US Politics

Incendiary Republican ads boasting of ‘hunting’ rivals raise fears of violenceAds like Eric Greitens’, in which he says ‘get a Rino hunting permit’, could lead people to rationalize violence – experts Before the Capitol attack on 6 January, Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor, had studied political violence around the world but not in the United States because there had not been much to examine, he said.Pape worries that could soon change because of politicians like Eric Greitens, a former Navy Seal from Missouri running for Senate, who recently released an advertisement in which he racked a shotgun and led a team of armed men as they stormed a house to hunt more moderate members of his own party, know derisively as Rinos, as in “Republicans in name only”.“Join the Maga crew,” Greitens, a former Republican governor, declares in the ad. “Get a Rino hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”But such messaging won’t save lives and instead could lead people to rationalize committing violence against those with whom they have political disagreements, according to Pape and other political scientists.“This is important, not because [Greitens] himself will necessarily do any violent act, but what is happening is that the more there is community support for violence, this lowers the threshold for volatile actors to act violently,” said Pape, who directs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.Public figures on the left – and a smattering on the right – condemned the ad, and Facebook removed the video for violating its violence and incitement policies.This is not the first time that Greitens has released such a campaign video. In April, he posted one on Twitter in which he and Donald Trump Jr, fired rifles at a range. In the accompanying text he wrote, “Striking fear into the hearts of liberals, Rinos, and the fake media.”Greitens leads the Republican primary for Senate, according to recent polls, in spite of allegations that he committed campaign violations and was abusive to his wife, who has since divorced him, their children and a woman with whom he had an affair.Nor is he alone among Republicans in producing incendiary advertisements featuring guns. More than 100 television ads this year from the party’s candidates and supportive groups have included guns as talking points or visual motifs, according to the New York Times.In the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania, Dave McCormick, who later narrowly lost, ran an ad in which he recalled his experiences with various guns and said, “I approve this message to protect the second amendment because that’s what guarantees the rest of it.”But Greitens’ spot differs from other Republican candidates’ videos in that it shows him and the other men targeting political opponents rather than, for example, shooting an inanimate object, the political scientists said.“What I do not recall seeing before is actually verbalizing that the target is other people,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, a professor of government at Wesleyan University, and an author of a report on guns in recent political advertising.The video also differed from other incendiary advertisements in that Greitens says people in his own party should be targeted.“Republicans are competing against each other for the nomination there, so it’s not unusual to hear within-party criticism, but I’ve never heard such vitriol against their own party from a candidate, let alone in an ad that was presumably vetted by several people in the campaign,” Nathan Kalmoe, professor of political communication at Louisiana State University and author of Radical American Partisanship, stated in an email.The political scientists also expressed concern over the video because he is among the Republican candidates who promote the false conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was rigged against Donald Trump.“It’s of extreme concern to me that fairly mainstream Republicans have jumped on that wagon in order to win in primaries,” said David Romano, a Missouri State University professor who researches and teaches about political violence. “If [Republicans] think it’s rigged again in the next presidential election, then it’s not a far step to much more widespread violence, like we saw on January 6.”Pape, who has studied conflicts in the Middle East and eastern Europe, worries that such messaging could lead to similar violence in the United States. He traced his concern to events such as the May mass shooting in Buffalo. The alleged perpetrator targeted Black people and cited the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that non-white individuals are being brought to America to replace white voters and achieve an agenda.“There is every reason to believe our country will follow the trajectory of other countries and societies where this kind of rhetoric is in the mainstream,” said Pape.Pape has called for a “public conversation about the consequences of community support for violence in the mainstream”.He testified at a Senate judiciary committee earlier this month on the “metastasizing” domestic terrorism threat. Pape said he saw it as a positive step that a bipartisan group of senators held such a hearing and “were not at each other’s throats”.“They didn’t fully agree by any stretch,” Pape said. “There are differences, but they were trying to think through these issues of political violence in the mainstream, and it’s a challenge because this is not a problem that’s been around for 30 years.”TopicsRepublicansAdvertisingUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

