surprised when Republicans attack Black women for standing up for human rights. But when it’s Democrats, it’s especially hurtful,” she said.Omar was forced into a retreat after the then Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, joined the fray to condemn “false equivalencies”, saying they foment prejudice and undermine progress toward peace.Omar issued a statement “clarifying” that she was not making moral comparisons and was “in no way equating terrorist organisations with democratic countries”.But by then, the debate and news coverage had shifted from scrutiny of why the US was protecting Israel and itself, and by extension Hamas and the Taliban, from war crimes investigations to a debate about Omar’s motives.And the Republicans had another arrow in their quiver when the time came to move against her.TopicsDemocratsIsraelIlhan OmarMiddle East and north AfricaPalestinian territoriesUS foreign policySomalianewsReuse this content More

ReviewThe Aftermath review: a younger, more liberal America? OK, BoomerPhilip Bump of the Washington Post has produced a fascinating account of demographic change and future possibilities Younger Americans are decidedly more liberal than their parents. On election day 2022 they thwarted a ballyhooed “red wave”, saved the Georgia senator Raphael Warnock from defeat and deflated Kari Lake’s bid for Arizona governor. Nationally, voters under 30 went Democratic 63-35.Myth America review: superb group history of the lies that built a nationRead moreMillennials, those born between 1981 and 1996, and members of Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012, are also less than proud of living in the US, according to survey data. Suffice to say, “Maga” sloganeering leaves them less than reassured.Those generations grew up in the shadows of 9/11, the Iraq war, the great recession and Covid. Their school lunch menus featured shooter lockdown drills. They are ethnically diverse. Millennials have defied political expectations. They did not shift right with age. Instead, they make Republicans sweat.Along with race, gender and culture, inter-generational rivalry can be tossed into that long-simmering pile of resentments known as America’s cold civil war. Enter Philip Bump and his first book, aptly subtitled The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America. Bump is a national columnist for the Washington Post. Demographics, culture and economics are part of his remit. Through that prism, The Aftermath delivers.Bump attempts to explain how the US reached its present inflection point and offers a glimpse of what may come next. His tone is methodical, not alarmist.Gently, he introduces the reader to the term “pig in the python”, coined by Landon Jones, once managing editor of People magazine, to describe the demographic bulge created by GIs who returned from the second world war. Bump pays respect to Jones’s book, Great Expectations, which stands among the “first serious examinations of the baby boom”. Hence the label Baby Boomers, for people born in those fertile post-war years.Boomer politicians include Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich. They may not have made the world a better place but they definitely left their mark. Their appetites frequently eclipsed their judgment. Clinton and Trump were impeached. Both faced lawsuits alleging sexual assault. Gingrich was forced out as House speaker.“They are a generational tyranny,” Bump quotes Jones.“OK Boomer” is a catchphrase and retort, not a compliment.More than three decades ago, Lee Atwater, the manager of George HW Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign, believed the boomer experience provided a more cohesive political glue than income, political tradition or religion.“This group has dominated American culture in one form or another since it came into being,” he observed.Stratocaster in hand, Atwater played with Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones at Bush’s inauguration. The new president jammed along on air guitar. Atwater recorded an album with BB King and others. Now, Atwater, Bush, King and Charlie Watts are gone. Wood, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards play on. There’s always time for one more tour, until there isn’t.Bump also addresses tensions within the Democrats’ diverse, upstairs-downstairs coalition, observing that race and ethnicity are not necessarily destiny. Among minority voters without college degrees, the party of FDR and JFK has ceded ground to the GOP. The much-vaunted “coalition of the ascendant” has not lived up to its hype.Bump notes divides between Black and Latino voters. In the 2020 primaries, Black Democrats sided with Joe Biden, Latinos with Bernie Sanders. Among Latinos, Trump ran three points better against Biden than against Hillary Clinton. Among Black voters, he was five points better.As with working-class whites, cultural issues retained their salience for those without a degree. Before the supreme court gutted a woman’s right to choose, Republicans possessed the luxury of watching the Democrats trip over themselves as they grappled with the latest leftwing orthodoxy, turning off wide swaths of the electorate, including Boomers, as they did so.Now it’s the Republicans’ turn to squirm. Voters in red Kansas and Kentucky rejected abortion bans. In the midterms, inflation and abortion were the two most