US Politics

Donald Trump has been colonising the world’s attention for years, via television, on social media and in books. Ironically, given Trump likes books about as much as he does germs, more than 100 books about him are listed on Wikipedia, ranging from biographies and exposés to paeans of praise (think his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski) and scathing analyses of his presidency.

One work, Plaintiff in Chief, concerns the gob-smacking number of lawsuits Trump and his businesses have engaged in – 3500 – and is already well out of date, having been published in 2019. There is even a book about all the Trump books. Its nicely punning title, What were we thinking?, might also be said to apply to the publishers of Carlos Lozada’s book although that would undervalue his insights, and those of the authors whose work he examines.

Review: Confidence Man: The making of Donald Trump and the breaking of America –Maggie Haberman (HarperCollins)

With the application of all this intellectual muscle, though, what do we still need – or want – to know about Donald Trump? All of us probably do need to know the likelihood Trump will run again for president and, worse, win. On that hinges the future of democracy in a global superpower along with prospects for real action combating the effects of climate change.

Read more:
US elections: November ballot will test whether Trump is ready to bounce back

The answer to this need-to-know question is undeniably important, but I still want to know whether Trump actually believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Is there some psychological wound from his childhood that renders him unable to bear loss? Or is his unblinking refusal to accept the election result yet another example of his lifelong habit of lying and grifting to get his own way?

If the answer is the former, I care less about what might have happened to Donald as a toddler than that he has managed to persuade about two thirds of Republican voters to his view, according to polls analysed by Politifact.

If the answer is the latter, which bespeaks a truly chilling level of cynical disregard for the consequences of his actions, it immediately raises another question. Exactly how has Trump been able to persuade so many Republicans to believe his lies, despite all evidence to the contrary, including Trump’s legal team losing 64 out of 65 cases brought contesting the result?

I ask these questions following publication of Maggie Haberman’s Confidence Man: the making of Donald Trump and the breaking of America. Since the mid-1990s, Haberman has reported on Trump, first for the Murdoch-owned tabloid, The New York Post, then for its rival, The New York Daily News, and, since 2015, for The New York Times.

The driving argument of her book is that to understand Trump you need to understand the New York real-estate and property development world in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. What he learnt there, she argues, about business, politics and people, was the template of behaviour he took into the White House.

Trump, real estate mogul, in 1985.
Marty Lederhandler/AP

‘False’, ‘Totally false’, ‘Fake News’

During two campaigns and four years in office, writes Haberman, Trump treated the country like a version of New York City’s five boroughs. His aides soon realised he had imagined a presidency that functioned like one of the once-powerful Democratic Party machines in those boroughs. A single boss controlled everything in this kingdom and knew his support alone could ensure electoral success for others. This was an “us” versus “them” realm where racial dynamics changed from one block to the next.

The argument has explanatory power. But so too, to take one example, does James Poniewozik’s view, in his 2019 book, Audience of One, that the key to Trump’s worldview is his symbiotic relationship with television. Trump did seem to govern in much the same way as he behaved in The Apprentice, the reality TV program he starred in – making contestants beholden to his every whim and impulse.

As Poniewozik puts it, the Trump administration soon became a “dogpile of competitors, cronies and relatives throttling one another daily for survival”.

Trump greets contestants on The Apprentice in 2004.
Jennifer Szymaszek/AAP

Haberman tells readers that on top of her daily reporting, she conducted 250 interviews for the book, including three with Trump, either in person or in writing. For the latter, Trump annotated her list of questions in his customary black “Sharpie” pen with comments like “False”, “Totally false” and “Fake News”.

Because Haberman has known Trump for so long she has been derided as a schill. Because she enjoyed good access to him on the campaign trail and during his presidency she has been called a “Trump whisperer”. She may at times have been both, but like almost any journalist who has reported on Trump her work has been labelled “fake news”.

She has borne, too, Trump’s seemingly casual but calibrated barbs: “Did you ever notice that her glasses are always smudged?” he said to his aides.

More precisely, she reports him saying this to aides, but there is no source for the comment in the book’s end-notes. Does that mean he didn’t say it? Does Haberman take the same insouciant approach here to sourcing as the authors of Plagued, political journalists Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, did in their recent book about the Morrison government’s response to the pandemic?

Like the authors of Plagued too, Haberman has fielded criticism for withholding information from her newspaper readers and saving it for her book. (Benson and Chambers knew about Morrison’s multiple ministerial portfolios but held onto that information for up to two years before it became public.)

Read more:
In Plagued, journalists have traded their independence for access, resulting in a kind of political pornography

In Confidence Man Haberman recounts Trump telling one aide days after the 2020 presidential election, “I’m just not going to leave”, and another, “We’re never leaving. How can you leave when you won an election?” (She also reports him in other conversations seeming to accept he had lost but does not probe the contradiction further.) Should she have reported those comments at the time rather than saving them for her book?

The information gathered by Haberman was clearly important and could, perhaps should, have been published in The New York Times contemporaneously but we don’t know the circumstances in which it was obtained. Perhaps the information was only revealed on condition it would not be published immediately. There is little doubt that people being interviewed for a book published well after the news cycle has pedalled on are willing to speak more candidly. If the aim of a book is to provide context and nuance about contested current events, then the trade-off between news now and understanding later may be worth it.

Responding to the criticism that she had witheld vital information from the public, a spokesman for The New York Times said,

Maggie Haberman took leave from The Times to write her book. In the course of reporting the book, she shared considerable newsworthy information with The Times. Editors decided what news was best suited for our news report.

Devastating observations

Returning to the “smudged glasses” barb, we know Trump has publicly insulted women and journalists countless times. The comment has the ring of truth, so it is probably not as important that this quote was unattributed. The end-notes of Confidence Man do run to 63 pages (providing a good deal more information than the sparse end-notes in Plagued.)

At several points Haberman also tells us about news stories she has written, how they were received, those whose accuracy was later vindicated and, occasionally, those that contained errors of fact or context. In other words, she is reflective and concerned to be as fair as possible in her reporting and judgements.

When Haberman’s book was released in early October, New York magazine listed 22 revelations from it while acknowledging they “feel less like bombshells and more like laundry lists of erratic presidential behaviour”.

