US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Kristi Noem from ending temporary protected status for Haitians

      by

      A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s bid to end temporary deportation protections and work permits for approximately 521,000 Haitian immigrants before the program’s scheduled expiration date.Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded Joe Biden’s extension of temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians through 3 February. It called for the program to end on 3 August, and last week pushed back that date to 2 September.The US district judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn, however, said the homeland security secretary Kristi Noem did not follow instructions and a timeline mandated by Congress to reconsider the TPS designation for Haitians.“Secretary Noem does not have statutory or inherent authority to partially vacate a country’s TPS designation”, making her actions “unlawful”, Cogan wrote. “Plaintiffs are likely to (and, indeed, do) succeed on the merits.”Cogan also said Haitians’ interests in being able to live and work in the United States “far outweigh” potential harm to the US government, which remains free to enforce immigration laws and terminate TPS status as prescribed by Congress.Donald Trump has made a crackdown on legal and illegal immigration a central plank of his second White House term.Cogan was appointed to the bench by George W Bush, also a Republican.In a statement, Tricia McLaughlin, homeland security spokesperson, said Haiti’s TPS designation had been granted following the 2010 earthquake in that country, and was never intended as a “de facto” asylum program.“This ruling delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers,” she said. “We expect a higher court to vindicate us.”Federal courts blocked Trump from ending most TPS enrollment during his first term.Nine Haitian TPS holders, an association of churches and a chapter of the Service Employees International Union filed the lawsuit on 14 March, saying Noem did not do a required review of current conditions in Haiti before ending TPS early.More than 1 million people, more than half of them children, are displaced within Haiti, where gang violence is prevalent despite a United Nations-backed security mission that began last year.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“While the fight is far from over, this is an important step,” Manny Pastreich, president of SEIU Local 32BJ, whose members include Haitian TPS holders, said in a statement.Noem shares Trump’s hardline stance on immigration issues, and moved to end TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans as well as thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon.On 19 May, the US supreme court let TPS end for the Venezuelans, signaling that other terminations could be allowed.Noem has authority to grant TPS for six to eight months to people from countries experiencing natural disasters, armed conflict or other extraordinary events.The Haitian plaintiffs also claimed the suspension of their TPS status was motivated in part by racial animus, violating their constitutional right to equal protection.Trump falsely said in a September 2024 debate with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets, sparking fear of retaliation against Haitians. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Key climate change reports removed from US government websites