important issues. Inflation may be receding but abortion is not going away.As Bump observes, women older than 60 frequently emerged as both faces of the resistance to Trump and a moderating force. More than three in five Americans are angry or dissatisfied with the supreme court decision on abortion, yet the GOP faithful demands self-immolation.Affirmative action provides another example of ethnic fluidity. In 1996, California adopted Proposition 196 and scrapped race-based preferences, despite overwhelming Latino opposition. As Bump describes it, the Latino share of the electorate was smaller than its proportion of the population. If results were weighted to reflect that larger figure, Proposition 196 would been defeated.Priorities of ethnic blocs can change. By 2020, support for affirmative action among Californian Latinos appeared lukewarm at best. At the same time Californians were sending Biden to the White House they resoundingly rejected Proposition 16, an attempt to undo Proposition 196.By the numbers, backers of Proposition 16 spent more than $31m for around 44% support. Opponents of the measure raised a meager $1.6m yet took 56%.Bump posits that in the future, the US will look more like Florida: older and less white. Florida has moved right in recent years – whether ageing millennials and Gen Z-ers push it back towards the center remains, of course, to be seen. Bump also poses a series of “what ifs”, unanswered: “What happens if changes in the state reduce the motivation for Americans or immigrants to move there? What if the federal government further constrains international migration?”“Florida’s future is dependent on decisions made in the present,” he writes. “The long term depends on the short term.”
The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America is published in the US by Penguin Random House
TopicsBooksUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansProtestPolitics booksreviewsReuse this content More

Marjorie Taylor Greene faces backlash for saying her salary is ‘too low’Extremist Republican who makes $174,000 annually according to public records says ‘I’ve lost money since I’ve gotten here’ The far-right US congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is facing backlash after complaining that her elected position’s salary is “too low”.Earlier this week, the Republican representative from Georgia appeared on journalist Glenn Greenwald’s podcast and expressed concern about her congressional salary, which according to public records is $174,000 annually.The race for the 2024 election is on. But who will take on Trump?Read moreGreene told Greenwald: “Becoming a member of Congress has made my life miserable. I made a lot more money before I got here. I’ve lost money since I’ve gotten here.“It’s not a life that I think is like something that I enjoy because I don’t enjoy it,” added Greene, who had previously owned a CrossFit affiliate gym in Georgia before being elected to Congress in 2020.Additionally, Greene complained about the amount of time her congressional work consumes, saying: “The nature of this job, it keeps members of Congress and senators in Washington so much of the time, too much of the time … that we don’t get to go home and spend more time with our families, our friends … or maybe just be regular people because this job is so demanding. It’s turned into practically year-round.”She continued: “For those of us in the House of Representatives, we have to run for Congress every two years. So you’re practically campaigning nearly the entire time that you’re here serving as a representative.”Greene’s comments have faced swift backlash online.“Feel free to step aside if it isn’t too cushy of a job for you @RepMTG. Millions of us won’t mind. #stopwhining,” one Twitter user wrote, tweeting at her account.Someone else tweeted: “Griping Greene you don’t get to serve the Constitution and its people expecting to profit. Get a part time job or better yet, just quit.”Another user added: “Really? Being in Congress isn’t supposed to be about money. And I guarantee you make more per year than most of your constituents. If you don’t like the life and job, stop running for office.”Greene – who has previously voiced support for the far-right conspiracy group QAnon and made racist, antisemitic and anti-Muslim remarks – also told Greenwald that people have harassed her since working on Capitol Hill.The congresswoman said: “I have people come up to me and say crazy things to me out of the blue in public places that they believe because they read it on the internet or saw it on some news show about me.