US Politics

US immigrationBiden to reinstate Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policyDoJ says reinstatement depends on approval from MexicoCourt overturned Biden’s initial decision to suspend policy Amanda Holpuch@holpuchFri 15 Oct 2021 14.57 EDTLast modified on Fri 15 Oct 2021 15.55 EDTThe Biden administration said on Friday it plans to reinstate the Trump-era border policy known as Remain in Mexico, which forced at least 70,000 asylum seekers to stay in Mexico, many for extended periods and in deprived and dangerous conditions, while they waited for their cases to be considered US courts.Senior state department official calls Biden’s deportation of Haitians illegalRead moreJoe Biden suspended the policy formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in his first days in office, but a federal judge ordered his administration to put it back into place.In a court filing late on Friday, the US justice department said the program’s reinstatement depended on approval from the Mexican government, which is asking for the asylum cases to be settled in six months and for the US to ensure the people affected have timely and accurate information as well as better access to legal counsel. The program is expected to be back in effect in mid-November.Donald Trump introduced Remain in Mexico in January 2019. From the beginning, advocates criticized the program because it put highly vulnerable migrants, mostly from Central and South America, at serious risk of physical harm and illness as they waited in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. It also fails to address the forces pushing people north to the US-Mexico border and the huge backlogs in US immigration courts.Campaign group Human Rights Watch said in a January report about the policy that affected asylum seekers it interviewed, including children, “described rape or attempted rape and other sexual assault, abduction for ransom, extortion, armed robbery, and other crimes committed against them”.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immigrants’ rights policy director, Omar Jadwat, said via Twitter that the news was “appalling” and acknowledged the Biden administration was required by a court order to make a “good faith” effort to restart it.“They had a lot of options here, including re-terminating MPP promptly and seeking to vacate the order,” Jadwat said.To restart the program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to spend $14.1m to reopen temporary courtrooms located in tents in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, which will cost $10.5m a month to operate, according to a court filing.In June, the DHS secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, formally put an end to the policy and in a memo said: “MPP had mixed effectiveness in achieving several of its central goals and that the program experienced significant challenges.”TopicsUS immigrationMexicoAmericasTrump administrationUS politicsBiden administrationUS-Mexico bordernewsReuse this content More

OpinionUS politicsSurprised to see US Republicans cozying up to the European far right? Don’t beCas MuddeBefore Trump, only relatively fringe American conservatives had open connections to the international far right. Today, the ties have mainstreamed Fri 15 Oct 2021 06.15 EDTLast modified on Fri 15 Oct 2021 07.12 EDTThis weekend Texas senator Ted Cruz spoke about how “we all face the same challenges, including a bold and global left, that seeks to tear down cherished national and religious institutions”. Nothing to see here, you might think – except that he was not addressing a local branch of the Republican party in Texas, or a conservative US media outlet. He was speaking on screen to an audience of thousands in Madrid, at a meeting of the Spanish far-right party Vox. It was one of many recent outreaches to the global far right by US rightwing figures, which seem to have increased since the ouster of Donald Trump.Is the so-called “Populist International”, so often foretold but never realized, finally taking shape? And will the US conservative movement play a leading role in it? Or is this more about domestic politics than global domination?Unsurprisingly, given that the US conservative movement, like the Republican Party, covers a broad range of different shades of often far-right ideology, different people have spoken to different types of far-right groups. There are at least four major strands of far-right international networks in which US “conservatives” of all levels participate.The first and most important is the global Christian right. The US Christian right has long been a global player and has been particularly active in post-communist Europe – as is captured well in the Netflix series The Family. They have found influential supporters in Russian president Vladimir Putin and, more recently, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. It was at the latter’s invitation, at the bi-annual Budapest Demographic Summit in Budapest, that Mike Pence recently spoke, together with a broad variety of academics, church leaders and politicians from around the globe, including the French far-right maybe-presidential candidate Éric Zemmour.Budapest has also been the new promised land for the second strand, the so-called “national conservativism” movement – the brainchild of the Israeli think-tanker Yoram Hazony. National conservatism is a kind of far right for people who read, to put it dismissively – an attempt to merge the already ever-overlapping conservative and far-right ideologies and create a far-right movement fit for the cultural, economic and political elite. Tucker Carlson gave a keynote at a national conservatism summit in Washington DC in 2019 and recently took his Fox News show to Budapest, where he raved about Orbán and his regime. And the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is said to be hosting its 2022 meeting in Budapest too.The third strand is the long-standing connections between some far-right Republicans and the usual suspects of the European far right, like the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) or French National Rally (RN), which are built on a shared ideological core of nativism, authoritarianism and populism. Connections between the European far right and Republican members of Congress go back decades; think of people like Steve King, the Iowa Republican, and Dana Rohrabacher, the California Republican. They were fairly marginalized within the party – and both have, ironically, lost their seats in the Trump era. It was largely with these groups that Steve Bannon created “the Movement”, which never moved beyond media hype.And, finally, we have the party that Cruz sent a supportive video message to, Vox in Spain. Almost completely under the radar, Vox has been building a conservative-far right network in the Spanish-speaking world, partly facilitated by the party’s Dineso foundation. Focused mostly on Latin America – and piggybacking on the Latin American right’s long-standing fight against “communism” and for conservative Christianity – the foundation has published a “Charter of Madrid” signed by more than 100 politicians and political activists from Europe and the Americas, including US conservative activist Daniel Pipes (anti-Islam) and Grover Norquist (anti-tax), as well as a host of Latin American MPs. The particular meeting Cruz spoke to was attended by various European far-right leaders, including Giorgia Meloni of Brothers of Italy (FdI), currently the biggest party in the polls, and André Ventura of Chega in Portugal.Obviously, these international networks overlap on many issues, most notably in their common opposition to the “global left” but also, in different gradations, to immigration, Islam and “gender ideology”. But they also disagree on central issues, from the importance of religious doctrine to the role of Russia, and consequently have very different and shifting memberships. And they differ in the role of the US conservative movement within the network.With the exception of the Christian right, which has long dominated the global movement, the US does not play a leading role in these networks. Even the “national conservatism” network is run by an Israeli and increasingly funded by Hungarians. Moreover, the various US Republicans who have recently participated in these meetings seem to use their international connections more for domestic gains – most notably in the fight for the Republican nomination (should Donald Trump not run) – than for the sake of building a Populist International.This is not to say there is nothing new to recent developments. In the pre-Trump era, only relatively marginal rightwing conservatives and Republicans had open connections to the international far right. Today, the ties between the broader US conservative movement and the global far right have become mainstreamed, from the Republican party to National Review, with fewer and fewer dissenting voices. Still, steeped in US exceptionalism, the US conservative movement remains mostly inward-looking, using international connections and events primarily for national political struggles. And the Populist International is still more media hype than political reality.
Cas Mudde is Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, the author of The Far Right Today (2019), and host of the podcast Radikaal. He is a Guardian US columnist
TopicsUS politicsOpinionThe far rightRepublicansTed CruzcommentReuse this content More