      by

      Legally mandated US national climate assessments seem to have disappeared from the federal websites built to display them, making it harder for state and local governments and the public to learn what to expect in their back yards from a warming world.Scientists said the peer-reviewed authoritative reports save money and lives. Websites for the national assessments and the US Global Change Research Program were down Monday and Tuesday with no links, notes or referrals elsewhere. The White House, which was responsible for the assessments, said the information will be housed within Nasa to comply with the law, but gave no further details.Searches for the assessments on Nasa websites did not turn them up. Nasa did not respond to requests for information. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which coordinated the information in the assessments, did not respond to repeated inquiries.“It’s critical for decision-makers across the country to know what the science in the National Climate Assessment is. That is the most reliable and well-reviewed source of information about climate that exists for the United States,” said Kathy Jacobs, a University of Arizona climate scientist, who coordinated the 2014 version of the report.“It’s a sad day for the United States if it is true that the National Climate Assessment is no longer available,” Jacobs added. “This is evidence of serious tampering with the facts and with people’s access to information, and it actually may increase the risk of people being harmed by climate-related impacts.”Harvard climate scientist John Holdren, who was Barack Obama’s science adviser and whose office directed the assessments, said that after the 2014 edition, he visited governors, mayors and other local officials who told him how useful the 841-page report had been. It helped them decide whether to raise roads, build seawalls and even move hospital generators from basements to roofs, he said.“This is a government resource paid for by the taxpayer to provide the information that really is the primary source of information for any city, state or federal agency who’s trying to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate,” said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who has been a volunteer author for several editions of the report.Copies of past reports are still squirreled away in Noaa’s library. Nasa’s open science data repository includes dead links to the assessment site.The most recent report, issued in 2023, includes an interactive atlas that zooms down to the county level. It found that climate change is affecting people’s security, health and livelihoods in every corner of the country in different ways, with minority and Native American communities often disproportionately at risk.The 1990 Global Change Research Act requires a national climate assessment every four years and directs the president to establish an interagency United States Global Change Research Program. In the spring, the Trump administration told the volunteer authors of the next climate assessment that their services weren’t needed and ended the contract with the private firm that helps coordinate the website and report.Additionally, Noaa’s main climate.gov website was recently forwarded to a different Noaa website. Social media and blogs at Noaa and Nasa about climate impacts for the general public were cut or eliminated.“It’s part of a horrifying big picture,” Holdren said. “It’s just an appalling whole demolition of science infrastructure.”The national assessments are more useful than international climate reports put out by the UN every seven or so years because they are more localized and more detailed, Hayhoe and Jacobs said.The national reports are not only peer-reviewed by other scientists, but examined for accuracy by the National Academy of Sciences, federal agencies, the staff and the public.Hiding the reports would be censoring science, Jacobs said.It’s also dangerous for the country, Hayhoe said, comparing it to steering a car on a curving road by only looking through the rearview mirror: “And now, more than ever, we need to be looking ahead to do everything it takes to make it around that curve safely. It’s like our windshield’s being painted over.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk’s feud blows up again with threats of Doge and deportation

      by

      Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s feud reignited this week with the former political allies trading sharp public threats of retribution. The blowup, centered around Musk’s opposition to Trump’s signature tax bill as it moves through Congress, ends a period of rapprochement between two of the world’s most powerful men.Musk posted escalating attacks against Trump’s sweeping spending bill on his social media platform X, calling the legislation “insane” and vowing to form a new political party if it passed late Monday. In response, Trump claimed he could “look into” deporting the South Africa-born billionaire, while also suggesting he could cut government subsidies for Musk’s companies or set the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) on its former leader.“Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?” Trump asked reporters on Tuesday.Musk’s attempt to derail the tax bill was a major factor in his falling out with the president last month, and the Tesla CEO’s renewed offensive comes at a sensitive time as Trump seeks to shepherd the legislation through Congress. The fight could test Musk’s political influence over the Republican party as he seeks to peel away votes for the bill, as well as further deteriorate his once-close relationship with Trump.Musk has repeatedly criticized the legislation Trump calls his “big, beautiful bill” for its potential to nullify the cuts to the federal government he made through Doge and for the likelihood it will add trillions to the national debt, which he has warned will “bankrupt America” and imperil his dream of reaching Mars. Musk, a top Republican megadonor, intensified his campaign in recent days with threats that he would form his own “America Party” and target lawmakers in upcoming elections who voted for the bill in 2026 primary elections.“Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!” Musk posted. “They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”Trump has rejected Musk’s criticisms of the bill, alleging that his opposition is because the bill would end a tax credit for consumers purchasing electric vehicles.“Elon’s very upset that the EV mandate is gonna be terminated,” Trump said on Tuesday. “Not everybody wants an electric car. I don’t want an electric car.”When a reporter asked if Trump is considering deporting Musk, he responded that he didn’t know but would “take a look”. Musk replied to a video of the statement on X, saying: “So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.” Trump bought a Tesla in March.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s remarks were a stark turnaround from only months ago when he hosted a showcase for Tesla on the White House lawn in front of media, during which he encouraged his supporters to buy Musk’s cars and sat in the driver’s seat of a red Model S sedan. In contrast, Trump threatened this week that he could destroy Musk’s businesses.“Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Monday. “No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.”Musk’s companies, especially SpaceX, are closely intertwined with US government agencies and have received billions of dollars in contracts from them. The government has meanwhile come to rely on SpaceX for key parts of its space travel and satellite communications programs, and the company is being considered for a role in building a new multibillion dollar missile defense program. The symbiotic relationship between Musk and the government has made any political tensions sensitive for his businesses, and Tesla’s share price declined on Monday and Tuesday as the feud continued. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans pass Trump’s sweeping policy bill, clearing major hurdle