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Conservatives angry about school ‘indoctrination’ are telling on themselvesJan-Werner MüllerIdeologues like Ron DeSantis aren’t angry at politics in education; they’re angry their politics don’t have a monopoly The rightwing governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, and his administration recently blocked a proposed black studies course for advanced placement high school students, as well as announced policies that would inhibit state universities from teaching programming about racial diversity, equity and inclusion or so-called “critical race theory”. These moves follow on the heels of Florida’s “don’t say gay” legislation, last year, restricting teachers from discussing sexual orientation.DeSantis and other conservative politicians argue that they are saving America’s young from leftwing indoctrination, and that students should instead be exposed to “civic education” that extolls a patriotic vision of America. When DeSantis and his growing number of acolytes present themselves as champions of civic education, however, they are in fact undermining the whole point of civics: not to make children “patriotic” or just fill brains with facts (how many branches of government are there again?), but to enable individuals to be fearless, critical citizens.That very enterprise is threatened by these systematic intimidation campaigns. In fact, DeSantis’s anti-education crusade is doubly authoritarian – most obviously in its use of state power to suppress ideas and information, but also in its more subtle assumption that teaching is ultimately about imposing doctrines of one sort or another.It is an open question whether the College Board did cave to pressure from conservatives when they removed supposedly controversial material from the new African American history AP course. It is also an open question to what extent civil rights lawyers and free speech advocates can stop DeSantis’s censorship laws in court. But one thing is clear: damage to US democracy is being done already. Despite valiant resistance, on the whole, teachers and professors are intimidated. As we know from the rise of authoritarianism in other countries and periods, all-out repression is not always necessary: people obey in advance, make small adjustments, or altogether vacate a territory where the red lines which must not be crossed are left purposefully vague.We also know from anti-education crusades disguised as culture wars in states such as Hungary that defenders of academic freedom are faced with a dilemma, one that is being reproduced in the US today. On the one hand, defenders can try to deny that anything they do is political at all. Education, they might insist, is about science and telling the kids what’s what only in terms of facts.Less obviously, they might seek to escape politics by emphasizing worthy enterprises like “service learning”. Yet community service, as valuable as it can be both for students and the community, cannot substitute for genuine political education, in which students learn to discuss and, above all, to disagree. As John Hopkins president Ron Daniels has pointed out, students are ever more willing to volunteer, which is great (of course, volunteering also always looks good on CVs, one might add), but less eager to engage democratic politics more directly – and colleges seem complicit in this trend.Teachers are rightly worried that, in an age of hyper-polarization, politics can make their classrooms explode; often enough, they also lack the time, resources and skills to deal with what can be a drawn-out and difficult process of young people learning how to negotiate their differences in a democratic manner. Add to that the sense that we are falling behind globally in Stem, and hence should not waste time on soft subjects that won’t help us compete with China.But there is no escape: those declaring the supposed “education establishment” their enemy won’t accept claims that schools aren’t doing politics. The likes of Viktor Orbán and his de facto pupil DeSantis will frame professors as purveyors of dangerous ideologies no matter what. For that is their political business model. Moral panics happen because political entrepreneurs want to spread panic; responses that come down to “don’t panic!” or “let’s talk about something else” won’t work.That is especially so with propaganda about pedagogy: schooling is so damn close to home, and yet not under the control of those at home; appeals to deep worries about what is happing to the kids when they are out of our hands can be very effective. (It is not an accident that conspiracy theories like QAnon use the quasi-natural resource of parental fears for generating panic and hate.)So, should one simply concede that it’s all politics, all the time, all the way down, and that everyone is simply spreading their ideology? Of course not. Education is political not because everyone gets to teach their politics to innocent charges, but because it is indispensable for democracy. As John Dewey, the greatest 20th-century philosopher of education put it, “democracy has to be born anew every generation and education is its midwife”. Countries with well-functioning democracies also do well on civic education scores. But that is not just a matter of knowledge about democracy, but doing democracy, which can be uncomfortable, even distressing and guilt-inducing (feelings which the Sunshine State Inquisitors try to banish by law from the classroom).Good teachers will assist students with how to think through issues; they don’t tell them what to think about issues. It is telling that some conservative crusaders – with an obvious tendency to project their own approach on to others – cannot conceive of teaching this way. To them, education is a weapon; content is not to be debated, but imposed. It is one thing to find fault with the specifics of the “western civ”-style curricula that DeSantis cadres want to do; it’s another to point out that the very approach is a continuation of Trump’s unprofessional 1776 Commission, which can only see history as a patriotic confidence-booster and, indeed, indoctrination.
