US Politics

Merrick Garland said his appointment of a special prosecutor was necessary because of Donald Trump’s return to the campaign trail, as well as Joe Biden’s plans to seek a second term in the White House. “The department of justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said in the just-concluded press conference.“Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”Gabrielle Canon here, taking over from the west coast to bring you the latest this afternoon. Trump-supporting Republicans have been quick to criticize the newly announced special counsel, with figures like Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene sounding off against the ongoing investigation in an attempt to paint the move as a politically motivated.IMPEACH MERRICK GARLAND!— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) November 18, 2022
“Joe Biden has completely weaponized the Department of Justice to attack his political opponents,” Cruz said on Twitter, trying to make a connection between the timing of Trump’s presidential campaign launch and Garland’s announcement. But Trump’s renewed attempt to regain the presidency could add complications to hold him to account. As Chris McGreal highlights:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}But then there is the politics of a prosecution against a presidential candidate who has already dismissed the investigations of his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, the hoarding of top secret documents, and allegedly fraudulent business practices, as “politically motivated” and a Democratic “witch-hunt”.Could Trump’s 2024 campaign keep his legal troubles at bay?Read moreRepublican party chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has offered her thoughts on the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel handling the investigations into Donald Trump:We’ve seen this time and again: Biden weaponizes his administration to target his political opponents. Whether it’s the former president, pro-life organizations, tagging parents as domestic terrorists, or creating the “ministry of truth,” Biden is out of line and out of control.— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) November 18, 2022
CBS News reports that the White House said it had no advance warning of attorney general Merrick Garland’s announcement today of Smith’s appointment. Joe Biden has previously said the justice department has not consulted with him during its investigation into government secrets found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort:WATCH from our Special Report: White House officials tell @cbsnews they had no heads up from the Justice Department about the attorney general’s decision to appoint a special counsel to handle investigations regarding Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/lNykYAaodY— Ed O’Keefe (@edokeefe) November 18, 2022
In an interview with Fox News, Donald Trump slammed the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith to weigh charging him over the government secrets found at Mar-a-Lago and the January 6 insurrection.“I have been going through this for six years – for six years I have been going through this, and I am not going to go through it anymore,” Trump told the network. “And I hope the Republicans have the courage to fight this.”“I have been proven innocent for six years on everything – from fake impeachments to Mueller who found no collusion, and now I have to do it more?” he continued, adding, “It is not acceptable. It is so unfair. It is so political.”The former president tied attorney general Merrick Garland’s appointment of a special prosecutor to his own announcement this week of another run for the White House.“I announce and then they appoint a special prosecutor,” Trump said. “They found nothing, and now they take some guy who hates Trump. This is a disgrace and only happening because I am leading in every poll in both parties … I am not going to partake in this.”Garland acknowledged that Trump’s run along with Joe Biden’s plans to seek a second term were both factors in his appointment of a special prosecutor, arguing it was the appropriate way to handle the question of whether to seek charges against the former leader after he returned to the campaign trail.“The department of justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said in his press conference earlier today.“Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”Texas’s Republican senator John Cornyn has reacted to the appointment of a special counsel to handle the Trump investigations by asking the justice department to do the same for Hunter Biden:This is an admission of a conflict of interest by DOJ; now acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest in Hunter Biden investigation and appoint a special counsel. #nodoublestandard https://t.co/bmypUxWcTk— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) November 18, 2022
The US attorney in Delaware is said to be weighing whether to bring federal charges against the president’s son, whose business dealings have been a target of scrutiny from GOP politicians and federal investigators for years.Andrew Weissmann was a seasoned justice department prosecutor whose last job was as a manager on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.Here’s what he had to say about Jack Smith:Jack Smith, the new Special Counsel, is a very aggressive prosecutor who represents the best of the Department, who will bring cases if warranted be fact sand the law.— Andrew Weissmann 🌻 (@AWeissmann_) November 18, 2022
Special counsel Jack Smith has released a statement after being appointed to the role in which he will determine whether to charge Donald Trump and his allies over the January 6 insurrection and government secrets found at Mar-a-Lago.“I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the department of justice. The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch,” Smith wrote. “I will exercise independent judgment and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”So who’s Jack Smith? As described by Merrick Garland, Smith is a veteran justice department prosecutor who from 2010 to 2015 was head of its public integrity section, responsible for handling corruption cases. He then served as a US attorney in Tennessee during the final years of Democrat Barack Obama’s administration.Lately, he’s been working in international law. He’s currently in The Hague as the specialist prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, which is handling trials of war crimes suspects from the eastern European country. He also worked as an investigator for the international criminal court from 2008 to 2010.“I strongly believe that the normal processes of this department can handle all investigations with integrity. And I also believe that appointing a special counsel at this time is the right thing to do,” Garland said. “The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it. Mr. Smith is the right choice to complete these matters in an even handed and urgent manner.”Merrick Garland said his appointment of a special prosecutor was necessary because of Donald Trump’s return to the campaign trail, as well as Joe Biden’s plans to seek a second term in the White House. “The department of justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said in the just-concluded press conference.“Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”Attorney general Merrick Garland has named veteran prosector Jack Smith as the special counsel to decide whether to bring charges against Donald Trump. Attorney general Merrick Garland has started his press conference by announcing a special prosecutor will be appointed to handle two inquiries.The first is “the investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6 2021.”The second is “the ongoing investigation involving classified documents and other presidential records, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation, referenced and described in court filings… in the Southern District of Florida.” That is likely the inquiry into government secrets found at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.As we wait for what is looking to be a consequential announcement from attorney general Merrick Garland, a winner appears to have emerged from one of the last uncalled House races.The Pueblo Chieftain reports that Democrat Adam Frisch has conceded to Republican incumbent Lauren Boebert after a surprisingly close race:Adam Frisch just said that he’s called Lauren Boebert to concede the race in CO-03. He said an automatic recount will likely happen under state law but encouraged supporters to save fundraising $$ for gas, groceries and other causes.— Anna Lynn Winfrey (@annalynnfrey) November 18, 2022