      by

      Senate Republicans on Tuesday passed a major tax and spending bill demanded by Donald Trump, ending weeks of negotiations over the comprehensive legislation and putting it another step closer to enactment.But it remains unclear whether changes made by the chamber will be accepted by the House of Representatives, which approved an initial draft of the legislation last month by a single vote. While Republicans control both houses of Congress, factionalism in the lower chamber is particularly intense, with rightwing fiscal hardliners demanding deep spending cuts, moderates wary of dismantling safety-net programs and Republicans from Democratic-led states expected to make a stand on a contentious tax provision. Any one of these groups could potentially derail the bill’s passage through a chamber where the GOP can lose no more than three votes.The bill’s passage is nonetheless an accomplishment for Senate Republicans who faced their own divisions in getting it passed, and saw one lawmaker announce his retirement after clashing with Trump over the bill. The push to get the legislation done intensified on Saturday when the chamber voted to begin debate, then continued with amendment votes that began on Monday and stretched all night.The vote for passage came just after noon on Tuesday, and required the vice-president, JD Vance, to break a tie that resulted after three Republicans joined with all Democrats in voting against it.In a joint statement, the speaker, Mike Johnson, and the House Republican leadership said: “Republicans were elected to do exactly what this bill achieves: secure the border, make tax cuts permanent, unleash American energy dominance, restore peace through strength, cut wasteful spending, and return to a government that puts Americans first. This bill is President Trump’s agenda, and we are making it law.”The Senate majority leader, John Thune, said Republican senators and staff began laying the groundwork for this budget bill more than a year ago, planning how they would extend tax breaks if they had the votes. He said: “Since we took office in January, Republicans have been laser-focused on achieving the bill before us today. And now we’re here, passing legislation that will permanently extend tax relief for hard-working Americans.”The lower chamber will take up the measure on Wednesday, before a deadline Trump has imposed to have it on his desk by Friday, the Independence Day holiday. But the president has recently made comments indicating the bill could arrive later, saying at a press conference on Friday “we can go longer”, before writing on Truth Social that “the House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th”.Trump has described the bill as crucial to his presidency, and congressional Republicans made it their top priority. It will extend tax cuts enacted during the president’s first term in 2017, and includes new provisions to cut taxes on tips, overtime and interest payments for some car loans. It funds Trump’s plans for mass deportations by allocating $45bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities, $14bn for deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029. It also includes more than $50bn for the construction of new border fortifications, which will probably include a wall along the border with Mexico.To satisfy demands from fiscal conservatives for cuts to the US’s large federal budget deficit, the bill imposes new work requirements on enrollees of Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans. It also imposes a limit on the provider tax states use to fund their program, which could lead to reductions in services. Finally, it sunsets some incentives for green-energy technologies created by Congress under Joe Biden.Nonetheless, the bill would add $3.3tn to the US budget deficit through 2034, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit focused on fiscal responsibility, called the bill “a failure of responsible governing” because it will add to the federal debt and includes budget gimmicks that disguise how much debt it is adding. The group estimated it would add more than $4tn to the national debt through 2034, and said that if some “arbitrary expirations” were made permanent, they would add $5.4tn.