Jan-Werner Müller teaches at Princeton and is a Guardian US columnist. His most recent book is Democracy Rules
TopicsUS politicsOpinionRon DeSantisFloridaRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

‘I can’t plan ahead’: Dreamers speak out as US program faces new threatImmigrants express frustration as nine Republican-led states ask judge to end Obama-era program that gives temporary deportation relief It’s been almost 10 years since Areli Hernandez received her first US government work permit in her mailbox. Hernandez remembers staring at her own photograph and touching the scripted name on the card in disbelief, feeling that a long-sought dream had finally materialized.US court orders review of landmark immigration program for DreamersRead moreBut earlier this week, the program that gives temporary deportation relief to Hernandez and hundreds of thousands of other immigrants known as Dreamers, allowing a chance to live and work legally in the US, came under threat once again in a federal court.Nine Republican-led states asked Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) policy, a request that if successful would stop nearly 600,000 immigrants brought to the US as undocumented children from being able to renew their work permits and continue to be protected from potential deportation.“I can’t plan ahead because my future consists of judges’ decisions,” said Hernandez, who was born in Mexico City and brought to the US at the age of five in the late 1980s. Hernandez was referring to her own Daca status, which is set to expire later this year. “I want to make choices that don’t depend on my card and an expiration date.”The latest filing from the coalition of states led by Texas denounced Daca as “unlawful” and “unconstitutional”. The states urged Hanen to strike down the program, which was fortified by the Biden administration as a federal regulation last year after originally being created by the Obama administration in 2012.Since its implementation, Daca has lifted the threat of deportation for approximately 825,000 individuals lacking legal status who were brought to the US by age 16 and before 15 June 2007, have studied in a US school or served in the military and don’t have a serious criminal record.The name Dreamers originated with a bill first proposed in the 2001-2002 Congress, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act, but which did not pass. Obama referred to these so-called Dreamers as “young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans”.Daca was meant to be a stopgap until Congress passed immigration reform legislation and put Dreamers like Hernandez on a path to US citizenship. That has not happened and instead the program – and Dreamers’ futures – end up batted back and forth by the courts.Last year Kevin McCarthy, now speaker of the House, called “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants a “nonstarter” and the only immigration policy his Republican House majority would support was “securing” the US-Mexico border.Donald Trump had announced as president that he was scrapping Daca. This was blocked by the courts, including the US supreme court in 2020, but still left Dreamers in turmoil.Then-rival presidential candidate Joe Biden pledged that he would change things, saying: “As president, I will immediately work to make Daca permanent by sending a bill to Congress on day one of my administration.”Biden did so, but immigration reform legislation is still stuck in Congress. Then states hostile to Daca persuaded Hanen in July 2021 to ban new applicants.Hernandez was a student in southern California in the early 2000s, before Daca.She told the Guardian this week: “I learned that I couldn’t be a social worker because in order to apply for a license I needed a social security number,” adding that as an undocumented immigrant: “I was also looking at programs that had federal grants that required US citizenship, and again, I couldn’t.”She worked as a janitor before graduating in psychology from California State University, Northridge, then spent years working under weekly or monthly contracts in jobs unrelated to her degree.It wasn’t until Hernandez, 39, became a Daca recipient in 2013 that she landed a full-time position at the non-profit Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (Chirla), where she earned enough to do a master’s in public administration, and is now director of executive affairs.Many of the almost 600,000 current Dreamers are essential workers who have supported the nation’s classrooms and hospitals throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. They are also sports stars, award-winning journalists and academics, or successful in countless other walks of life.Dreamers pump billions into the US economy and, according to the progressive thinktank the Center for American Progress, households with Daca recipients pay almost $10bn in taxes each year.When the Dream Act was introduced on Capitol Hill in 2001, Juliana Macedo do Nascimento coincidentally arrived in Buena Park, Orange county, California, from Brazil at the age of 14.Since 2001 at least 11 versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress but never passed.