‘It was sort of a feeling’: Trump film-maker says he feared trouble at CapitolAlex Holder, who had extensive access to Trump and his family, says he suspected January 6 would be a likely flashpoint When the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack deposed British film-maker Alex Holder, it heard from a first-hand fact witness who inadvertently observed some of the darkest and most politically fraught days of Donald Trump’s time in office.The new witness, who emerged late in the congressional investigation into the Capitol attack, had extensive personal access to Donald Trump and his family as the administration imploded in the post-2020 election period after the former president lost to Joe Biden.Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimonyRead moreHolder was there for it all: three sit-down interviews with Trump, including one at the White House, numerous other interviews with Trump’s adult children, private conversations among top aides and advisers before the election, and around the Capitol itself as it got stormed.The second film-maker to cooperate with the panel – the first, Nick Quested, was embedded with the far-right Proud Boys group – in effect had a front-row seat to peer into the mind of the former president at the critical junctures in his efforts to retain the presidency.The access to Trump, and listening to him and his inner circle, led him to suspect that the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election would somehow culminate in some event at the Capitol on 6 January, Holder said in an interview with the Guardian.“I wasn’t 100% sure, but it was sort of a feeling, so we prepared for that thing to happen,” Holder said. “The reason we thought January 6 was because, in Trump’s mind, the last-ditch effort was to stop the process” of Biden’s certification.“That ceremonial process that takes place in Congress on January 6, he felt, was the last time where he could, in his mind, stop the election going to the wrong person, as it were. The rhetoric that was coming out was that the election was rigged, [that] we need to fight.”Holder testified for about four hours behind closed doors last week about his roughly 100 hours of footage, used for an upcoming documentary titled Unprecedented, and turned over to House investigators the parts demanded in a subpoena compelling his cooperation.The select committee was broadly interested in his recollections of the buildup to the Capitol attack, as well as his interactions with Trump and his family, Holder said, though he declined to discuss specific lines of inquiry or questioning.The Guardian previously reported, however, that the panel zeroed in on phone calls among Trump’s adult children – including Don Jr and Eric – that Holder captured on camera at a campaign event on 29 September 2020 at the Trump international hotel that he gatecrashed.The select committee is closely focused on the footage of the event – in addition to the content of the one-on-one interviews with Trump and Ivanka – because the discussions about strategies mirror similar conversations at that time by top Trump advisers.What appears to interest the panel is whether Trump and his children had planned to somehow stop the certification of the election on January 6 – a potential violation of federal law – and to force a contingent election if Trump lost as early as September.The event on the day of the first presidential debate at the Trump hotel that Holder gained access through Eric Trump, was unplanned, and reflected, according to Holder, his approach to filming everything he could, in case it proved to be consequential later.Holder said he went into the one-to-one interviews with Trump and his children with a deliberately deferential approach and open-ended questions to ensure the exchanges did not come off as confrontational – including about whether Trump lost the 2020 election“If I start pushing a guy who I know is not going to change his position, and then he throws you out of the room, then it’s all over,” Holder said. “I don’t need to argue and debate him because we contextualise his position with journalist interviews.”“And also, this English guy from north London isn’t going to change Donald Trump’s mind about the election. Then we would have just wasted our entire hour together while I try to persuade him I’m right and he’s wrong,” Holder added.The select committee has also been interested in Ivanka Trump’s interviews with Holder, according to a source familiar with the matter, since although she testified to the panel that she accepted that Trump lost the election, at the time, she told Holder the opposite.Holder said he was not aware if that amounted to Ivanka Trump shifting her belief about the outcome of the 2020 election between her three interviews with him, but said he was surprised that she would effectively testify to the select committee that her father was wrong.“That was surprising, because the three kids, at least with me, would always echo their father’s positions and support them,” he said.The documentary broadly presents a portrait of Trump and his family that follows them through the tumultuous 2020 presidential campaign, when the children acted as campaign surrogates, the final months of the administration, and then months after the Capitol attack.Holder said he interviewed Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, before the 2020 election, and then went to the White House over the first weekend in December 2020 to interview the former president as well as Ivanka for a second time.He said he did a second interview with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida a few months after the Capitol attack, and then for a third interview with Trump at his Bedminster golf club a few months after that. He also interviewed Ivanka and Eric again after the events of January 6.The documentary also features raw footage of the Capitol attack recorded by Holder’s director of photography, Michael Crommett, who filmed at the tunnel of the inaugural platform on the west side of the Capitol as the pro-Trump mob unsuccessfully tried to breach that door.Holder said he additionally did a one-to-one interview with then-vice president Mike Pence, including a scene where Pence briefly reviews an email about the 25th amendment – which concerns the removal of a US president – which was privately discussed among senior White House officials in the wake of the Capitol attack.TopicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation A series of court decisions has raised fears that the conservative majority are forcing religion back into the US political systemWhen America’s highest court ended the constitutional right to abortion after half a century, Jeff Landry, the attorney general of Louisiana, knew whom he wanted to thank.