“The Senate reconciliation bill fails almost every test of fiscal responsibility,” said Maya MacGuineas, the group’s president. “Instead of worrying about arbitrary deadlines or sparing the Senate another vote-a-rama, fiscal conservatives should stand up for what’s right and reject the Senate plan to explode our debt.”While it was formally titled the one big beautiful bill act, the Senate’s Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, managed to get the name stricken minutes before the vote for passage, though that is not expected to change how many lawmakers refer to it. Because it was passed using the budget reconciliation procedure that requires legislation only affect spending, revenue and the debt limit, Democrats were unable to use the filibuster to block its passage in the Senate.Schumer called the bill a “big, ugly betrayal”, pointing to the millions who will lose health insurance, job losses and debt increase done in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate special interests. He also decried the process Republicans used to pass the bill, saying they pushed the rules and norms of the chamber in a way that did “grave damage” to the body.“Today’s vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come as the American people see the damage that is done – as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, as the debt increases. They will see what our colleagues have done and they will remember it, and we Democrats will make sure they remember it,” Schumer said.In the lead-up to the bill’s passage, several moderate Republicans signaled unease with its cuts to the social safety net, including North Carolina’s Thom Tillis. After saying on Saturday he would not vote for the bill, Trump publicly attacked him, and the senator announced he would not run for re-election next year, potentially improving Democrats’ chances of picking up the purple state’s seat.“It is inescapable this bill will betray the promise Donald Trump made,” Tillis said on Sunday. Pointing to a forecast that the bill would cost 663,000 North Carolinians their Medicaid coverage, Tillis said: “What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding’s not there any more, guys?”In addition to Tillis, Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against passage, criticizing the bill’s impact on the budget deficit and national debt. Susan Collins, who is expected to face a fierce re-election challenge next year from Democrats for her seat in Maine, also opposed it, saying the measure would “threaten not only Mainers’ access to healthcare, but also the very existence of several of our state’s rural hospitals”.The Alaska moderate Lisa Murkowski expressed similar concerns about its effect on Medicaid, but ended up voting for passage.Now that the legislation is back in the House, Johnson faces a difficult task in getting the Senate’s changes cleared by his conference’s competing factions.Moderates remain concerned about the safety-net cuts, while rightwing Republicans have railed against the bill’s expensive price tag. Last week, David Valadao, a Republican representative whose central California district has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment rates in the nation, said he would not support the measure over its funding changes to the program.On Monday, before the bill’s passage, the Democratic National Committee announced the launch of an organizing campaign to capitalize on the unpopularity of the budget plan’s provisions. Ken Martin, the chair of the DNC, shared in a press briefing that when he was growing up, his family relied on the kinds of safety-net programs that are being cut.Martin said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill helps billionaires at the expense of American families – the sort of messaging the party will rely on as it hits the road to turn out voters for the midterms and special elections.“It’s a massive scheme to steal from working folks, struggling families and, hell, even from nursing homes – all to enrich the already rich with a tax giveaway,” Martin said. “Billionaires don’t need more help – working families do. Democrats will stand shoulder to shoulder with working families to kick these Republicans out of their seats in 2026.”The rightwing House Freedom caucus has also criticized the bill for its price tag. “The Senate must make major changes and should at least be in the ballpark of compliance with the agreed upon House budget framework. Republicans must do better,” they wrote on Monday, as amendments were being considered.In a Tuesday press conference, the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, said the bill represents the “largest cut to Medicaid in American history”. He expects his caucus will uniformly oppose the bill and will be making the case to vote it down in the rules committee and on the House floor.When asked whether House Democrats would use any procedural moves to delay passage of the bill, Jeffries said: “All procedural and legislative options are on the table.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      What’s in Trump’s major tax bill? Extended cuts, deportations and more