“We really see the cruelty of what Texas and the other plaintiffs are asking for, it’s just anti-immigrant rhetoric,” said Macedo do Nascimento, who now lives in Baltimore. “It’s all part of this narrative that mostly brown people shouldn’t be in this country.”Her current Daca protections expire in March 2024 and Dreamers once again wait in anxious limbo, first for Hanen’s ruling then, if he agrees to shut down Daca, the likely Biden appeal all the way back up to the now-conservative-controlled supreme court.“Daca recipients are allowed to buy houses, buy cars, and have these long-term debts,” said Macedo do Nascimento, 37, referring to the typical American burdens of student loans, mortgages and vehicle financing. “But we can’t plan a family. We deserve a path to citizenship, it will allow us to have a sense of security.”TopicsDream ActUS immigrationUS politicsTexasMexicofeaturesReuse this content More

The race for the 2024 election is on. But who will take on Trump?The ex-president is daring Republican challengers to make the first move – and some are preparing to attack The starting gun has been fired and the race for the White House is under way. But in Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation Republican caucuses are just a year off, the landscape is icy and snowy and eerily silent.There is no great mystery why: the Donald Trump effect.Sarah Huckabee Sanders to give Republican State of the Union responseRead more“These folks must be watching Trump’s poll numbers and that’s why there’s a delay,” said Art Cullen, editor of Iowa’s Storm Lake Times. “Trump and [Florida governor Ron] DeSantis are doing this sparring around the ring. Others are watching to see if somebody takes a blow and gives them an opening.”At the same stage in 2019, at least a dozen Democratic contenders for the presidency had either been to Iowa or announced plans to visit soon. “We were getting one every other week,” recalled Cullen, noting that the first major candidate forum took place in March.But among potential Republican hopefuls for 2024 only the former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson has visited so far this year while Tim Scott, a senator for South Carolina, and Kari Lake, a former candidate for governor of Arizona, seen as a possible Trump running mate, have lined up appearances later this month.Trump, the only declared candidate so far, has not yet been to Iowa but his campaign is finally moving up a gear. Last weekend the former US president addressed Republicans at small-scale events in two other early voting states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, vowing to “complete the unfinished business of making America great again”. He is issuing policy statements, building infrastructure and unveiling endorsements that signal: catch me if you can.It is a surprisingly orthodox approach from the most unconventional of candidates. The 76-year-old was twice impeached, was blamed for thousands of deaths in the coronavirus pandemic and encouraged a violent coup on 6 January 2021. He is facing multiple criminal investigations and yet, with remarkable insouciance, styling himself as incumbent in all but name and betting on voters’ short memories.He is also throwing down the gauntlet to would-be challengers, daring them to make the first move. While there are signs that some are preparing to take him on, none has yet launched a full-frontal attack on Trump or Trumpism, apparently wary of earning his wrath and alienating his base.Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for California politicians including former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said: “I don’t think anybody wants to run and be a bad guy wrestler, be seen as the heel whose one purpose is just to attack Donald Trump. It’s not a ticket to success and it’s grinding because Trump will return fire. What’s the old saying about wrestling with the pig in the mud: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it more than you do.”It emerged this week that Nikki Haley, 51, who was South Carolina’s governor before serving as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to announce her candidacy in Charleston on 15 February. In 2021 Haley told the Associated Press that she “would not run if President Trump ran”, but she has since changed her mind, telling Fox News that she could be part of “new generational change”.In South Carolina last Saturday Trump told WIS-TV that Haley had called him several days earlier to seek his opinion. “She said she would never run