For many readers the coverage of New York City’s property world will be unfamiliar, but the bulk of the book covers Trump’s political career and is very familiar: the 2016 campaign, the presidency, the unceasing stream of controversies – large, small or confected – the impeachment trials, the pandemic response, the 2020 campaign and the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

President Donald Trump as he returns to the Oval Office after speaking on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021.
House Select Committee/AP

Familiar though these events are, their sheer volume means they are not discussed in any great depth and what discussion there is does not venture beyond the political journalist’s inside-the-Beltway frame of reference. This can be frustrating but the value of reading Confidence Man, in my view, is not in the explosive revelations or the private, never-seen-before details. It is how Haberman uses anecdotes to build up a devastating picture of character.

It is true there is some extraordinary material in the book but Haberman does not badge it up Bob Woodward-style. Instead, she quietly but frequently enough for it to look like a deliberate strategy, drops in eye-popping anecdotes and devastating observations about Trump’s behaviour.

You have to be on the lookout for them because they are nestled within 597 pages of detailed coverage of his life and career. Some come from her own reporting while others are drawn from earlier journalists’ and authors’ work.

Trump as a child.
Photo: Confidence Man

Haberman spends little space on Trump’s childhood but enough to show his bullying began early: a neighbour in Queens, New York, was horrified when her baby sitting in a playpen in the backyard was pelted with rocks over the fence from a five-year-old Trump. Later, Trump proudly recalled gluing together his brother Robert’s blocks to build his own tower.

That Trump is profligate with others’ money but tight with his own is well known but Haberman reminds us that one of his early antagonists, the satirical magazine, Spy, used to mail cheques to his office for steadily diminishing amounts to see whether he would keep cashing them; he did, down to one for 13 cents.

When the Trumps moved into the White House in 2017, Donald loved being able to press a button on his desk to order a valet to bring him a Diet Coke. He remade the White House to suit his tastes, installing plenty of television sets, even in the bathroom, and telling guests he had renovated the entire area, including the toilet.

“You understand what I mean,” he said to one visitor, who interpreted it to mean he did not want to use the same bathroom as his African-American predecessor. Apart from the apparent racism, Trump’s statement was also untrue as officials told Haberman it was customary for toilet seats in the White House to be replaced between one administration and the next.

Trump may not be a book reader but, Haberman reports, he has near perfect recall of anything written about him in the media. He knew little and cared less about policies or how government actually operated but staff noticed he absorbed policies far better from television coverage than from their briefings.

Trump, pictured here on Air Force One in 2018, absorbed information better from television than from briefings.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

They noticed his “singular interest” in whether those representing him on television appeared persuasive, and on their appearance full stop. He would comment on the lighting, the make-up, the women’s dresses, their hair. Trump had always been preternaturally aware of the appearance of things. Sleeping over at a friend’s house during primary school, he earnestly commented on the “wonderful” quality of the bed-sheets.

Extra ice cream and special glassware

Trump himself noticed how he could say almost anything and supporters at his MAGA rallies would forgive him. Haberman compares this revelation – and two others – to the scene in Jurassic Park when the velociraptors learn how to open doors.

Similar penny-dropping moments happened when Trump learned how to communicate by Twitter unburdened of staff controls and when he discovered presidential pardons. “For Trump, who never really accepted the fact that Congress was a separate and equal branch of government, the ability to deliver ‘justice’ on a case-by-case basis hit like a revelation,” writes Haberman.

The Faustian pact Trump appeared to strike with his MAGA base, though, was that just as they would forgive him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he infamously remarked, so he would shape his administration to suit their every demand, no matter how misconceived, extreme or counter-productive they might be.

Trump’s callousness and cruelty is well documented. (Haberman reports that one of the very few times Trump has cried was in private after his father, Fred, died.)
When he began building the notorious wall on the southern border of the US to keep out Latino immigrants and asylum seekers, he urged officials to put spikes on top and to paint it black so as to burn the skin of those trying to climb the wall.

John Kelly, one of the revolving door of chiefs of staff who tried and failed to bring order to the Trump administration, had a son in the military who died while on duty in Afghanistan, and Kelly had been a general himself. Once, when he and Trump were standing together at the Arlington National Cemetery grave site where Kelly’s son was buried, Trump wondered aloud why anyone would want to join the military.

Kelly, left, and Trump in 2017.
Evan Vucci/AP

Trump’s petty, venal behaviour has also been well documented, but the details Haberman has marshalled can still surprise. After winning the 2016 election, he invited a group of moderate Democrats to join him for dinner to discuss various pieces of legislation, but he couldn’t help needling them throughout. For dessert, he made sure he received one more scoop of ice cream than any of his guests.

More importantly, as early as 23 February 2020 Trump was not only aware of the dangers of COVID-19 but was taking precautions against it. On a trip to India Trump was reluctant to eat, pushing food around his plate and drinking only from “special glassware that he said Melania [Trump] had the White House staff pack for the trip, primarily for fear of contracting the coronavirus”.

During the pandemic he sometimes acknowledged the seriousness of COVID but mostly he downplayed or denied its impact on public health, with catastrophic results.

A deeper malaise?

Carlos Lozada, in his survey of all those Trump books, identifies many that seek to explain the Trump phenomenon through a single overriding cause, and he finds that limiting. Haberman tacitly acknowledges this when she quotes Trump saying he always aimed to “put some show business into the real estate business”. When he did, she writes, Trump learnt that “he could win as much press for projects he never completed as those he did”.

Poniewozik, from his vantage point as a television critic, makes the same observation: namely, that Trump enjoyed more success playing the role of a business titan on television than actually being one, before citing Fran Leibowitz’s acid line that Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person”.

Closing Haberman’s book, I do think Trump knew he had lost the election quite soon after the results came in. Just how much his years in New York’s property development world shaped that decision is hard to say. It seems part of the explanation but only part.

In my mind her book jostles alongside Poniewozik’s work and for that matter, James Zirin’s Plaintiff in Chief, which underscores how Trump sees the law not as a “system of rules to be obeyed” but “as a potent weapon to be used against his adversaries”. We’re still seeing this play out in Trump’s unremitting efforts to stave off multiple investigations of his business and his behaviour.