Boebert is among a group of conservative lawmakers known for their extreme rhetoric, but nearly lost to Frisch even though her district normally votes for Republicans. The House representative has in the past made Islamophobic comments and condemned the separation of church and state.Attorney general Merrick Garland plans to hold a press conference at 2.15pm eastern time, following reports that he will name a special prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges against Donald Trump and his allies.Beyond just the investigation into government secrets Trump allegedly retained at his Mar-a-Lago resort, Politico reports that the special counsel will also look into Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election. The justice department has not yet announced who they will be appointed to job.This blog will cover Garland’s address as it happens.The plan for a special counsel appears to be linked to allegations of the unlawful retention of national defense information at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence in Florida, according to the Reuters news agency, which cites an unnamed senior Department of Justice official.The agency says a senior DoJ official has named a special prosecutor to investigate the entirety of the department’s criminal investigation into that potential offense.Meanwhile, CNN reports that the special counsel will also review the parallel DoJ investigation into Trump’s involvement around the insurrection on January 6, 2021, when extremist supporters of the-then president invaded the US Capitol in an attempt to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election by congress.We will bring you more developments as they happen.US attorney general Merrick Garland plans to name a special counsel to examine whether former president Donald Trump should be prosecuted as a result of investigations carried out by the Department if Justice (DoJ), the Wall Street Journal reports, citing an unnamed source “familiar with the matter”.The Journal reports:“A formal announcement, which is expected by Friday afternoon, would come three days after Mr. Trump announced another bid for the presidency and would mark the naming of the third independent prosecutor in five years to examine issues involving Mr. Trump. The exact scope of the special counsel’s remit and who it would be couldn’t be determined.”More details to come…A judge refused today to quash a subpoena issued to former White House press secretary Jen Psaki that seeks her deposition in a lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana, alleging that the Biden administration conspired to silence conservative voices on social media, the Associated Press reports.Psaki filed a motion in federal court in Alexandria seeking to quash the subpoena, saying that she had no relevant information to provide and that a deposition would place an undue burden on her. The Justice Department supported her efforts to quash.US magistrate Ivan Davis said during a hearing today that he was unimpressed with Psaki’s arguments. But he did not reject her request outright. Instead, he transferred the case back to Louisiana, where the lawsuit was filed.Psaki was allowed to file a separate opposition in Virginia because she lives in the state and would be deposed there.Davis, though, said it makes no sense for him to wade into the questions of whether Psaki’s testimony is relevant when the judge in Louisiana is more familiar with the case.He also said Psaki failed to show how sitting for a deposition in her home state would be an undue burden. In fact, he said that if Psaki has little information to contribute, as she alleges, it shouldn’t be much of a burden at all.Justice Department lawyer Indraneel Sur indicated he would appeal Davis’ ruling to a district judge in Alexandria and asked the judge to stay his ruling to provide time to do so, but Davis declined.The lawsuit filed by the attorney general in Missouri and Alexandria accuses Joe Biden, former federal health official Anthony Fauci and others of conspiring with social media companies to restrict free speech by censoring conservative opinions about the Covid-19 response and other issues.Readers will have noticed that politicians, and indeed journalists and people, are still tweeting. But for how much longer?What should Twitter do next?— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2022
Here’s the Guardian’s Kari Paul:Amid ongoing fallout from Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, speculation of the platform’s imminent collapse is swirling – leaving users wondering what parts of their online selves they’ll get to keep.After Musk laid off thousands of workers, many users have reported signs the platform is falling apart in real time – from glitching home pages to log-in failures – and researchers are desperately urging users to download their tweets in case Twitter implodes completely.“If there’s something you care about on Twitter, now’s the time to become like a temporary expert in digital archiving measures,” said Caroline Sinders, an artificial intelligence researcher and founder of human rights lab Convocation Research and Design.Digital archiving – the process of preserving online content for future use – has expanded steadily since the launch of the internet, but still exists in a patchwork, decentralized framework.There’s more to read, here. But the last bit is killer:If you want to save tweets – whether jokes from a favorite celebrity or the last thoughts of a loved one who has passed – an expert suggests a relatively analog solution.“Print out their tweets, and put them in a box,” the expert said. “They will last longer in every way.”He may still be the most popular man in the Republican party, but Donald Trump’s announcement of a new run for the White House this week has been fodder for his opponents, most recently his former top diplomat Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, conservatives have continued their quest to stop Kevin McCarthy from becoming speaker in the Republican-run House next year, while Democrats’ transition away from Nancy Pelosi’s leadership appears to be running much more smoothly.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
The January 6 committee could, as soon as today, file its response to Trump’s attempt to quash its subpoena for his testimony as the end-of-the-year expiration of its mandate draws nearer.
Joe Biden’s administration has asked the supreme court to allow its student debt relief plan to proceed.
Republicans on the House judiciary committee want homeland security chief Alejandro Mayorkas and a host of top officials to testify. Expect the situation at the southern border to be a major topic of questioning for the GOP.
Donald Trump’s former top diplomat Mike Pompeo has again attacked his one-time boss:We were told we’d get tired of winning. But I’m tired of losing.And so are most Republicans.— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) November 18, 2022
Pompeo’s wording echoes Trump’s promise on the campaign trail 2016 that if he was elected, supporters would “get tired of winning.” Pompeo, who served as secretary of state from 2018 till the end of Trump’s term in 2021, is thought to be considering a run for the presidency in 2024.Perhaps he’ll elaborate on his thoughts about the former president in his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition later today:Today, I’m going to speak at @RJC on how we can regain Americans’ trust and win again.— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) November 18, 2022
The Biden administration has petitioned the supreme court to allow its plan to relieve some student debt relief to proceed, Bloomberg News reports:NEW: Biden asks Supreme Court to let his student-debt relief plan take effect. Case will be docketed as 22A444.— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) November 18, 2022
Biden in August announced the plan to forgive as much as $20,000 in federal student debt for people earning less than $125,000 a year, or households earning below $250,000.Conservative activists and states immediately sued to stop the program, and last month, an effort by six Republican-led states succeeded in getting it temporarily halted. More