against me because I was the greatest president, but people change their opinions, and they change what’s in their hearts,” he said. “So I said, if your heart wants to do it, you have to go do it.”Trump appears more threatened by – and less courteous towards – DeSantis, who won re-election in a landslide in Florida and is beating him in some opinion polls. Trump, who helped elevate DeSantis in the past, has dubbed him “Ron DeSanctimonious” and said a DeSantis challenge for the 2024 nomination would be “a great act of disloyalty”.But even DeSantis – who is not expected to declare until the Florida legislature adjourns in the spring – has pulled his punches so far. He responded to Trump’s attack with only a coded rebuke, drawing a contrast between his own success and Trump’s failure at the ballot box in 2020: “Not only did we win re-election, we won with the highest percentage of the vote that any Republican governor candidate has in the history of the state of Florida.”Other possible candidates such as Trump’s former vice-president Mike Pence and his ex-secretary of state Mike Pompeo have been similarly circumspect in critiquing their former boss, taking the odd swipe while also praising his administration and their parts in it. Taking on Trump directly carries huge political risks, as rivals such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio discovered via name calling, insults and humiliation in 2016.John Zogby, an author and pollster, said: “There is the the sense that alienating Donald Trump is a very thankless task. Trump comes down with a hammer, an anvil and a safe from the sky. Even though it is clear that a lot of the magic is gone from Trump, by the same token he can do extensive damage. He still has his own forum and he still has his own loyal following and he can suck up all the negative oxygen. Whether Trump wins or loses, he blocks.”Even so, Trump could soon have company on the campaign trail, not least because primaries often draw long-shot candidates who would welcome the consolation prize of a book deal, radio show, TV pundit gig or slot as winner’s running mate.State governors who might seek to build their brand nationally include Greg Abbott of Texas, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia.It remains to be seen if forthright Trump critics such as Liz Cheney, a former congresswoman from Wyoming, and Larry Hogan, the ex-governor of Maryland, will throw their hats in the ring. Few observers expect such a candidate to win a primary more likely to offer voters different flavors of “Make America great again” (Maga), with culture warrior DeSantis aiming to prove himself a younger, more dynamic version of the brand than the Trump original.Drexel Heard, a Democratic strategist, said: “It’s going to be very interesting to see how Maga Nikki Haley becomes in the primary. I find Nikki Haley to be intelligent but she is going to have to go full tilt Maga to get through this primary because she’s up against somebody like Ron DeSantis, who is already coming out of the gate with red meat.”With a fiercely loyal base, Trump stands to benefit from a divided field, just as he did in 2016. In South Carolina he has already bagged the endorsements of Governor Henry McMaster and Senator Lindsey Graham, stealing a march on Haley and Scott within the state. But as Trump seeks to normalise himself with a traditional campaign so far, there are also important differences from seven years ago.Whalen, the former California consultant who is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in Palo Alto, said: “First, there are legal issues. Now, some are more serious than others but if you’re running for president and you’re taking the fifth amendment 400 times, it’s not a good look for a candidate.“Second, he has a record to deal with that he didn’t have. Donald Trump was a hypothetical in 2015 and 2016, a tabula rasa when it came to holding office. Now he has four years in office which he has to explain. He’s not a hypothetical, he’s somebody who has had the job before, so voters have to make the calculation: do they want him in office again?“Third, there was not a Ron DeSantis-like figure in 2016. There was nobody quite in the same position as DeSantis in terms of the ability to do three things at once: monetise, point to a very successful record in his state and play the game that Trump plays. That is what makes DeSantis an option that wasn’t there for Republicans in 2016. In 2024, there is someone potentially who could fight fire with fire.”Other commentators agree that, despite the slow start in Iowa, the Republican primary looks set to be far more competitive than anyone imagined a year ago. The party was willing to overlook any number of Trump’s lies and misdemeanors but not the miserable performance of his handpicked candidates in last November’s midterm elections. The self-proclaimed winner has become a serial loser: his fundraising numbers so far have been relatively disappointing.