“This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice in it and be glad,” he said in an official statement. “Today, along with millions across Louisiana and America, I rejoice with my departed mom and the unborn children with her in Heaven!”The US supreme court is letting prayer back in public schools. This is unsettling | Moira DoneganRead moreThe southern state’s top law enforcement official was not the only Republican to reference God while taking a victory lap. Nor was he alone in rooting for the supreme court to continue a pattern of forcing religion back into the US political system and tearing down the wall that separates church from state.The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s – wrapped up one of its most consequential and divisive terms this week. Critics lamented a string of decisions that they say undermine legal traditions that prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.In May the conservative majority ruled in favor of a Christian group that wanted to fly a flag emblazoned with a cross at Boston city hall under a programme aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s various communities.Last month they endorsed taxpayer money paying for students to attend religious schools under a Maine tuition assistance programme in rural areas lacking nearby public high schools.Then they backed an American football coach at a Washington state public high school who was suspended by a local school district for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games. This ruling cast aside a 1971 precedent, known as the Lemon test, which took into account factors such as whether the challenged government practice has a secular purpose.In all three cases, the court decided against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the constitution’s first amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion, known as the “establishment clause”.In addition, although their decision last week to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide did not involve the establishment clause, it was celebrated as a seminal victory by religious conservatives. Mike Pence, the former vice-president and a born again Christian, called for a national ban on the procedure.Paradoxically, the trend comes against the backdrop of an increasingly diverse and secular nation.Last year a Gallup survey revealed that Americans’ membership in houses of worship dropped below 50% for the first time, and last month Gallup found that the share of US adults who believe in God – 81% – was the lowest since it first asked the question in 1944.White Christians represented 54% of the population when Barack Obama first ran for president in 2008 but now make up only 45%. Former president Donald Trump’s appointment of three rightwing justices, however, helped put the court on a very different track. And the nature of its rulings have been unusually radical and sweeping.Robert P Jones, founder and chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington, said: “What we’re seeing is a desperate power grab as the sun is setting on white Christian America. In the courts, instead of moving slowly and systematically, it’s a lurch.”Jones added: “In the meantime we’re going to be left with essentially an apartheid situation in the US where we’re going to have minority rule by this shrinking group that’s been able to seize the levers of power, even as their cultural democratic representation in the country shrinks.”The establishment clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion and bars it from favoring one faith over another. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, said in an 1802 letter the provision should represent a “wall of separation” between church and state.Some far-right Republicans now brazenly challenge that premise. The Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert reportedly told a church service last Sunday: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”In its trio of provocative decisions over the past two months, the supreme court decided that government actions intended to maintain a separation of church and state had instead infringed separate rights to free speech or the free exercise of religion, also protected by the first amendment.In the ruling on school football coach Joseph Kennedy, the conservative justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court’s aim was to prevent public officials from being hostile to religion as they navigate the establishment clause. “In no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom violations justify actual violations of an individual’s first amendment rights,” Gorsuch opined.Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school board in the case, said the separation was “under complete attack” by the supreme court as it favours the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause, thereby raising the specter of religious favoritism.“We are at risk of taking away the religious freedom of vast numbers of Americans, which should make the founders of our country be doing somersaults in their grave and I’m sure is alarming to the world as a whole, because they see America as a beacon of light when it comes to religious freedom.”The line between church and state has been crucial, Laser argues, to advances in LGBTQ equality, racial justice, reproductive freedom, protecting religious minorities, the teaching of science in schools and safeguarding democracy itself. But all this is suddenly precarious because of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.She added: “The court pandered to a religious extremist agenda and implemented it by forcing one set of religious views on all of us and taking away the right of a woman to do with her body what her religious and moral views dictate, or taking away the right of a Maine taxpayer to not fund the teaching of a religion or religious discrimination that they disagree with, or taking away the right of a Jewish or Muslim or an atheist or a Buddhist public school student not to feel pressured to pray to play and be included in public school.”Like Jones, Laser perceives in the court’s opinions a backlash against America’s religious pluralism, racial diversity, an increase in women’s power in society and the advent of marriage equality and progress on LGBTQ equality.“This is a backlash that is meant to reinforce and cement existing power structures into our law, and it panders to a white Christian right extremist agenda. It’s incredibly divisive. It’s dangerous to our democracy in that regard.”Unusually, the nine-member supreme court currently includes six Catholics: Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, all appointed by Republican presidents, and Sonia Sotomayor, seated by a Democrat. Last year the court ruled that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could ignore city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.But although most of the court’s religious rights decisions in recent years involved Christian plaintiffs, it has also backed followers of other religions. These included a Muslim woman in 2015 denied a retail sales job because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and a Buddhist death row inmate in 2019 who wanted a spiritual adviser present at his execution in Texas.The court also sided with both Christian and Jewish congregations in challenges based on religious rights to governmental restrictions such as limits on public gatherings imposed as public safety measures during the coronavirus pandemic.The New York Times reported recently: “Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83% [now 85%] of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades – all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents.”The shift has been welcomed by conservative pressure groups. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said: “The court’s recent pro-religious liberty streak shows how far it has come from earlier decades. A majority of the justices continue to demonstrate a clear record of protecting religious liberty and expression, something the constitution explicitly guarantees.”Activists and academic experts, however, warn that the emboldened supermajority of six justices is out of kilter with the will of the people on government endorsement of religion and other issues. Amanda Hollis-Brusky, an associate professor of politics at Pomona College in Claremont, California, said: “It’s paradoxical but it’s also a function of our system that creates so many avenues for minority rule and that’s something that we as Americans need to really reckon with: whether this 18th-century system still works for us in the 21st century.”TopicsUS constitution and civil libertiesUS politicsUS supreme courtChristianityReligionLaw (US)featuresReuse this content More