Congressional candidate Nancy Pelosi at the campaign headquarters in San Francisco, 7 April 1987.

Photograph: Paul Sakuma/AP More

Hakeem Jeffries on course to become first Black party leader in CongressNew York Democrat, 52, is favorite to succeed Nancy Pelosi after declaring candidacy for House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York was on course on Friday to be the first Black party leader in Congress, declaring his candidacy for House minority leader after securing key endorsements to succeed Nancy Pelosi, the current speaker who announced her withdrawal from leadership on Thursday.Pelosi to depart as top House Democrat to make way for ‘new generation’Read moreDemocrats will cede control of the House in January, after midterm elections in which Republicans performed less well than expected but still took the lower chamber.Jeffries announced his candidacy after Democrats moved swiftly to head off internal battles and let a new, younger generation take the controls.Pelosi, from California, was the first woman to be speaker and filled the role from 2007 to 2011 and since 2019. But she is now 82.Steny Hoyer of Maryland, 83 and the current majority leader, will also step aside. On Thursday, he said: “Now is the time for a new generation of leaders, and I am proud to offer my strong endorsement to Hakeem Jeffries for Democratic leader.”James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House whip, is also 82. He was reported to be seeking to become assistant leader but for the top spot he endorsed Jeffries, 30 years his junior.Clyburn’s endorsements carry notable clout. As the senior Black Democrat in Congress, his approval of Joe Biden’s presidential bid was widely held to have propelled the former vice-president to victory in the presidential primary in 2020.Jeffries was reportedly set to be joined in House Democratic leadership by Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, as minority whip, and Pete Aguilar of California, a member of the January 6 committee who will run for caucus chair.Joe Neguse of Colorado, another rising Black Democrat who was a House manager in the second Trump impeachment, was also seeking a leadership slot but faced being blocked by Clyburn.Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was reported to be backing off a bid for a leadership role, in the aftermath of an embarrassing strategic error over a letter from progressives to Biden about US aid to Ukraine.Clark, 59 and currently assistant speaker, told the Washington Post: “I have the track record of bringing people and solutions together, and I have built trust across the caucus in different ideological corners, geographic parts of our caucus by listening and really knowing the issues that members care about, where they need to be able to deliver for their districts.”Jeffries is widely held to be an effective communicator, unafraid of confronting opponents. On his official Twitter account, the pinned tweet shows a stern rebuke of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, from a House judiciary committee session earlier this year, shortly after leak of the decision overturning the right to abortion.Jeffries said: “Let me ask this question of Brother Thomas. Why are you such a hater?“Hate on civil rights, hate on women’s rights, hate on reproductive rights, hate on voting rights, hate on marital rights, hate on equal protection under the law, hate on liberty and justice for all, hate on free and fair elections? Why are you such a hater and you think you can get away with it? Escape public scrutiny because you think that shamelessness is your superpower?”Jeffries rose to national notice when he was elected a decade ago, in part thanks to being called, by sources including the Washington Post, “Brooklyn’s Barack Obama”.Theodore Wells, Jeffries’ former mentor at the Manhattan law firm Paul Weiss, told the Post, Jeffries was “someone who works easily within both the Black and white communities” and represents “a natural evolution in the background of African American politicians.“The prior generation of African American politicians had their roots in the civil rights movements of the 1960s, but Hakeem’s generation grew up in a more multicultural America, and in that sense their backgrounds and perspectives are different.”On Thursday, one House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, told Bloomberg News Jeffries had been “a phenomenal caucus chair. I can’t think of a single misstep that he’s made. So I think he’s up to” being minority leader.TopicsDemocratsHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