Lozada prefers explanations of Trump as a symptom of longer term problems in American politics and society, an approach exemplified in BBC correspondent and historian Nick Bryant’s excellent book, When America Stopped Being Great.
Surely both explanatory approaches need to be deployed.

Trump may be a symptom of a deeper malaise afflicting American democracy but has there ever been a symptom quite like him? In 2020 the majority of voters opted to be cured of their Trump symptoms, but the treatment failed and the bacillus rages on. More

Pundits divided over Fetterman’s performance in key Senate debateRightwing news outlets and commentators called for candidate to drop out of race while campaign said it raised $1m on back of event As the dust settled over Tuesday night’s sole televised debate in the crucial US Senate race in Pennsylvania, pundits were starkly divided over the impact of the Democrat John Fetterman’s struggles with speech in his recovery from a stroke.Biden’s approval rating drops as Democrats fight to hold majorities in midterms – liveRead moreThe Pennsylvania lieutenant governor raised the issue of his auditory processing disorder, which makes it difficult for him to understand certain spoken words, in his opening remarks in the debate with his Republican rival, the former TV doctor Mehmet Oz.“Let’s also talk about the elephant in the room – I had a stroke,” Fetterman said.Fetterman used closed captioning to help deal with his speech difficulties. Questions and answers were transcribed in real time and beamed through large screens in front of both candidates.Reporters present in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, noted that Fetterman occasionally struggled to articulate his views in the hour-long debate. The Philadelphia Inquirer said that he “spoke haltingly and at times mixed up his words”, remarking that “his speaking has been much smoother in stump speeches on the campaign trail and in a recent interview with the Inquirer than during the back-and-forth” of the debate with Oz.Rightwing news outlets and commentators were much harsher, with several calling for Fetterman to drop out of the race. John Podhoretz, a conservative columnist with the New York Post, described the Democratic candidate as “impaired” and said “it is an act of personal, political, and ideological malpractice that Fetterman is still contesting for the Senate”.Tucker Carlson, the far-right Fox News host, portrayed the evening as a “full-blown 30-car Amtrak derailment for Fetterman. If that guy’s elected senator from the state of Pennsylvania, you’ll have real concerns about the system being legitimate.”Pat Toomey, the sitting Republican senator whose retirement opened up the current contest, tweeted that was “sad to see John Fetterman struggling so much. He should take more time to allow himself to fully recover.”The Fetterman campaign said it had raised $1m on the back of the debate, suggesting a more empathetic response from Democratic donors. Fetterman’s campaign manager, Brendan McPhillips, said the surge in funding indicated that “the people of Pennsylvania have John’s back in this race. They stepped up tonight with a gigantic show of support for John and his debate performance.”Joe Cavello, Fetterman’s spokesperson, told reporters the candidate had been forced to work off “delayed captions filled with errors”. The company responsible for setting up the captioning system, Nexstar Media, disputed that, saying in a statement the process “functioned as expected”.Several commentators lauded Fetterman for his courage.“What John Fetterman is doing right now in the midst of his recovery – so publicly, on the same stage as a smirking TV doctor – is remarkably brave,” said the writer Pat Cunnane.The Pennsylvania contest is exceptionally fraught given its high stakes. Who wins the race could determine whether the Democrats hang on to the Senate, which is currently split 50-50, or whether the Republicans retrieve it, providing a platform from which to undermine Joe Biden’s agenda.The Real Clear Politics poll tracker shows Oz steadily closing on Fetterman since August, when the Democrat commanded a nine-point lead. On Wednesday Fetterman had just a 1.3% lead, well within the margin of error.Fetterman had a stroke four days before the primary in May and required hospital treatment. He released a report from his doctor last week that said he had “no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office”.Fetterman was asked during the debate whether he would release the full medical report concerning his stroke in the interests of transparency.“For me transparency is about showing up, I’m here today to have a debate,” he said.Abortion rights take centre stage as Oz and Fetterman clash in Pennsylvania Senate debateRead moreFetterman’s struggles with speech have become an unexpected and unpredictable factor in a race otherwise dominated by issues such as inflation, abortion and Oz’s record as an election denier endorsed by Donald Trump. But the TV doctor’s controversial stance on his opponent’s medical struggle also amounts to a high-risk strategy for the Republican.Oz, a former heart surgeon who was turned into a celebrity by Oprah Winfrey, has repeatedly mocked Fetterman for his disabilities. At one point in the debate, Oz said: “Obviously I wasn’t clear enough for you to understand this.”In previous interventions, the Oz campaign has been openly snarky.“Dr Oz promises not to intentionally hurt John’s feelings at any point,” the campaign once said.When Fetterman ridiculed Oz’s complaint about the price of “crudités”, a Republican senior adviser retorted: “If John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life, then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022PennsylvaniaUS SenateUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Trump 2024 campaign seeks to recruit man who smeared John Kerry – reportsEx-president eyeing Chris LaCivita, whose 2004 ‘Swift Boat’ campaign questioned Kerry’s Vietnam war record As he prepares a possible new presidential campaign, Donald Trump is seeking to recruit an operative who was behind a group which famously questioned the Vietnam war record of the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, the Washington Post reported.Biden ‘totally running’ for second term as president, MSNBC interviewer saysRead moreThe operative who ran Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Chris LaCivita, worked for one Trump-aligned political action committee during the 2020 election and now runs another. He is also a consultant for Ron Johnson, a Trump-supporting Wisconsin senator fighting for re-election.The Post cited four anonymous sources. It also reported LaCivita’s response: “Thank you for the opportunity but I don’t comment on rumours!!”Despite deepening legal jeopardy on numerous fronts, Trump dominates polling regarding potential Republican nominees in 2024 and continues to tease a third White House run.The Post said Trump was “telling allies he plans to run for president again” but also said many “longtime advisers do not want a role in the 2024 bid after a slate of federal investigations have ensnared many of them – and they fear a bruising battle he could lose”.A Trump spokesperson told the Post the former president “continues to fuel the Republican party’s march towards a historic midterm election” and claimed “America is rightfully hungry and excited to know what’s next”.In 2004 LaCivita, a former US Marine, organised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which in one of the more shameless episodes in US political history, sought to cast doubt on Kerry’s record in Vietnam, a conflict the incumbent Republican president, George W Bush, had avoided.Swift boats were US navy riverine craft on which Kerry served, winning medals including the Silver Star. Kerry later became involved in protests against the Vietnam war, before entering politics and becoming a Massachusetts senator. After his failed tilt at the presidency, he was secretary of state under Barack Obama. He is now Joe Biden’s climate envoy.Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which became Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, was supposedly non-political but was in fact financed by major Republican donors.The group advanced its attacks on Kerry in TV ads and a book. The effort generated considerable controversy, with John McCain, a former prisoner of war then a Republican senator from Arizona, calling it “dishonest and dishonorable”.But the group proved an effective campaign presence, leading to the term “Swiftboating” entering the American political lexicon, denoting “an untrue or unfair political attack or smear campaign”.In one 2004 column, the New York Times examined – and thereby publicly rehashed – each claim advanced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.Citing requests from “conservative readers”, the paper of record asked: “So is John Kerry a war hero or a medal-grabbing phony?”After an extensive and critical examination of Kerry’s military career and statements about it, the Times concluded: “Mr Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations.“And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern US politics.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsJohn KerryRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Abortion rights take centre stage as Oz and Fetterman clash in Pennsylvania Senate debateThe two candidates for the competitive Senate seat argued over the economy, crime and the tone of Republican attacks on the Democrat candidates health