Joe Biden said on Friday that some US states would try to arrest women for crossing state lines to get abortions after the supreme court overturned the constitutional right to the procedures nationwide. Speaking virtually with Democratic governors to discuss efforts to protect access to reproductive healthcare, Biden added the federal government would protect women seeking medication in states where it had been banned as well as those who need to cross state lines to get the procedure More

Opening the meeting with Democratic governors, Biden called the court’s ruling on abortion a “tragic reversal”. “I share the public outrage of this extremist court that is committed to moving America backwards,” Biden said. He vowed to fight to protect women’s rights: “This is not over.”He pointed to two steps the administration has taken to increase the availability of medication abortion and protect women who travel out-of-state for an abortion. He also warned that if Republicans won control of Congress they would try to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. Per the White House, the Democratic governors participating in Friday’s meeting are: Ned Lamont, Governor of ConnecticutKathy Hochul, Governor of New YorkMichelle Lujan Grisham, Governor of New MexicoJB Pritzker, Governor of IllinoisJay Inslee, Governor of WashingtonKate Brown, Governor or OregonRoy Cooper, Governor of North CarolinaJared Polis, Governor of ColoradoDan McKee, Governor of Rhode IslandThis afternoon Joe Biden met with a group of Democratic governors to highlight their efforts to protect abortion. During the meeting, Biden called the supreme court’s ruling a “tragic reversal” and again vowed that the federal government was exploring more actions it could take to help women access reproductive care.
Speaking from the White House, Biden said the administration had already taken steps to protect women. He said the Justice Department would defend anyone who travels to another state to have abortion and said the Department of Health and Human Services was working to make abortion medications more available. “This is not over,” he promised.
Biden acknowledged that Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to change the filibuster rules to pass a bill protecting abortion and other privacy rates. He urged Americans to vote for pro-choice candidates, noting that two more Democratic senators would likely be enough to carve out an exception in the filibuster to pass abortion rights.
The governors of New York and New Mexico urged Biden to consider using federal lands in states where abortion is banned or severely restricted to provide reproductive care. The White House has so far dismissed the suggestion as “well intentioned” but impractically and potentially risky.
Biden also warned that if Republicans win control of Congress they will seek to ban abortion nationwide.
Biden also announced that he will award the presidential medal of freedom to 17 people, including actor Denzel Washington, gymnast Simone Biles and the late Arizona senator, John McCain.
That’s all from us this week. But for more, we invite you to listen to the latest episode of Politics Weekly America. This week, columnists Jonathan Freedland and Jill Filipovic discuss “whether it’s still possible for a deeply divided court of nine judges, a group that now has a 6-3 conservative majority, to keep the promise to the American people of ‘equal protection’, and what happens if it can’t.”Politics Weekly AmericaAmericans lose faith in the US supreme court: Politics Weekly AmericaSorry your browser does not support audio – but you can download here and listen https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/05/05-61553-gnl.fw.200505.jf.ch7DW.mp300:00:0000:25:01Biden concluded the public portion of the meeting, but asked the governors to stick around so they could discuss ways in which the federal government might act to protect abortion access. During a press conference yesterday, Biden suggested that he might unveil a series of new actions but there was no such announcement. Speaking first, New York governor Kathy Hochul, said her state is acting quickly to shore up women’s reproductive rights in its constitution and protect access to contraception and other rights. “This is frightening time for women all across our nation, a lot of fear and anxiety out there,” she said. Hochul also pushed Biden to use federal lands for abortion services – a suggestion that the White House has so far dismissed as “well-intentioned” but potentially risky.Next we’re hearing from North Carolina governor, Roy Cooper, a Democratic in a Republican-leaning state. “This democratic governor is going to hold the line to protect women’s reproductive freedom in our state,” he said. But he said he needs more Democrats in the state legislature to help sustain his vetos of Republican bills that seek to ban or severely restrict abortions.Already he said North Carolina is seeing an influx of patients from other states with bans and tighter restrictions. “We are in fact that brick wall against this horrific supreme court decision,” said Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico said. She outlined the ways New Mexico was preparing to be a haven for women coming from neighboring states that have already outlawed abortions. She also pressed Biden to do more at the federal level to protect abortion access, such as setting up abortion clinics on tribal lands, should a tribe want to open private clinics for non-Native Americans to receive care. Opening the meeting with Democratic governors, Biden called the court’s ruling on abortion a “tragic reversal”. “I share the public outrage of this extremist court that is committed to moving America backwards,” Biden said. He vowed to fight to protect women’s rights: “This is not over.”He pointed to two steps the administration has taken to increase the availability of medication abortion and protect women who travel out-of-state for an abortion. He also warned that if Republicans won control of Congress they would try to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. Per the White House, the Democratic governors participating in Friday’s meeting are: Ned Lamont, Governor of ConnecticutKathy Hochul, Governor of New YorkMichelle Lujan Grisham, Governor of New MexicoJB Pritzker, Governor of IllinoisJay Inslee, Governor of WashingtonKate Brown, Governor or OregonRoy Cooper, Governor of North CarolinaJared Polis, Governor of ColoradoDan McKee, Governor of Rhode IslandAs we await Biden’s appearance with Democratic governors, the White House announced that the president will travel to Cleveland, Ohio next week. There he will speak about his “economic agenda and building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out,” the White House said in a statement. In what has become something of a pattern for Republicans, an Utah lawmaker has apologized for a bizarre comment that suggested women could do more to prevent pregnancies resulting from rape. (See: Todd Akin.)According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah state representative, Karianne Lisonbee, said during a press conference that she had received messages urging lawmakers should also hold men accountable for unwanted pregnancies in the wake of the supreme court’s ruling on Roe. “I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men’s ejaculations and not women’s pregnancies,” Lisonbee reportedly said. She added: “I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”In a statement to the paper, she clarified her remarks and pointed to her efforts to expand protections for victims of sexual assault. “Women do not have a choice when they are raped and have protections under Utah’s trigger law,” she told the Tribune. “The political and social divide in America seems to be expanding at an ever-faster pace. I am committed to ongoing respectful and civil engagement. I can always do better and will continue to try.”Utah Republican apologises for saying women can control ‘intake of semen’Read moreHere are the other names of individuals who will receive the presidential medal of freedom next week. Julieta García, the former president of The University of Texas at Brownsville and the first Hispanic woman to serve as a college president Father Alexander Karloutsos, the former Vicar General of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.Sandra Lindsay, a New York critical care nurse who was the first American to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside of clinical trial. Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who advocated for campaign finance reform, responsible governance, and marriage equality.Wilma Vaught, one of the most decorated women in the history of the US military.Raúl Yzaguirre, a civil rights advocate who served as CEO and president of National Council of La RazaGymnast Simon Biles, actor Denzel Washington, the late Apple founder, Steve Jobs, soccer player Megan Rapinoe, the late Arizona senator John McCain, and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords are among the 17 people who will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom this month.It is the nation’s highest civil honor, presented by the president to individuals who have “demonstrate[d] the power of possibilities and embody the soul of the nation – hard work, perseverance, and faith,” the White House said in a press release.Biden will present the awards during a ceremony at the White House on 7 July. Recipients also include barrier-breaking activists and lawmakers such as Sister Simone Campbell, a Catholic social justice advocate, Fred Gray, one of the first black members of the Alabama State legislature, Diane Nash, a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Richard Trumka, the late leader of the AFL-CIO, and Khizr Khan, a Gold Star father who rose to prominence when he challenged Trump’s commitment to the Constitution. Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney is in the fight of her political life as she tries to keep her seat while leading the charge against her party’s most popular figure, Donald Trump. Last night she participated in a debate against her opponent, the one-time Trump critic turned loyalist Harriet Hageman. Here’s Martin Pengelly’s write up of the event. More