THe US House of Representatives speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to hold that influential post, has announced she will be stepping down as the Democratic leader in the chamber after Republicans secured a narrow majority after the midterm elections. It marks the end of a historic leadership career highlighted by her ability to hold a fractious caucus together and challenge the world’s most powerful men – including the former president Donald Trump. Here is a look back at her long and defiant career More

Why the Democrats’ biggest wins of the midterms weren’t in Washington DC Breaking Republican strangleholds over state capitols gives Democrats an advantage in the fight for voting, abortion and LGBTQ+ rightsWhile Democrats staved off a red wave in Washington during the midterm elections, the party’s most significant victories came far away from the US Capitol. They were in state legislatures across the country with consequences that will be felt for years to come.Over the last decade, Republicans have quietly amassed power in state capitols, investing in races for state legislatures that can be decided by just a few hundred votes. It’s an investment that has paid off wildly. Since state legislatures draw electoral districts in many places, Republicans have used that advantage to entrench their power, drawing district lines that further guaranteed their majorities. They have also used those majorities to pass measures that make it harder to vote, strip LGBTQ+ protections, loosen gun laws and restrict access to abortion.‘This movement was rejected’: Republican election deniers lose key state racesRead moreIn the midterms, however, Democrats flipped at least three state legislative chambers and held on to their majorities in several states where they were in jeopardy. The victories ended years of Democratic defeat and disappointment and caught even some Democrats off guard. It marked the first midterm election since at least 1934 in which the president’s party didn’t lose control of a single legislative chamber, according to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which focuses on state legislative races.“We went into this cycle very clear-eyed. Knowing it was a presidential midterm and frankly expecting to lose seats,” said Jessica Post, president of the DLCC. “Republicans had everything in their favor. By all accounts, this election should have been a landslide for the Republicans. Instead, their so-called red wave looks more like a puddle.”In Michigan, Democrats took control of both chambers of the legislature for the first time in nearly 40 years. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was also re-elected to a second term, giving the party complete control of state government in one of America’s most politically competitive states.“I felt pretty confident we were gonna get one chamber and be looking at potentially picking up the chamber in two years. But it was surprising for me that we flipped both houses,” said Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic Michigan state senator who worked on flipping state legislative seats.Democrats also flipped control of the Minnesota senate, giving them complete control of state government there. In Pennsylvania, ballots are still being counted in two razor-thin state house races that will determine control of the state house.They also prevented Republicans from gaining supermajorities in the Wisconsin and North Carolina legislature, an extremely significant development that will prevent GOP-controlled bodies from overriding vetoes from Democratic governors there. Democrats held their majorities in state legislative chambers in Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico.Cartogram of state legislatures by party control“We felt those goals were certainly long shots. Many thought they were unattainable,” said Daniel Squadron, a former New York State senator who co-founded the States Project, which spent $60m towards electing Democrats in state legislative races. “In every chamber, we’ve either met or exceeded our electoral goals.”Those victories could play an important role in ensuring a free and fair election in two years. In 2020, Donald Trump tried to lean on GOP state legislative majorities in key battlegrounds like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona to try to overturn the results. The Democratic wins could also offer a critical safeguard against the US supreme court, which could soon endorse a fringe legal theory, backed by Republicans, that says state legislatures have virtually unchecked power to set rules over federal elections.Democrats and allies pointed to a combination of factors behind the wins.There were more competitive maps in place in Michigan and Pennsylvania this cycle, replacing districts Republicans drew a decade ago. Concerns about abortion access and competitive statewide races also drove voters to the polls. Strong candidate recruitment allowed Democrats to connect with voters. And deep investments allowed Democratic candidates to get out on the campaign trail early and launch an offense against Republican opponents.In 2020, Democrats failed to flip any of the chambers targeted to try to get a seat at the table in the redistricting process. In 2010, amid a juggernaut GOP effort, Democrats lost control of 20 chambers in a single night. In the 2014 midterms, 11 chambers flipped to Republican control.“Democrats can, in fact, win at the state legislative level. When we invest our dollars appropriately. When we utilize evidence-based tactics, and when we have candidates who can meet voters where they are, we proved that this year,” said Adam Pritzker, another co-founder of the States Project. “State legislative politics is not the minor leagues.”‘We’re at risk’: the little-known races that could expand Republican powerRead moreRepublicans were massively outspent in state legislative races, Dee Duncan, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), wrote in a memo to donors last week. Four outside left-leaning groups alone spent $125m on the races, dwarfing the $30m the RSLC invested. Duncan noted that the groups, including the DLCC, the States Project and Forward Majority, spent more in three states – Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania – than the RSLC spent across the country.