US midterms 2022: the key races
Abortion rights took centre stage during the debate for Pennsylvania’s US Senate seat on Tuesday night, as Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor and the Republican candidate, said decisions over abortion should be left to “women, doctors, local political leaders”, while John Fetterman, the Democrat candidate, criticised the GOP’s hardline stance.The debate in Harrisburg started with Oz, a former surgeon and long-time host of the Dr Oz television show, discussing his desire to make “Washington civil again”. The Trump-backed Republican said he wanted to “unify, not divide”.But Oz was soon reverting to a 2022 Republican playbook that has been characterised by pugnacity in races across the US, as he referred to Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, as a “left-wing extremist” who had “radical positions”.Are Democrats messing up their midterm messaging? Our panel respondsRead moreIt set the tone for a contentious evening as the pair clashed over abortion, Pennsylvania’s minimum wage – which at $7.25 is lower than each of its six bordering states – and the economy, in what has become one of the closest-watched elections in the US.Fetterman and Oz are vying to replace Pat Toomey, a retiring Republican, and with the Senate evenly divided between the two parties, both are desperate to win in a state that Joe Biden picked up by 80,000 votes in 2020.This was Fetterman’s highest-profile appearance of the campaign, since he suffered a stroke in mid-May, which has left him with auditory processing issues, where the brain struggles to understand the spoken word.To accommodate Fetterman’s condition, which he said is improving daily, two 70-inch monitors were placed above the heads of the moderators, which showed the transcribed text of their questions, and the text of Oz’s responses.“Let’s also talk about the elephant in the room,” Fetterman said in his opening remarks. “I had a stroke. He [Oz] never let me forget that.”The Democrat was referring to the Republican’s campaign which has launched unsavory attacks against Fetterman, with one Oz aide, Rachel Tripp, claiming Fetterman might not have had a stroke if he “had ever eaten a vegetable in his life”. In August Oz’s campaign released what it said were “concessions” it was prepared to make during a debate with Fetterman, which included a promise to “pay for any additional medical personnel he might need to have on standby”.Oz has since tried to distance himself from the tone of his campaign, but said on Fox Business recently: “I don’t think there’s closed captioning on the floor of the Senate.”Fetterman, 53, released a report from his doctor last week that said he “has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office”, but the doctor noted that Fetterman has difficulty processing some words.In a TV interview in early October, Fetterman said he will sometimes miss words, or “mush” words together when speaking, and there were times when his issues with speech were noticeable during the debate. The Democrat appeared to struggle to find certain words and took longer than Oz to reply to questions as he read captioning on screen.“It knocked me down but I’m going to keep coming back up,” Fetterman said of the stroke on Tuesday. “And this campaign is all about, to me is about fighting for everyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down that needs to get back up.”The pair were asked about abortion early in the debate. Nationally, Democrats have drawn attention to Republicans’ role in the landmark Roe v Wade decision being overturned in June this year. Republicans, particularly in politically moderate states like Pennsylvania, have sought to avoid the issue.Oz was asked: “Should abortion be banned in America”, but declined to answer directly, suggesting instead that “there should not be involvement from the federal government”, and that states should be able to decide their own abortion law.“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,” Oz said, in remarks that were immediately derided online.Fetterman said he would “fight to re-establish” Roe v Wade, which he said “should be the law”.“If you believe that the choice of your reproductive freedom belongs with Dr Oz, then you have a choice. But if you believe that the choice for abortion belongs with you and your doctor, that’s what I fight for,” the Democrat said.Fetterman, who spent 13 years as mayor of Braddock, a small borough outside Pittsburgh, rose to national fame in the aftermath of the 2020 election, when as Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor he vigorously rebuffed Trump’s claims of voter fraud, at one point referring to the then president as “no different than any other random internet troll”.He has also attracted attention for his atypical – for a politician – appearance. At 6ft 8in tall, Fetterman is usually seen wearing hoodies at campaign events, and has tattoos on his forearms, including nine on his right arm which mark the dates that people were killed “through violence” in Braddock while he was mayor.Oz is best known for hosting the Dr Oz Show, a daytime tv program about medical issues which, he said on Tuesday, “ruffled a lot of feathers”.The show also promoted fad treatments and ineffective products and Oz has been repeatedly dubbed a “snake oil salesman”. In 2014 he was asked to appear before a Senate committee, where he was berated by senators over his promotion of “miracle” diet pills that the medical community agreed do not work.The Fetterman campaign had tried to temper expectations ahead of the debate, and released a memo on Monday saying that debate “isn’t John’s format”, pointing out that some had been underwhelmed by Fetterman’s performance in debates during the Democratic primary this spring.“John is five months post-stroke and Oz has spent the last two decades literally in a TV studio; if there’s a home-field advantage, it’s definitely his,’’ Rebecca Katz, Fetterman’s communications adviser, told the New York Times.At times Fetterman’s speaking did hold him back, but he rebutted Republicans’ suggestions – repeated through countless tv ads in the state – that he was “soft on crime”, pointing to successes in bringing down gun crime in Braddock.Oz, Fetterman said: “Has never made any attempt to try to address crime during his entire career except showing up for photo ops here in Philadelphia.”On the minimum wage, Oz said “market forces” would raise Pennsylvania’s minimum wage of $7.25 – the lowest amount allowed under federal law and an amount, when adjusted for inflation, which is the lowest minimum wage in decades.Fetterman said he “absolutely” supports the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, adding: “I think it’s a disgrace at $7.25 an hour.”As the debate drew to a close, both candidates were asked about their party’s potential candidates for the 2024 presidential election. Fetterman said he would support Biden if the president ran again.In a tacit acknowledgement of Trump’s divisiveness and deep unpopularity in parts of the country, Oz was initially less equivocal, saying only that he would “support whoever the Republican party puts up”.A moderator reminded viewers that Trump had endorsed Oz – an action Trump rarely bestows on those likely to disappoint him – and asked Oz why he wouldn’t return that support.That prompted Oz, perhaps mindful of the notoriously emotional and combustible nature of his backer, to clarify his position.“Oh I do,” Oz said. “I would support Donald Trump if he decided to run for president.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsPennsylvanianewsReuse this content More

Pamela Moses sues officials after voter fraud conviction overturnedTennessee woman was serving six-year sentence before prosecutors’ withholding of crucial document came to light A Tennessee woman who had a six-year prison sentence for voter fraud overturned this year is suing state and local officials for damages, claiming she was wrongfully prosecuted and incarcerated.Judge dismisses fraud case against Texas man who waited seven hours to voteRead morePamela Moses, a 44-year-old Memphis activist, was sentenced to six years in prison in January after prosecutors said she tried to register to vote knowing she was ineligible because of a prior felony conviction. She was convicted even though two government officials, including a probation officer who conceded he made an error, signed off on a state form affirming her eligibility. The case prompted national outrage .Moses’s conviction was overturned by a judge in February after the Guardian published documents underscoring the probation department’s error. Prosecutors did not turn over the document, an internal email from Tennessee’s department of correction blaming the probation officer for the error, to Moses’s defense before her trial.Moses spent 82 days in jail before her conviction was overturned. The prosecution caused her “mental anguish, emotional distress, stress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation and demoralization”, her lawyers wrote in a complaint filed in federal court last week.In 2015, Moses pleaded guilty to several felonies, causing her to lose her right to vote. But no one told her she was ineligible to vote and election officials never removed her from the rolls. It wasn’t until 2019, when Moses got into a dispute with election officials about her eligibility to run for mayor, that authorities noticed their error.Moses, believing she had completed probation, tried to register to vote. The local clerk and probation office signed off on her eligibility, even though Moses was still on probation for her felony. In Tennessee, a conviction for tampering with evidence – which is one of the offenses Moses pleaded guilty to in 2015 – permanently strips offenders of their right to vote.Moses accused Amy Weirich, the district attorney who handled the case, of knowingly withholding evidence that could have exonerated her. Weirich said earlier this year that the department of correction had not provided the document to her office. A spokesperson for the department said in February there was a “lack of recognition of the scope” of the documents that had been requested.Moses’s case is one of several instances recently in which prosecutors have levied voter fraud charges against people with felony convictions only to see the cases be dismissed months later. In Florida, a Miami man who was among 19 charged with voting fraud in a suite of cases heralded by Ron DeSantis had his case dismissed on Friday. In Texas, a judge also dismissed charges last week against Hervis Rogers, a Houston man who waited hours in line to vote and was charged with voter fraud because of a prior criminal conviction. Moses is the first defendant to sue prosecutors after her case was dismissed.She likely faces an uphill battle in court.“Suits about failure to disclose exculpatory evidence do face a high burden, as the supreme court underscored in the recent case of Connick v Thompson,” said Jeffrey Welty, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s school of government. He said he had not followed Moses’s case closely enough to opine on its merits, but in general, he said, “the court said that a plaintiff can’t just show a single incident of non-disclosure but must show a policy of deliberate indifference to defendants’ rights.“It looks like another part of the suit might allege malicious prosecution,” he added. “That requires a plaintiff to show that they were prosecuted without probable cause and with malice, which requires that the prosecution be brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The requirement of malice can be difficult to establish since the normal assumption is that when prosecutors charge people with crimes, they’re just doing their jobs.”Weirich, a Republican, lost her re-election bid last month to Steve Mulroy, a Democrat who brought up Moses’s case frequently on the campaign trail.The district attorney’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.Tennessee has some of the most restrictive laws in the US when it comes to restoring voting rights for people with felonies. About 471,592 people in the state, and more than 21% of its Black voting age population, cannot vote because of a felony, according to an estimate by the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit.TopicsTennesseeThe fight to voteUS politicsUS crimenewsReuse this content More