Driver of Texas migrant death truck ‘did not know air conditioning was broken’Homero Zamorano Jr is in custody with three other suspects in case of deaths of at least 53 migrants near San Antonio The driver of the trailer truck in which at least 53 migrants died before being abandoned in San Antonio this week did not realize the vehicle’s air conditioning system was broken, federal court documents said.The detail was contained in records explaining why investigators arrested a man with whom the driver exchanged text messages, in what is believed to be the deadliest migrant smuggling episode on the US-Mexico border.Texas tragedy highlights migrants’ perilous journey to cross US borderRead moreThe alleged driver of the truck, Homero Zamorano Jr, 45, and his alleged correspondent, Christian Martinez, 28, are among four people charged in connection with the discovery of the bodies in an industrial area of south-west San Antonio on Monday night.Authorities allegedly spotted Zamorano hiding in brush near the truck, pretending to be a passenger. The resident of Pasadena, Texas, was arrested after officers recovered surveillance video of him driving the rig through an immigration checkpoint.Zamorano’s arrest prompted agents to comb through his texts, finding he had sent messages to Martinez before and after the discovery of the dead migrants.The texts included a message containing an abbreviation asking “where you at”, sent around the time authorities spotted the rig and the corpses, making authorities suspect Martinez was involved in trying to sneak the migrants across the border illicitly.A confidential informant told agents of an alleged conversation with Martinez, investigators wrote in court documents filed under oath. During that conversation, Martinez allegedly identified Zamorano as the driver and said he “was unaware the air conditioning unit stopped working and was the reason why the [passengers] died”.Agents determined that the informant’s cellphone placed him “within several meters” of Martinez during the time of that alleged conversation, investigators wrote.Both Zamorano and Martinez face charges of plotting to illegally smuggle migrants into the US, leading to their deaths. They could get life in prison or the death penalty.Two Mexican nationals, Juan Claudio D’Luna Mendez, 23, and Juan Francisco D’Luna Bilbao, 48, were arrested and charged with illegally possessing guns after investigators found them at an address linked to the trailer truck. They face up to 10 years in prison if eventually convicted of those charges.Authorities were holding all four suspects in custody without bond.Officials believe the rig at the center of the case was carrying at least 64 migrants from countries such as Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. At least 40 men and 13 women died and 11 were hospitalized with heat-related conditions. The trailer had traveled through temperatures approaching 100F (38C).TopicsTexasUS politicsUS immigrationMigrationnewsReuse this content More