      by

      Senate Republicans on Tuesday passed Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending bill after spending all night voting on amendments. The bill, which the GOP has dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now returns to the House of Representatives, which passed their version last month, before a Friday deadline the president has imposed for the legislation to be on his desk.Here’s what’s in the Senate’s version of the bill:Extending big tax cutsAfter taking office in 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, but generally benefited high earners more than most. Those provisions are set to expire after this year, but the “big, beautiful bill” makes them permanent, while increasing the standard deduction by $1,000 for individuals, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for married couples, albeit only through 2028.Cutting tax on tips or overtimeThe bill has an array of new tax write-offs – but only while Trump is president. Several of the new exemptions stem from promises Trump made while campaigning last year. Taxpayers will be able to write off income from tips and overtime, and interest made on loans to purchase cars assembled in the United States. People aged 65 and over are eligible for an additional deduction of $6,000, provided their adjusted gross income does not exceed $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for couples. But all of these incentives expire at the end of 2028, right before Trump’s term as president ends.Money for mass deportations and a border wallAs part of Trump’s plan to remove undocumented immigrants from the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will receive $45bn for detention facilities, $14bn for deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029. More than $50bn is allocated for the construction of new border fortifications, which will probably include a wall along the border with Mexico.Slashing Medicaid and food stampsRepublicans have attempted to cut down on the bill’s cost by slashing two major federal safety-net programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to poor and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps people afford groceries. Both are in for funding cuts, as well as new work requirements. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the Medicaid changes could cost as many as 10.6 million people their healthcare, and about eight million people, or one in five recipients, their Snap benefits.Cuts to green energyThe bill will phase out many tax incentives created by Congress during Joe Biden’s presidency meant to encourage consumers and businesses to use electric vehicles and other clean-energy technology. Credits for cleaner cars will end this year, as will subsidies for Americans seeking to upgrade their homes to cleaner or more energy-efficient appliances. While a draft of the bill targeted wind- and solar-energy projects with a new excise tax, senators voted to remove that at the last minute.State and local tax relief (Salt)One of the thorniest issues the bill addresses is how much relief to provide from state and local taxes (Salt), which many Americans must also pay in addition to their federal tax. Several House Republicans representing districts in Democratic-led states withheld their support from the bill until the Salt deductibility cap was raised from $10,000 to $40,000, but Senate Republicans made clear they would change that. The Senate’s version keeps the $40,000 cap, but only through 2028.Raising the debt ceilingThe bill will increase the US government’s authority to borrow, known as the debt limit, by $5tn. The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has predicted the government will hit the limit by August, at which point it could default on its debt and spark a financial crisis.More benefits for the rich than the poorWealthier taxpayers appear set to receive more benefits from this bill than poorer ones, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. Taxpayers in the lowest-income quintile will see a 2.5% decrease in their incomes, largely due to the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while the highest earners will see their incomes grow by 2.4%, the Budget Lab estimated. The impact could change based on which amendments the Senate adopts.A huge price tagDespite the GOP’s attempts to use the bill as a vehicle to rein in government spending, the bill would increase the deficit by $3.3tn through 2034, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Most of that price tag is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The heavy budgetary impact could complicate the bill’s chances of passing the House, where fiscal hardliners have demanded budget-deficit reductions. More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics

      by

      In his second term, President Donald Trump has not taken many actions that draw near-universal praise from across the political spectrum. But there is at least one of these political anomalies, and it illustrates the broad appeal of environmental protection and conservation projects – particularly when it concerns an ecosystem of vital importance to millions of Americans.

      In May 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum supporting the construction of a physical barrier that is key to keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. These fish have made their way up the Mississippi River system and could have dire ecological consequences if they enter the Great Lakes.

      It was not a given that Trump would back this project, which had long been supported by environmental and conservation organizations. But two very different strategies from two Democratic governors – both potential presidential candidates in 2028 – reflected the importance of the Great Lakes to America.

      As a water policy and politics scholar focused on the Great Lakes, I see this development not only as an environmental and conservation milestone, but also a potential pathway for more political unity in the U.S.

      A feared invasion

      Perhaps nothing alarms Great Lakes ecologists more than the potential for invasive carp from Asia to establish a breeding population in the Great Lakes. These fish were intentionally introduced in the U.S. Southeast by private fish farm and wastewater treatment operators as a means to control algae in aquaculture and sewage treatment ponds. Sometime in the 1990s, the fish escaped from those ponds and moved rapidly up the Mississippi River system, including into the Illinois River, which connects to the Great Lakes.