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “I’m not seeing a whole lot of Trump fear. It looks to me that there has been a truly wide agreement in Republican circles that Trump is weak and that he’s beatable. Moreover, he may be even weaker with the coming indictments. To me what’s going on right now is just confirmation that Trump’s hold on the Republican party is loosening.“I would say it’s pretty open. Trump is a favourite but he’s got some very serious long-term viability issues in the field that is obviously no longer intimidated by him. Republicans are tired of losing.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsRepublicansRon DeSantisIowaMike PenceNikki HaleyfeaturesReuse this content More

New add to George Santos’s résumé: producer on Spider-Man musicalReports emerge that the embattled New York congressman told donors of his role, which the lead producer denies Just as it seemed the well of bizarre stories about George Santos might have begun to run dry, it was reported on Friday that the New York Republican congressman told potential donors he was a producer on the notoriously ill-fated Spider-Man musical.George Santos’s lies are so big you almost have to admire them | Emma BrockesRead moreBloomberg News said: “The lead producer, Michael Cohl, denied Santos’s involvement, saying through an assistant that [Santos] wasn’t a producer on the musical. Santos’s name also never appeared in the playbills for the show.”Santos and his lawyers did not immediately comment.Santos, 34, won election to Congress in New York’s third district in November. Since then, he has been consumed by revelations about his largely made-up educational and professional résumé; disproven claims about his family history including supposed links to the Holocaust and 9/11; allegations of criminal behaviour; and even reports that he once appeared as a drag queen in Brazil.He has admitted embellishing his résumé but denied wrongdoing and said he will not resign from Congress, which Republicans in his district and state and many leading Democrats have repeatedly demanded.Amid investigations at the local, state, federal and international levels – including of his campaign finance filings, personal wealth and business activities under a different name, Anthony Devolder – Santos this week stepped down from two committees to which he was named by Republican leaders.He said he wanted to “focus on serving the constituents of New York’s third congressional district and providing federal level representation without distraction”.That seems unlikely.Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark featured ambitious stagecraft and songs by U2’s Bono and the Edge but was badly reviewed and never trouble-free, including a number of performers suffering injuries. Its Broadway run lasted from 2011 to 2014, when it closed with losses of millions of dollars.Bloomberg noted that during the time the musical was on Broadway, Santos went from living in Brazil to working at a call centre in Queens and founding a charity to raise money for sick animals that is now being investigated after a military veteran accused Santos of absconding with money raised for his dog.The dog died. Santos denies the claim.Santos remains in the House as a valuable vote for Kevin McCarthy, the Republican speaker who must work with a narrow majority. Santos doggedly supported McCarthy through 15 votes for the position of speaker early last month.On Thursday night, meanwhile, a recording emerged of Santos firing an aide who had been on staff a little more than a week.The aide, Dan Myers, was previously a reporter in Ohio who faced criminal charges for publishing recorded legal testimony.Experience: I fell 30ft dressed as Spider-ManRead moreIn Myers’s recorded exchange with Santos, the congressman boasted about messaging with a CNN host.“Don Lemon just texted me – I’m sorry, I’m listening to you – Don Lemon just texted me!” Santos said.He also discussed the merits and costs of Botox treatments before saying Myers’s past problems in Ohio were “not concerning to us, it’s concerning to this institution”.Myers gave the recording to Talking Points Memo. He told the website that as Santos spoke, he was “thinking to myself, ‘I’m a threat and concern to this institution –George Santos, you’re George Santos!’”TopicsGeorge SantosUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Prosecutors likened Trump to mob boss and had to prove he wasn’t insane – bookMark Pomerantz, who was on New York team investigating tax affairs, reportedly compares ex-president to John Gotti New York prosecutors building a case against Donald Trump for allegedly lying about his wealth for tax purposes had to show the former president was “not legally insane”, one of those prosecutors