“This influx in funding drove significant spending disparities in each state that were hard to overcome,” he wrote. “In every state where we lost a chamber or have potential to lose a chamber (Pennsylvania), Republicans did not win a single statewide election.”Christina Polizzi, a DLCC spokesperson, disputed that the RSLC was outspent. “The RSLC has absolutely no credibility on this. They have a long history of selective memory and flat out lying about their spending numbers,” she said in a statement. “Although they have nothing to show for it, the reality is they outraised and outspent the DLCC this cycle while still being only a fraction of the overall GOP spending in the states. They can’t blame their losses on the money – they lost because Republicans have bad policies and flawed candidates that the American people didn’t support.”Republicans did earn a few key wins in state races. In North Carolina, they flipped partisan control of the state supreme court. And in Ohio, they won a seat being vacated by a retiring GOP member who had been a swing vote. Those majorities could allow Republicans in those states to pass more aggressively gerrymandered maps, as well as anti-abortion laws.Beyond local politicsIn Michigan, Kristen McDonald Rivet won one of the key state senate races that helped Democrats flip control of the chamber. From the moment she launched her campaign until just a few days before the election, she said, there were pundits who said she couldn’t win the seat, which borders the Saginaw Bay. Joe Biden narrowly carried the district by three points in 2020; McDonald Rivet wound up winning by six points.When she spoke with voters, McDonald Rivet would mention democracy and voting rights “all of these things that Democrats hold dear”, she said in an interview. But she also recognized the sense of economic unease in her district; families used to be able to work in a plant, raise their families and live “the Michigan dream to go to Disney World in the winter”. She and her husband have raised their six children in the district and her husband’s family has lived there for five generations.“It’s not about local politics. It was about people’s day-to-day. Local is not quite the right word,” she said. “I started a lot of my stump speeches with ‘you know politics doesn’t have to be this way.’ And it resonated, probably because I actually believe it.”Her campaign was also boosted by a strong party infrastructure, millions spent on media, and a massive grassroots effort. Her campaign knocked on 72,000 doors and had 7,500 individual donations, including hundreds of people in her district who had set up recurring donations, some for as little as $3.Democracy, poisoned: America’s elections are being attacked at every levelRead moreShe was aided by Michigan Democrats like McMorrow, a state senator who gained national attention after a viral speech earlier this year and raised more than $2m to her Pac to help Democrats running for state legislative seats. In 2018, when she was a first-time candidate, McMorrow remembered being brushed off by donors who were more interested in statewide and federal races. That money, now, she said, allowed Democrats to hire paid field organizers and start campaigning earlier than Republican counterparts.“I think people really get it. And I think we were able to really make the case to people to say in a year when the Dobbs decision came down, really highlighted how important state legislatures are in a very tangible way. Because this is an issue that’s coming back to the states,” she said.Brian Munroe, a Democrat, knocked on 10,000 doors on his way to flipping a state house seat in Bucks county, Pennsylvania, a competitive area outside Philadelphia. “I heard from a lot of people, Republican, Democrat, independent, pro-Trump, not pro-Trump,” he said, recalling many conversations about abortion. “Everybody was tired of the divisiveness. I’m even talking about people with the Let’s Go Brandon flag out front.”Munroe initially was met with some skepticism from big donors, but won them over by pointing out that the district had been redrawn to include a township where he served on the board of supervisors. “Taking a risk can pay off. Not taking a risk will never pay off,” he added. “If all you do is focus on keeping the seats that you have and you’re not in the majority, then you’re always going to be relegated in the minority. That changed to a degree this cycle.”In Wisconsin, Lori Palmeri, the mayor of Oshkosh, won a competitive race for the state assembly that blocked Republicans from gaining a supermajority in the legislature that would have allowed them to override any vetoes from Tony Evers, a Democrat who was elected to a second term.“One of the things I heard the most at the doors was folks were fed up with the political polarization,” she said. “They wanted to see their legislators showing up and doing that work … The message is really from the voters. They really are not going to tolerate one-party rule.”Inspiring long shotsDemocrats and allies hope that the success they saw in 2022 will lead more Democrats to take state legislative races seriously.“My great hope is that our party will really start to understand that everything that affects people’s daily lives, including voting rights and the certification of US presidential elections, happens in states with Democratic trifecta control,” said Post of the DLCC.In the 48 hours after election day, more than 500 people expressed interest in running for office, said Amanda Litman, the executive director of Run for Something, which focuses on recruiting people to run for office.“Inspiring wins in long shot races inspire more people to take on long-shot races. It’s especially true when the candidates in those are young people, women, people of color. It compounds on itself,” she said.TopicsUS politicsThe fight for democracyUS midterm elections 2022DemocratsMichiganMinnesotaPennsylvaniafeaturesReuse this content More