Florida governor debate: DeSantis defends abortion ban with false claimsCharlie Crist, former Republican who switched parties, puts governor on defensive during Florida’s sole gubernatorial debate In the sole debate of the Florida governor’s race, the Republican incumbent, Ron DeSantis, was put on the defensive by his Democratic challenger, Charlie Crist, on subjects including abortion and DeSantis’s presidential ambitions.Crist called Florida’s 15-week abortion ban, which does not include exceptions for rape or incest, “callous and barbaric”.Samuel Alito assured Ted Kennedy in 2005 of respect for Roe, diary revealsRead moreDeSantis said he was proud of the ban but would not say if he supported further restrictions. He also made a string of false claims.“I would like to see everybody have a shot,” DeSantis said. “I’m proud of the 15 weeks that we did. I know Charlie Crist opposes that even though the baby is fully formed, has a heartbeat, can feel pain and can suck their thumb.”A fetus can suck its thumb at 12 weeks but is not fully formed at 15.Regarding pain, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says: “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks.“Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus.”DeSantis also claimed Crist supported abortion “until the moment of birth”, a procedure that does not exist, and “dismemberment abortions”, which the New York Times called “a pejorative term for procedures performed later in pregnancy that, when they do happen, are often prompted by medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities”.Democrats hope the supreme court’s removal of the right to abortion will fuel success in November. More than 60% of Americans say abortion should be legal and in elections this summer, the threat to abortion rights appeared to drive increased turnout among women and produce notable Democratic victories.But with midterms election day now two weeks away, the signs are less promising for Democrats.In Florida, Fivethirtyeight.com puts DeSantis more than eight points up. Tuesday’s debate was therefore something of a last chance for Crist, a former Republican governor who switched parties and now sits in the US House.DeSantis is the strongest challenger to Donald Trump in polls regarding Republican presidential candidates in 2024. Crist tried to get him to commit to serving a second four-year term in Tallahassee if he wins the 8 November election. DeSantis would not bite.What a moment that tells you where Ron DeSantis’ priorities are.CRIST: Ron, will you serve a full 4-year term? Yes or no?DESANTIS: *awkwardly stands there* pic.twitter.com/Hp6pwOFHfW— Ammar Moussa (@ammarmufasa) October 24, 2022
Crist said: “Why don’t you look in the eyes of the people of the state of Florida and say to them if you’re re-elected, you will serve a full four-year term as governor? Yes or no?”DeSantis did not respond.Crist said: “It’s not a tough question. It’s a fair question. He won’t tell you.”Crist also hit DeSantis on his management of the response to Hurricane Ian; his culture wars-inspired attacks on businesses including Walt Disney; the cost of living; and immigration, including a September stunt in which the governor used state funds to fly undocumented migrants to Massachusetts.Crist called that flight to Martha’s Vineyard, which has spawned lawsuits and investigations, “a horrible political stunt”.DeSantis said the flight “put this issue front and center” and claimed: “We have elites in this country who want to impose policies on” ordinary Americans.The governor repeatedly linked Crist to Joe Biden – the president’s approval ratings are low – as the two men sparred over who had done most to stoke political division.DeSantis said: “The day after Charlie Crist won his primary, he said anyone that supports the governor, you have hate in your heart and I don’t want your vote. Well, think what that means.”Crist said: “You love dividing our state, you know, whether it’s Blacks against whites, whether it’s gay against straight, whether it’s young versus old. You’re making it harder for people to vote.”TopicsFloridaUS politicsAbortionUS midterm elections 2022newsReuse this content More