The Guardian view on Biden’s risky gamble: betting on lowering oil pricesEditorialThe climate agenda risks being derailed by energy market disruptions caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine Joe Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia this month highlights the paradox of American power. The US has the economic heft to punish an opponent – but not enough to alter the behaviour of a determined adversary. Sanctions will see Russia’s economy contract by 9% next year. But Washington needs more nations to join its camp to halt Moscow’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Mr Biden has been forced to prioritise war objectives over ethics in meeting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA says ordered the barbaric murder of the prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi.The havoc that Russia’s war has caused on the world’s energy markets is contributing to an economic crisis that is playing into the hands of Mr Biden’s domestic opponents. This highlights the west’s failure to confront the climate emergency with a less carbon-intensive economic model. The green agenda risks being derailed by sky-high hydrocarbon prices. This scenario could have been averted if western nations had accelerated their net zero agendas by driving down energy demand – the lack of UK home insulation is one glaring failure – and spending on renewables to achieve energy security. Instead, this week the G7 watered down pledges to halt fossil fuel investment over fears of winter energy shortages as Moscow squeezes supplies.Boycotts and bans against Russia, even as they take a toll on the global economy, will cause ordinary Russians hardship. But this has not moved Vladimir Putin. Soaring crude prices fuel Moscow’s war machine. A price cap on Russia’s petroleum exports might choke off the cash. But a concern is that China and India will buy Mr Putin’s oil at a price that still lets the Kremlin profit. Clever technical solutions mask hard choices. Sanctions drive up energy prices for consumers unless there are alternative supplies available. Right now, to bring down oil prices means producing more planet-destroying energy. That requires US engagement with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which bear responsibility for the disastrous Yemen war. Washington might have to woo Venezuela and Iran, nations which will play Moscow off against the west.The US is pursuing a three-pronged strategy: increasing pressure on Russia; getting more oil into markets to bring prices down; and allowing central banks to raise interest rates to levels that look as if they might cause a recession. The latter is designed to signal to oil producers that energy prices will collapse. The painful recessions of the 1970s and early 1980s played a part in bringing down oil prices after energy shocks – and contributed to the Soviet Union’s disintegration. But this took 15 years. Mr Putin’s Russia may not be as powerful as its forerunner. It might be more brittle than the Soviet Union. But there are few signs of imminent collapse.As the west seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian hydrocarbons, there seems to be a global “gold rush” for new fossil fuel projects defended as temporary supply measures. The risk, with the US as the largest hydrocarbon producer, is that the world becomes locked into an irreversible climate catastrophe. Europe might become as reliant on US gas as it once was on Russian gas. Donald Trump proved America could be an unreliable ally. Rightwing supreme court justices have hobbled Mr Biden’s power to limit harmful emissions. Meanwhile, China has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy as well as the metals on which it depends. Mr Biden had wanted to transition the US away from oil. Yet during his time in office the sector’s market value has doubled because prices have risen. Jarringly, as the climate emergency grows ever more urgent, fossil fuel appears the pivot on which the war in Ukraine will turn.TopicsUkraineOpinionClimate crisisJoe BidenUS politicsSaudi ArabiaMohammed bin SalmanOileditorialsReuse this content More