Murdoch v Trump: Rupert’s papers kick Donald, but Fox won’t play ballSome think the media mogul has made a clean break with ‘Trumpty Dumpty’, but his TV channel may find it hard to let go Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers don’t do subtlety when it comes to political attacks.Over the last week, readers of his US titles have been informed that Donald Trump is “Trumpty Dumpty”, the “biggest loser” in Republican politics, and the man who meant the “red wave” never crested in the US midterm elections.The New York Post marked Trump’s latest bid for election with something more damning: outright mockery.Under the headline: “Florida Man makes announcement,” the formerly pro-Trump newspaper directed readers to a story deep inside the newspaper on page 28.“With just 720 days to go before the next election, a Florida retiree made the surprise announcement Tuesday night that he was running for president,” said the deadpan news report.The tabloid’s print edition has a dwindling readership but the former US president is still said to be a regular reader – which means it probably hurt when they mocked his Mar-a-Lago home – raided by the FBI in August – as a “classified documents library”.Yet while the newspaper editorials have led to suggestions that Murdoch has completed a clean break with the former US president, this misses the more positive reaction on Murdoch’s Fox News television channel.“Murdoch has very little control over his most important outlet, which is Fox,” said Michael Wolff, the media commentator who has written three books on Trump.“Let’s assume Murdoch was giving a message to the Post … he can’t do that at Fox. And Fox is the all-important thing.”Although there has been criticism of Trump on Fox News in recent weeks, several presenters such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have their own loyal audiences who have been fed pro-Trump material for years. A rapid U-turn may be too much for them to take, especially if the network is accused of betrayal.As Wolff puts it: “Each of the voices at Fox is going to be motivated by their own ratings – and if their own ratings are dependent on Trump then they’re not going to deviate. Hannity does not seem to have deviated one increment off his absolute fealty to Trump. Tucker likewise.”In the background is Murdoch’s attempt to reunite two parts of his business empire and ultimately hand over control to his 51-year-old son, Lachlan. The family’s main media interests are separated into two businesses as a result of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which saw the legally troubled outlets separated.The core business is the US-focused television business Fox, while the newspaper assets – including its UK titles – are controlled by News Corp.Combining the two makes little business sense but would tidy up family succession planning, according to the media analyst Alice Enders: “It’s not about Rupert being back in charge, it’s about Lachlan taking over and pursuing the same traditional classic conservative agenda.”She said that it would be hard for Fox News to find a way to let go of Trump without risking some of the hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising that flows to the network.“Fox is the jewel in the crown. The influence that the Murdochs want to exercise is through Fox News. What’s super interesting is they want to maintain their currency as the go-to news channel for conservative voters – and they have to do that in a way that balances the Trumpistas against everyone.”The focus on US politics also reflects a physical change in Rupert Murdoch’s location.He has spent a substantial time in the UK in recent years alongside his now ex-wife Jerry Hall and his daughter Elisabeth.During the Covid pandemic they were based at an Oxfordshire mansion, where he took the decision to sign up Piers Morgan for the launch of TalkTV and went to get his Covid vaccine – at the same time that his US media outlets were casting doubts on its effectiveness.Now the recently divorced nonagenarian is increasingly based at a newly acquired ranch in rural Montana, a remote state favoured by billionaires. Official documents show that last month he paid £13,000 to fly the former prime minister Boris Johnson there for a meeting, while corporate filings suggest he is running his business empire from the ranch and has permission to hold board meetings there.This raises the question of which Murdoch is now calling the shots: 91-year-old Rupert or Lachlan, who is managing part of the business from his family home in Australia – working late into the night on video calls due to the time difference.Could Trump’s 2024 campaign keep his legal troubles at bay?Read moreThe Trump years weighed heavily on Murdoch, with Fox News facing a $1.6bn lawsuit over claims it amplified Trump’s false allegations about fraud at a voting machine company after his election defeat. Murdoch’s son James has left the family business and had made barely coded criticisms of Fox News, which hit hard according to Wolff.“In terms of Rupert himself, he has always detested Trump. Trump has been the cross to bear in his life, and the Trump effect at Fox has essentially broken up his family.”Trump, banned from Twitter and struggling to get airtime, has not taken his ostracism lightly, whining that they were favouring Florida governor Ron DeSantis.“NewsCorp – which is Fox, the Wall Street Journal and the no longer great New York Post – is all in for Governor Ron DeSanctimonious,” Trump said.But as Enders puts it: “Murdoch doesn’t back losers. Trump is a loser.”TopicsRupert MurdochDonald TrumpNews CorporationFox NewsUS politicsFoxMedia businessfeaturesReuse this content More