There is much anguish – and anger – among House Democrats over the publication and then withdrawal of a controversial letter to Joe Biden in which leading progressives urged the US to commit to a negotiated end to the Russian war in Ukraine. Manu Raju of CNN reports “major Democratic backlash over Jayapal’s decision to release a letter this week – that members signed in June – just two weeks before midterms. Some say they wouldn’t sign it now and were blindsided. ‘People are furious,’ one Democrat says.”Jake Sherman, a reporter, author and co-founder of Punchbowl News – a Washington website specialising in covering Capitol Hill – is discussing the role and position of Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.Sherman writes: “Important to keep in mind when thinking about this episode: CPC chair Jayapal wants to be in [party] leadership and has been making moves to set up a run. As we noted this [morning], being in leadership is asking your colleagues to trust your decision-making abilities..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In addition, Jayapal uses the statement to throw her staff under the bus.”In her statement just now, Jayapal said: “The letter was drafted several months ago but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As chair of the caucus, I accept responsibility for this.”Here are two tweets from different sides of the issue – the side which thinks the statement was a terrible mistake and the side which thinks admitting that mistake is at least a sort of a plus.Bill Browder, anti-Putin campaigner: “Makes my blood boil. 30 Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal call on Biden to pair [back] the military support for Ukraine. She wants the US to reward Putin’s murderous aggression. We all know where appeasement goes and it’s nowhere good.”Melissa Byrne, progressive activist and Bernie Sanders alum: “Friends can make mistakes and then friends can work to make it better. This is the sign of a functioning system. Good on Pramila Jayapal.”It was not a great day for progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives. They were put on the defensive yesterday after sending a letter signed by 30 of their caucus to the Biden administration, asking it to pursue negotiations with Russia to end the war in Ukraine – which caused an immediate blowback from other Democrats who warned it called Washington’s commitment to Kyiv into question. The caucus chair Pramila Jayapal withdrew the letter today with a statement that blamed her own employees for its release – not exactly a good look for a lawmaker whose treatment of staff has raised eyebrows in the past.Here’s what else happened today:
The White House condemned a Russian court’s decision to uphold the nine-year jail sentence of WNBA star Brittney Griner for possessing cannabis vape cartridges. President Joe Biden said his administration is trying to reach an agreement with Russia to win the release of Griner and other jailed Americans, but hasn’t had success yet.
Republicans are experiencing a jump in voter enthusiasm ahead of the 8 November midterms, though Democrats have a slight edge in terms of which party Americans prefer to control Congress, a poll showed.
A prominent Democratic senator urged the Federal Reserve not to raise interest rates so high they cause job losses. The central bank is next week expected to hike rates again to lower inflation.
Former defense secretary Ash Carter died yesterday at the age of 68.
Insider has heard from a former staffer for Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal, who said the congresswoman keeps a close eye on her office’s interactions with the media and would not have allowed the Ukraine policy letter to be sent without her approval.“I would be shocked if they hit send on that release without her knowing,” the unnamed staffer said, according to Insider’s report. “Everyone who has worked with her office knows that she keeps a tight grip on media relations. She has held up press releases over small edits and delayed letting staff hit send while she reworks language – though delaying a release by three months would be a new record.”Jayapal’s interactions with her employees became an issue after she said a mistake by her staff was a reason why the letter was sent out two weeks before the 8 November midterms, even though it had been first circulated among Democrats over the summer. “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As Chair of the Caucus, I accept responsibility for this,” Jayapal said earlier today.It’s not the first time the Washington congresswoman has been scrutinized over her treatment of employees. Last year, Buzzfeed News published a lengthy story in which several former staffers said Jayapal berates and mistreats her staff even as she pushes for policies that are intended to help America’s workforce.“I have never worked in a place that has made me so miserable and so not excited for public service as Pramila Jayapal’s office,” a former staffer told Buzzfeed.Jayapal’s chief of staff responded to the article by saying its anecdotes were “cherry picked” and contained “ugly stereotypes”.A signatory to the now-withdrawn letter on Ukraine strategy from progressive Democrats has spoken up in defense of congressional staff amid criticism that the caucus’s leader unnecessarily blamed them for the fiasco.Congressman Ro Khanna was among the 30 Democrats to sign the letter asking the Biden administration to pursue talks with Russia to end the war while continuing to support Kyiv militarily and economically. His comments come after Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the letter “was released by staff without vetting” – which was widely seen as an attempt to deflect blame onto employees that answer to her.Here’s what Khanna had to say about that:Let me just say something about Mike Darner & CPC staff. They are extraordinary. They have helped shape the biggest goals for progressives and have been very effective in our wins. They are committed also to human rights and diplomacy. Progressives owe them a debt of gratitude.— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 25, 2022
Darner is the progressive caucus’ executive director.Add Donald Trump’s former chief of staff to the list of those trying to get out of testifying before a special grand jury investigating the attempts to meddle with the 2020 election in Georgia.Politico reports that Mark Meadows has asked a South Carolina court to block a subpoena for his appearance in November from Fanni Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney who empaneled the grand jury looking into the election interference from Trump’s allies. Meadows has been tied to efforts by the former president to find ways to block Joe Biden’s ascension to office, including by traveling to Georgia to monitor an audit of the state’s ballot count. He also joined in when Trump pressed Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” him the votes to reverse Biden’s victory in the state.Yesterday, conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas put a temporary hold on a subpoena from Willis to Republican senator Lindsey Graham, though the step is a typical one taken when the high court weighs a case.President Joe Biden said the United States is continuing to negotiate with Russia to release women’s basketball star Brittney Griner and other detained Americans, but hasn’t made significant progress.“We are in constant contact with Russian authorities to get Brittney and others out, and so far we’ve not been meeting with much positive response, but we’re not stopping,” Biden said this afternoon.He also reiterated warnings of heavy consequences for Moscow if it deployed nuclear weapons to turn around its fortunes in Ukraine. “Russia would be making an incredibly serious mistake for it to use a tactical nuclear weapon,” he said.Biden was speaking after receiving an updated Covid-19 booster shot, which you can watch below:President Biden receives his updated COVID-19 booster shot. pic.twitter.com/0BjAwkNTnE— CSPAN (@cspan) October 25, 2022
Next week, the Federal Reserve’s policy setting committee will convene and likely raise interest rates again to cut into America’s high rate of inflation. But an influential Democratic senator has a message for the independent central bank: be careful.Sherrod Brown is the chair of the Senate banking committee, and has written a letter to Fed chair Jerome Powell asking him not to raise interest rates so high that struggling businesses are made to lay off employees:For working Americans who already feel the crush of inflation, job losses will only make it worse.That’s why @SenSherrodBrown is reminding Chair Powell that the @federalreserve must promote stable prices AND max employment. pic.twitter.com/M1zaEgVEET— Senate Banking and Housing Democrats (@SenateBanking) October 25, 2022
“Monetary policy tools take time to reduce inflation by constraining demand until supply catches up – time that working-class families don’t have,” Brown wrote. “We must avoid having our short-term advances and strong labor market overwhelmed by the consequences of aggressive monetary actions to decrease inflation, especially when the Fed’s actions do not address its main drivers.”The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on which Powell sits makes decisions on rate increases, often unanimously. Brown doesn’t go so far as to ask Powell not to raise rates, but does remind him that the central bank’s mandate is both fighting inflation and ensuring job opportunities.“We can’t risk the livelihoods of millions of Americans who can’t afford it. I ask that you don’t forget your responsibility to promote maximum employment and that the decisions you make at the next FOMC meeting reflect your commitment to the dual mandate,” Brown wrote.President Joe Biden has released a statement of condolence following the death of former defense secretary Ash Carter.Carter died suddenly yesterday at the age of 68. He served as defense secretary during the time that Biden was vice-president under Barack Obama.Here’s what Biden had to say:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Integrity.
When I think of Ash Carter, I think of a man of extraordinary integrity. Honest. Principled. Guided by a strong, steady moral compass and a vision of using his life for public purpose.
Ash Carter was born a patriot. A physicist and national security leader across decades, he served with immense distinction at every level of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, including as our nation’s 25th Secretary of Defense.
I was Vice President at the time, and President Obama and I relied on Ash’s fierce intellect and wise counsel to ensure our military’s readiness, technological edge, and obligation to the women and men of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.You can read the full statement here.With two weeks to go until the midterms, President Joe Biden has made a closing argument for continued Democratic control of Congress, by publishing an opinion column on CNN’s website.“Over the past nearly two years, we have made enormous progress. My administration, working with Democrats in Congress, is building an economy that grows from the bottom up and middle out,” opens the piece, which touches on themes the president often raises in speeches. “But all of our progress is at risk. The American people face a choice between two vastly different visions for our country,” Biden continues, arguing that Republicans will undo attempts to lower prescription drug costs and cut the Social Security and Medicare programs many older Americans rely on.“Republicans in Congress are doubling down on mega, MAGA trickle-down economics that benefit the wealthy and big corporations. They’ve laid their plan out very clearly,” he said.You can read the full piece here.In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, the Republican Texas senator Ted Cruz claimed his new book laid out “evidence of election fraud and voter fraud in November 2020, which the Democrats and the corporate media insists doesn’t exist”.Today, Philip Bump of the Washington Post retorts: “This particular ‘corporate media’ outlet can now report that, in fact, rampant fraud continues not to exist – as demonstrated, here at least, by Cruz’s failure to present any of his promised evidence of election or voter fraud.”Bump’s column is a must-read. Here’s another taste: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Cruz quotes from the speech he gave shortly before the Capitol riot:
“Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.”
Let’s shift the focus to make the gambit here clear: “UFOs remain a threat to our nation’s cows. By any measure, the claims of people seeing UFOS exceed any in our lifetimes.” See how that works?And here’s our story on another aspect of the senator’s book – his description of how when rioters inspired by Republican talk of non-existent mass voter fraud broke into the Capitol, some looking for lawmakers to capture and possibly kill, he hid in a closet.Ted Cruz took refuge in supply closet during January 6 riot, book revealsRead moreThere is much anguish – and anger – among House Democrats over the publication and then withdrawal of a controversial letter to Joe Biden in which leading progressives urged the US to commit to a negotiated end to the Russian war in Ukraine. Manu Raju of CNN reports “major Democratic backlash over Jayapal’s decision to release a letter this week – that members signed in June – just two weeks before midterms. Some say they wouldn’t sign it now and were blindsided. ‘People are furious,’ one Democrat says.”Jake Sherman, a reporter, author and co-founder of Punchbowl News – a Washington website specialising in covering Capitol Hill – is discussing the role and position of Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.Sherman writes: “Important to keep in mind when thinking about this episode: CPC chair Jayapal wants to be in [party] leadership and has been making moves to set up a run. As we noted this [morning], being in leadership is asking your colleagues to trust your decision-making abilities..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In addition, Jayapal uses the statement to throw her staff under the bus.”In her statement just now, Jayapal said: “The letter was drafted several months ago but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As chair of the caucus, I accept responsibility for this.”Here are two tweets from different sides of the issue – the side which thinks the statement was a terrible mistake and the side which thinks admitting that mistake is at least a sort of a plus.Bill Browder, anti-Putin campaigner: “Makes my blood boil. 30 Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal call on Biden to pair [back] the military support for Ukraine. She wants the US to reward Putin’s murderous aggression. We all know where appeasement goes and it’s nowhere good.”Melissa Byrne, progressive activist and Bernie Sanders alum: “Friends can make mistakes and then friends can work to make it better. This is the sign of a functioning system. Good on Pramila Jayapal.”The group of progressive House Democrats, among them high-profile members of Congress including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin, who yesterday wrote to Joe Biden urging him to commit to a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine have withdrawn their letter.Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued the following statement:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine.
The letter was drafted several months ago but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As chair of the caucus, I accept responsibility for this.
Because of the timing, our message is being conflated by some as being equivalent to the recent statement by Republican [minority] leader [Kevin] McCarthy threatening an end to aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over. The proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats, who have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people, are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian forces.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Ukrainian victory. The letter sent yesterday, although restating that basic principle, has been conflated with GOP opposition to support for the Ukrainians’ just defense of their national sovereignty. As such, it is a distraction at this time and we withdraw the letter.”Here’s the letter in question in full:We need direct talks with Russia and a negotiated settlement | Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and othersRead moreAnd here’s Ed Pilkington’s report on the whole affair:Rift among Democrats after letter urges Biden to hold talks to end Ukraine warRead moreFrom Capitol Hill to the justice department, people close to former president Donald Trump are talking to investigators looking into the January 6 insurrection and the government secrets found at Mar-a-Lago, according to media reports today. Meanwhile, progressive Democrats are walking back a letter released yesterday in which they asked the Biden administration to pursue dialogue with Russia to end the war in Ukraine.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
The White House condemned a Russian court’s decision to uphold the nine-year jail sentence of WNBA star Brittney Griner for possessing cannabis vape cartridges.
Republicans are experiencing a jump in voter enthusiasm ahead of the 8 November midterms, though Democrats have a slight edge in terms of which party Americans prefer to control Congress, a poll showed.
Former defense secretary Ash Carter died yesterday at the age of 68.
Joe Biden has made news in Britain, though not for a particularly good reason.Yesterday, Britain’s ruling Conservative party elected former chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak as their leader, allowing him to become prime minister today. Biden shared the news in a speech at the White House on Monday – though he might want to check with someone on how to pronounce Sunak’s name.Here’s the clip: More