The overturning of Roe v Wade harms all women and all who can get pregnant around the world by making their body-ownership merely conditional. This undermines their equality with others.

Many people are reeling from the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, so that states may now make it illegal to obtain or perform an abortion. For many of us, even if we do not live in the US, this feels like a personal blow. I use my work in moral philosophy to explain this feeling. If we feel personally affected it is because we are personally affected. The ruling diminishes the self-ownership of all women (even if they cannot get pregnant) and all those who can get pregnant, wherever they live.

The decision is likely to leave 33 million people in the US without access to abortion. These are the people most directly affected by the ruling. Evidence shows that being denied an abortion harms a person’s health, finances and family life. Those in the US who are forced to continue pregnancy may lose their dreams, or even their lives.

But the effects of the US ruling are global. Anyone who can get pregnant now knows that they cannot travel or move to the US and be recognised as an equal with equal rights. The same is not true for our male compatriots.

Of course, the US is not the only place where access to abortion is restricted so the development in the US amounts to an additional blow to equality, rather than a loss of what had been perfect equality. But the size and influence of the US make this additional blow very significant.

What is body ownership and why does it matter?

You own your body when you have the authority to make decisions about what is done to it and how it is used on the basis of your own interests and desires.

Body ownership is a fundamental part of moral standing for humans. It is through my body that I act on the world: when I bake a cake, write a book or build a house, I use my body. It is through my body that the world acts on me. When I am struck by the beauty of a sunrise, enjoy a cool breeze, find myself convinced by an argument, these effects on me need to go through my body. How my body is, makes up a major part of how I am: if my body is hurt, I am hurt. Body ownership is needed to respect the unique relationship between me and my body.

Body ownership is needed for a valuable kind of agency that I call full-fledged agency – the freedom to select one’s own ends and adopt a settled course of action in line with those ends. Maybe I value helping the sick and want to become a doctor. This requires me to commit to study for many years. I can only do this if I have at least some authority to decide what happens to my body.

None of this means that you are never required to use your body for others: it’s pretty uncontroversial that I am required to call an ambulance if the person next to me has a heart attack and this does not undermine self-ownership. However, for me to genuinely own my body, there must be limits on these requirements. I must have a say in how my body is used for the benefit of others.

Protestors in the US have been calling for their choice to be reinstated.
EPA/Etienne Laurent

Lack of access to abortion can undermine your body ownership even if you never actually need an abortion. If you can get pregnant but access to abortion is limited, then you only get to decide what happens to your body so long as you are not pregnant. You are not entirely free to decide on the actions needed to achieve your goals.

Indeed, I believe legal restrictions on abortion undermine body ownership for any woman, even if she cannot get pregnant and even if she never plans to travel to the US. Her control over her body still depends on the ability or inability to get pregnant and on where she is in the world. A woman’s right to control her body should not rest on such accidents.

Philosopher T.M. Scanlon discusses a “friend” who would steal a kidney for you if you needed one. Scanlon argues that this person is not a true friend to you, because of what his view must be of your right to your own body parts: “He wouldn’t steal them [from you], but that is only because he happens to like you.”

We need our friends to recognise that we have rights to our body parts because we are people, not just because they happen to like us. As a woman, I need recognition that my body belongs to me because I am a person, not merely because I happen not to be able to get pregnant or happen not to need to go to the US.

So all women and all those who can get pregnant are personally affected by the overturning of Roe v Wade – and all threats to abortion access. Recognition of why this is might help us understand otherwise puzzling feelings, both in ourselves and others. It might also help us to work together to defend reproductive rights. More