      Sometimes said to “breed like mosquitoes and eat like hogs,” these fish can consume up to 40% of their body weight each day, outcompeting many native species and literally sucking up other species and food sources.

      Studies of Lake Erie, for example, predict that if the carp enter and thrive, they could make up approximately one-third of the fish biomass of the entire lake within 20 years, replacing popular sportfishing species such as walleye and other ecologically and economically important species.

      Invasive carp are generally not eaten in the U.S. and are not desirable for sportfishing. In fact, silver carp have a propensity to jump up to 10 feet out of the water when startled by a boat motor. That can make parts of the Illinois River, which is packed with the invasive fish, almost impossible to fish or even maneuver a boat.

      Look out! Silver carp fly out of the water, obstructing boats and hitting people trying to enjoy a river in Indiana.

      The Brandon Road Lock and Dam solution

      Originally, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River were not connected to each other. But in 1900, the city of Chicago connected them to avoid sending its sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city draws its drinking water.

      The most complete way to block the carp from invading the Great Lakes would be to undo that connection – but that would recreate sewage and flooding issues for Chicago, or require other expensive infrastructure upgrades. The more practical, short-term alternative is to modify the historic Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois, by adding several obstacles that together would block the carp from swimming farther upriver toward the Great Lakes.

      The barrier, estimated to cost US$1.15 billion, was authorized by Congress in 2020 and 2022 after many years of intense planning and negotiations. For the first phase of construction, the project received $226 million in federal money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to complement $114 million in state funding – $64 million from Michigan and $50 million from Illinois.

      On the first day of Trump’s second term, however, he paused a wide swath of federal funding, including funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And that’s when two different political strategies emerged.

      A brief documentary explains the construction of a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

      Pritzker vs. Whitmer vs. Trump

      Illinois, a state that has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992, has the most financially at stake in the Brandon Road project because the project requires the state to acquire land and operate the barrier. When Trump issued his order, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, postponed the purchase of a key piece of land, blaming the “Trump Administration’s lack of clarity and commitment” to the project. Pritzker essentially dared Trump to be the reason for the collapse of the Great Lakes ecosystem and fisheries.

      Another Democrat, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a swing state with the most at stake economically and ecologically if these carp species enter the Great Lakes, took a very different approach. She went to the White House to talk with Trump about invasive carp and other issues. She defended her nonconfrontational approach to critics, though she also hid her face from cameras when Trump surprised her with an Oval Office press conference. When Trump visited Michigan, she stood beside him as they praised each other.

      When Trump released the federal funding in early May, Pritzker kept up his adversarial language, saying he was “glad that the Trump administration heard our calls … and decided to finally meet their obligation.” Whitmer stayed more conciliatory, calling the funding decision a “huge win that will protect our Great Lakes and secure our economy.” She said she was “grateful to the president for his commitment.”

      Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer greets President Donald Trump as he arrives in her state in late April 2025.
      AP Photo/Alex Brandon

      Why unity on carp?

      Whether coordinated or not, the net result of Pritzker’s and Whitmer’s actions drew praise from both sides of the aisle but was little noticed nationally.

      Trump’s support for the project was a rare moment of political unity and an extremely unusual example of leading Democrats being on the same page as Trump. I attribute this surprising outcome to two key factors.

      First, the Great Lakes region holds disproportionate power in presidential elections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backed the eventual winner in every presidential race for the past 20 years. This swing state power has been used by advocates and state political leaders to drive funding for Great Lakes protection for many years.

      Second, Great Lakes are the uniting force in the region. According to polling from the International Joint Commission, the binational body charged with overseeing waterways that cross the U.S.-Canada border, there is “nearly unanimous support (96%) for the importance of government investment in Great Lakes protections” from residents of the region.

      There aren’t any other issues with such high voter resonance, so politicians want to be sure Great Lakes voters are happy. For example, Vice President JD Vance has been particularly vocal about the Great Lakes. And Great Lakes restoration funding was one of the few things in the presidential budget that Democrats and Republicans agreed on.