The Guardian view on climate diplomacy: it’s crunch time – againEditorialFreezing relations between the US and China threaten this year’s crucial Cop27 summit Less than two weeks before Cop27 opens in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, an outline of what to expect from the negotiations is becoming more distinct. The issue of loss and damage is expected to dominate – as it should. Wealthy countries have broken the promise made in 2009 at Cop15 in Copenhagen. An annual climate finance budget of $100bn was agreed then to help the countries most dangerously exposed to global heating to adapt. But contributions have fallen short. The group of countries known as the V20, which includes the Philippines and several small island states, are justifiably angry and determined to ensure that past failures are confronted.So is Pakistan, which is not part of V20 but suffered catastrophic losses during recent floods. With one-third of its landmass under water and valuable crops destroyed by what one senator, writing in the Guardian, called a “monster monsoon”, the country now faces an immediate crisis as well as a longer-term, existential threat from melting glaciers. Pakistan, with its population of around 220 million people, is responsible for just 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, G20 countries between them produce 80%.“People are enjoying their lives in the west, but someone here is paying the price,” said one government minister, Ahsan Iqbal. Such views have been echoed by other leaders. At Cop26, Madagascar’s environment minister, Baomiavotse Vahinala Raharinirina, told the Guardian she believed that some short-haul flights should be banned. “You have to make a choice or have to make a sacrifice,” she said, pointing to the climate-induced famine in her country as the price being paid for western consumption habits.But while lifestyle changes such as reducing meat-eating and car use are increasingly recognised as an important element of emissions-cutting plans, it is governments that must step up in Egypt. A bilateral agreement between the US and China was among the most encouraging developments at Cop26. Then, the US’s climate envoy, John Kerry, spoke of global heating as an issue of “math and physics” rather than politics. His Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, said “there is more agreement between China and the United States than divergence”.Eleven months on, relations between the two superpowers have chilled. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in the summer angered Chinese leaders. A recently unveiled US national security strategy described China as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge”. It was swiftly followed by new export controls on microchips, intended to hamper Chinese ambitions. The question is whether climate negotiations can be forced back on track despite this. While Mr Kerry used an interview in the Guardian on Tuesday to appeal for renewed cooperation, the war in Ukraine, combined with the China-US standoff, have significantly raised tensions and lowered expectations.The hope is that once leaders gather in Egypt, the scale of the threat from rising temperatures will focus minds. In asking for international support with loss and damage, the global south countries have right on their side – as rich countries knew when they agreed to the original climate finance package. Governments left Glasgow last year knowing that they had fallen short of what is required if humanitarian disasters of unimaginable severity are to be prevented. The window of opportunity for policies that will deliver on the headline commitment to keep global temperature rises below 1.5C gets smaller every year.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.TopicsCop27OpinionClimate crisisJohn KerryChinaUS politicsExtreme weatherGreenhouse gas emissionseditorialsReuse this content More