Contrary to the expectations of many observers, the “red wave” stopped at the House of Representatives and only delivered the Republican Party a small majority. The Senate, though, will remain under Democrat control. So the US Congress will be divided until the 2024 election and the Biden administration no longer has the numbers to get its legislative programme through without a fight – or at least, negotiation “across the aisle”.

And that can be a problem for US governance – sustainable solutions to major policy issues need both congressional and presidential approval. A failure to provide answers for pressing issues will further depress public opinion about the government and democratic institutions.

From now until January 2024, presidential influence on lawmaking is largely diminished. To become a law, a proposed bill requires first the approval of both chambers and second the signature of the president. If the two chambers are unable to agree on a common version of a bill or if the bill is vetoed by the president, the proposed policy change is not enacted and the status quo prevails. The production of laws therefore needs a higher level of bipartisan support.

Divided government increases the chances of political gridlock and reduces the likelihood that presidential proposals will become law. It raises the chance of a government shutdown and corresponds to fewer acts of significant legislation per congress.

Two factors will make the next two years particularly difficult. The first stems from accelerating levels of polarisation among legislators. The second is the presence of presidential reelection concerns, if Joe Biden decides to run again in two years time.

Polarisation has reduced Congress’s capacity to legislate and, as a result, public policy is unable to adjust to changing economic and demographic circumstances. As the distance between the preferred policy of legislators, less legislation is created and eventually passes Congress. Policy debate is replaced with acts of obstructionism and acts of grandstanding, where politicians simply signal their policy position to their constituents.

Situations that combine polarisation, divided government and reelection motives of presidents reinforce these tendencies. Consider the 112th Congress after the first midterms during Barack Obama’s administration which ran from 2011 to 2013, or the 116th Congress which ran from 2019 to 2021, after the midterms during Donald Trump’s term of office. Like Joe Biden now, Obama and Trump faced a divided government after the midterms and both were up for reelection. The graph below shows that this resulted in particular strong falls in the number of new laws passed (25% for Obama, 22% for Trump).

The figure calculates the number of laws by congress. Switches from unified to divided government are highlighted in yellow.
Author calculations. Data: https://www.govinfo.gov/

Beyond the quantity of legislation, the shift from unified to divided government during the Obama era also influenced the type of legislation enacted. The laws that passed after the midterms in 2010 were more often related to public goods, such as defence or infrastructure, rather than private legislation. Moreover, the share of bipartisan co-sponsors on passed laws grew from 38% to 47%, while minority party support in voting climbed from below 40% to about 60%. The graph below demonstrates that approved laws became more complex (3% for Obama, 8% for Trump) as they had for example more exemptions built in to attract a degree of bipartisan support.

The figure calculates the complexity of laws, defined as the share of sentences with contingencies, by congress. Switches from unified to divided government are highlighted in yellow.
Author calculations. Data: https://www.govinfo.gov/

Legislative footprint of the next congress

The result of the recent midterms is likely to shape the legislative footprint of the government even more when compared to those historically comparable cases.

This is because of the extent of polarisation between the representatives of the two parties in the US Congress. As this polarisation keeps increasing, we believe that the drop in the number of new laws passed will be even sharper than in the previous cases. Growing polarisation reduces the policy space on which legislators are willing to compromise and thus leads to more gridlock.

This naturally translates into a high chance of government shutdowns as strongly partisan legislators are determined to undermine their opponents’ political agenda regardless of the costs. For example, the upcoming negotiations between Biden and House Republicans over raising the debt limit will be a particularly thorny issue.

Added to that, the democratic majority in the Senate and the possibility of a Biden veto makes the passage of partisan bills proposed by Republicans in the House virtually impossible. But the same thing cuts both ways – and Democrat-sponsored legislation that gets through is unlikely to include progressive social policy proposals on Bidens’ agenda – for example provisions that protect Roe v. Wade or ban assault-weapon sales.

There is also a likelihood that the quality of the legislation might deteriorate. Recent research suggests that excessive legislative activism by either side worsens the quality of laws. As this study investigates a period when congress was substantially less polarised (1973-1989), the currently much higher level and continuing rise of polarisation in the American public creates powerful incentives for legislators to demonstrate their activism to their constituents via the bills they propose. This will limit Congress’s ability to carefully improve submitted legislation.

Phases of divided government with reduced legislative activity have also been associated with positive reform of institutions such as the civil service. But the current environment – with the severe distrust in institutions and politics that prevails – makes such efforts unlikely.