      Both Pritzker and Whitmer likely had state-based and national motivations in mind and big aspirations at stake.

      Their combined effort has put the project back on track: As of May 12, 2025, Pritzker authorized Illinois to sign the land-purchase agreement he had paused back in February.

      And perhaps the governors have identified a new area for unity in a divided United States: Conservation and environmental issues have broad public support, particularly when they involve iconic natural resources, shared values and popular outdoor pursuits such as fishing and boating. Even when political strategies diverge, the results can bring bipartisan satisfaction. More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      I can’t believe I need to spell this out – but Trump is not your daddy | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Is your name Barron, Donald Jr, Eric, Ivanka or Tiffany Trump? No? Then I regret to inform you that President Donald John Trump is almost certainly not your daddy. I say “almost certainly” because narcissistic billionaires do have a nasty habit of spawning willy-nilly. Just look at Elon Musk and Pavel Durov – the latter is the Telegram founder, who has more than 100 children in 12 countries via sperm donation.Still, unless you are a very high-IQ individual, with an orange glow, an insatiable appetite for money-making schemes, and a weird belief that you invented the word “caravan”, I think it’s safe to say that you’re probably not Trump’s offspring.Why am I taking great pains to spell this out? Because a disturbing condition called Trump daddy derangement syndrome (TDDS) is sweeping the world – the main symptom of which is an irresistible urge to call the president of the United States “Daddy”.Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson bears some blame for the spread of this ailment. While speaking at a Trump rally last October, Carlson delivered an unusual speech in which he compared the US under Trump to a patriarch giving his naughty teenage daughter a “vigorous spanking”. Rather than immediately losing the contents of their stomach because of this imagery, the Maga-loving crowd lapped it up. When Trump came on stage later they yelled “Daddy’s home!” and “Daddy Don!” Which, of course, plays right into Trump’s self-mythologising as a hypermasculine strongman who will be a protector of women “whether they like it or not”.While TDDS remained fairly dormant for a few months after that, it seems we are suffering a new outbreak. Last week, Nato secretary general Mark Rutte addressed Trump’s comments about Israel and Iran not knowing “what the fuck they’re doing” by helpfully explaining that: “Sometimes Daddy needs to use strong language.”And sometimes a Nato chief needs to watch their language. After his comments caused a social media storm, Rutte rapidly back-pedalled. “The daddy thing, I didn’t call him ‘Daddy,’” Rutte told reporters later that day, despite being on the record saying just that. “Sometimes, in Europe, I hear … countries saying: ‘Hey, Mark, will the US stay with us?’ And I said that sounds a little bit like a small child asking his daddy: ‘Hey, are you still staying with the family?’ So in that sense, I used ‘daddy’ – not that I was calling President Trump Daddy.”Nice try, Mark, but I’m not sure that makes things better. Rutte, a Dutchman, is basically calling Europe a helpless child who needs Trump’s approval.Whatever Rutte meant, Trump and his followers seem to have taken “daddy” as a compliment. Last week Jonathan Lindsey, a Republican lawmaker, told fellow Michigan senate members that a lot of Americans see Trump as a father figure and more people should start referring to him as “Daddy”. Gay Democratic Michigan senator Jeremy Moss then replied: “You don’t want to know what daddy means in my community.” Just to spell it out, “daddy” has been gay slang for an older man, often monied, who is sexually involved with a younger man for almost as long as Trump has been alive.Meanwhile, Trump spoke approvingly of Rutte’s comments, saying: “I think he likes me.” He added: “If he doesn’t, I’ll let you know. I’ll come back and I’ll hit him hard, OK? He did it very affectionately. Daddy, you’re my daddy.” Trump’s fundraising operation is also flogging T-shirts with his mugshot and the word “DADDY” on them for just $35. Sigmund Freud, sadly, could not be reached for comment on all this. But if he were available, I think even he might have said: “Mummy, please make this stop.” More