reportedly writes in an eagerly awaited new book.Why prosecutors might get Trump – and not Biden – for classified documentsRead moreThe lawyer, Mark Pomerantz, also reportedly compares Trump, the only confirmed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, to famous figures in the world of organised crime including John Gotti, the “Teflon Don” who died in prison in 2002.In messages seen by the Guardian on Friday, one former Trump administration official called the comparison “unfair to the late Mr Gotti”.Pomerantz was part of attempts by the Manhattan district attorney’s office to build a case against Trump, but quit in February 2022 as the DA, Alvin Bragg, decided not to indict.Pomerantz is now the author of The People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account, due to be published in the US on Tuesday. The book has angered Bragg, who is still investigating Trump, and the former president, who has threatened to sue.News outlets obtained the book on Friday. The Daily Beast reported Pomerantz’s words about Trump and insanity.“To rebut the claim that Trump believed his own ‘hype’,” Pomerantz writes, the Beast says, “we would have to show, and stress, that Donald Trump was not legally insane.“Was Donald Trump suffering from some sort of mental condition that made it impossible for him to distinguish between fact and fiction?”According to the Beast, Pomerantz writes that lawyers “discussed whether Trump had been spewing bullshit for so many years about so many things that he could no longer process the difference between bullshit and reality”.The New York Times also obtained the book. It reported that Pomerantz says Trump rose to fame and power “through a pattern of criminal activity”.“He demanded absolute loyalty and would go after anyone who crossed him,” Pomerantz reportedly writes. “He seemed always to stay one step ahead of the law. In my career as a lawyer, I had encountered only one other person who touched all of these bases: John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organised crime family.”A lawyer for Trump, Joe Tacopina, told the Times: “Injecting the name John Gotti into this seems like just another desperate attempt by Pomerantz to sell books.”Pomerantz reportedly writes that he considered a racketeering case under New York laws used against mobsters, an idea eventually dropped as too ambitious.Bragg has recently revived the investigation of Trump’s role in a 2016 hush money payment to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, who claims an affair with Trump that the ex-president denies.The Manhattan DA is reportedly seeking cooperation from Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization chief financial officer recently given a five-month jail sentence for tax offences.Trump faces legal jeopardy on numerous other fronts, from his attempts to overturn the 2020 election to his retention of classified documents and a rape allegation by the writer E Jean Carroll, a claim Trump denies. The former president also faces an ongoing civil suit over his financial practices brought by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James.On Friday, Bragg told the Times: “Our skilled and professional legal team continues to follow the facts of this case wherever they may lead, without fear or favor.“Mr Pomerantz decided to quit a year ago and sign a book deal. I haven’t read the book and won’t comment on any ongoing investigation because of the harm it could cause to the case.”Pomerantz denies prejudicing investigations of Trump. According to the Beast, he writes that when he was on the team, prosecutors “had a case, but it was not without issues, and certainly could not be described as a slam dunk”.He also reportedly describes disagreements within Bragg’s team about how to proceed.“It was frustrating to feel like we were about to march into battle and were strapping on our guns and equipment, but when we looked around at the rest of the platoon we saw a lot of conscientious objectors,” Pomerantz reportedly writes.The Times said: “The book’s description of conversations between Mr Pomerantz and Mr Bragg’s team could arguably complicate the investigation. In particular, Mr Pomerantz detailed Mr Bragg’s opposition to using Michael D Cohen, a longtime fixer for Mr Trump who turned on the former president, as a witness, an awkward disclosure now that Mr Cohen may become one of Mr Bragg’s star witnesses.”Cohen was jailed for offences including the payment to Daniels. He said this week he had once again given his phones to investigators.In his book, the Times said, Pomerantz calls Bragg’s investigation “the legal equivalent of a plane crash”, caused by “pilot error”.On Friday, Bragg told the Times: “Mr Pomerantz’s plane wasn’t ready for takeoff.”TopicsBooksDonald TrumpUS politicsUS taxationUS crimeOrganised crimePolitics booksnewsReuse this content More