This could become everyone’s problem. The divided Congress is likely to mean a reduced chance of policy agreement on issues such as climate change or the US approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s that serious. More

The announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she will not run for another senior post opens the door for a new generation of national leaders in the Democratic Party.

Pelosi confirmed she was stepping down as Speaker of the House on Nov. 17, 2022, a decision that jump-starts a process that has long been desired by younger Democrats: generational change and with it, potentially, new ideas to take the party forward.

That shift to younger leadership was shelved in February 2020. Then – after poor performances by Joe Biden in early primaries – Democratic primary voters unified with astonishing swiftness behind his candidacy. The thinking was that a veteran party establishment official was needed to block Donald Trump and that the progressive agenda desired by some younger Democrats might pose too great an electoral risk.

Turnover in the youth-challenged leadership of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses has similarly been frozen since then, with all Democratic legislative leaders over 70. As a professor of public policy who served as an assistant to members of leadership in both houses of Congress, I understand why Democratic voters opted for stability in 2020. But now the coming change may be welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike as an opportunity to pass the torch to a new, post-baby boomer generation with fresh ideas. Generational change may soon come on both sides of the political aisle.

Power as a means, not an end

Pelosi’s decision is both practical and timely. It comes as the Republicans retake the House with a wafer-thin majority and a divided GOP caucus at war with itself. Even former Republican speakers John Boehner and Newt Gingrich, Pelosi’s longtime critics, are acknowledging her historic accomplishments, while noting her legacy will now include stepping away while at the top of her game.

Pelosi rose to become the most powerful woman in American history and the most effective legislator of the 21st century. She accomplished this at a time when polarization in politics meant she has endured vilification from political opponents that has had a direct and violent impact on her family.

A key to understanding the Pelosi legacy is weighing what she chose to do with her power. As I have written elsewhere, some politicians seek power fundamentally as a means to an end. For them leadership posts offer the tools needed to improve citizens’ lives or to advance an ideology. Such figures can be seen across the political divide in Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Gingrich. You don’t have to agree with their politics to see that they sought power primarily as a means to change policy: They had active legislative agendas.

Other leaders, however, seem to seek out power as part of a never-ending vanity project.

The history of Pelosi’s two four-year speakerships – from 2007 to 2010 and then again from 2019 to 2022 – provide evidence that she had an action agenda. Pelosi is on record repeatedly insisting that when one gains power, one should use it – and risk losing it – to promote the national interest and protect the most vulnerable.

Her record bears out that approach. In 2008 through 2010, she pushed controversial measures through the House, including the TARP economic bailout, the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, and the cap and trade climate bill – risking her political capital and imperiling the Democratic majority in the House.

Similarly in 2022, she pursued an ambitious legislative agenda despite concerns that it might contribute to a Republican “red wave” in the midterm elections. That wave did not materialize, but historically small Republican gains were enough to mean she would lose the speakership of the House.

Managing imperiled presidencies

The longevity of Pelosi’s tenure is all the more remarkable given the fact that she worked alongside four different – and often troubled – presidencies. She first became House speaker in 2007 under the lame duck presidency of George W. Bush.

Nancy Pelosi looks on as President George W. Bush delivers the State of the Union address.
Rich Lipski/The The Washington Post via Getty Images

Then she served that role under Obama just before his “shellacking” in midterm elections; Trump through two impeachments and an insurrection; then Biden, saddled with bitter national divisions. The Pelosi speakership was the one constant as four different presidents dealt with national threats.

Yet Pelosi managed to work through a deeply polarized Congress scores of bills that impacted the lives of everyday Americans. Her legislative accomplishments include her stewardship of the landmark Affordable Care Act. She worked with Bush to rescue the American economy in the financial crisis of 2008 – when the Republican caucus refused to provide votes needed to shore up the economy.

She also worked with the reluctant Trump administration to provide pandemic relief amid a global health crisis and in early 2022 shepherded through Congress the largest infrastructure investment bill ever.

Toughness leading a divided caucus

Profiles of Pelosi invariably comment on her toughness, a quality admired by both Obama and Boehner. She also led a Democratic caucus often divided by ideology, region, culture, identity politics and generational differences. Some on the left suspected her establishment ties. Critics on the right gleefully vilified her as some “San Francisco socialist.”

Even the professorial Obama confessed he sometimes felt hectored by her passionate advocacy. Republicans campaigned repeatedly on the simple pledge to “Fire Pelosi,” spending hundreds of millions on crude ads devoid of a legislative agenda.

One can disagree with her positions, however, while still recognizing that Pelosi has been a fierce and effective advocate advancing her majority’s agenda.

The record shows that her results-oriented approach has been consistent in its goals and clear in its principles. Such clarity has provided leadership to the nation in fractured times. Her singular focus on advancing her caucus’ legislative agenda has made her the key Democratic Party messenger of her generation.

She has now had the courage to step back, making way for a new leaders and new ideas. More