This week Jonathan Freedland speaks to Jessica Taylor, of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. The pair discuss what the off-year gubernatorial elections coming up in a few weeks might tell us about Democrat and Republican chances in next year’s midterm elections

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: ABC News, Fox Business, NBC Washington, CNN Send your questions and feedback to [email protected]. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More

TechnologyLawmakers seek to rein in big tech with bills aimed at competition and liabilityOne bill would prevent platforms from giving preference to their own products, the other would remove Section 230 protections Kari PaulThu 14 Oct 2021 17.58 EDTLast modified on Thu 14 Oct 2021 18.37 EDTUS lawmakers announced two major new proposals seeking to rein in the power of big tech, days after the revelations from a former Facebook employee spotlighted the company’s sweeping impact.The first bill, proposed by a group of senators headed by Democrat Amy Klobuchar and Republican Chuck Grassley would bar big tech platforms from favoring their own products and services.The second bill, put forward by House Democrats, would remove some protections afforded tech companies by Section 230, a portion of the Communications Decency Act that exempts them from liability for what is posted on their platforms.Facebook whistleblower’s testimony could finally spark action in CongressRead moreThe proposals are part of a slew of bills from this Congress aimed at reining in tech firms, including industry leaders Facebook and Apple. Thus far, none have become law although one, a broader measure to increase resources for antitrust enforcers, has passed the Senate.Klobuchar and Grassley’s bill would specifically prohibit platforms from requiring companies operating on their sites to purchase the platform’s goods or services and ban them from biasing search results to favor the platform. It is a companion bill to a measure which has passed the House judiciary committee and must pass both houses of Congress to become law.The bill would address concerns that tech giants have become gatekeepers, giving preference to their own products, blocking rivals from accessing markets and imposing onerous fees and terms on smaller businesses.“As dominant digital platforms – some of the biggest companies our world has ever seen – increasingly give preference to their own products and services, we must put policies in place to ensure small businesses and entrepreneurs still have the opportunity to succeed in the digital marketplace,” Klobuchar said in a statement.The legislation comes as Congress is increasingly working on a bipartisan basis to address antitrust issues in big tech. Traditionally lawmakers have differed on their critiques of the industry – with Democrats claiming the companies are monopolies and Republicans criticizing what they perceive as an anti-conservative bias on the platforms.“This bill is welcome proof that the momentum in Congress to tackle big tech’s monopoly power is rapidly gaining force on both sides of the aisle,” read a statement from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a non-profit that fights against corporate monopolies. “We agree with their view that the tech giants cannot continue to abuse their power at the expense of competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship.”Meanwhile, the debate around Section 230 – a portion of the Communications Decency Act that protects companies from legal liability for content posted on their platforms – has continued. Its impact has long been a hot-button issue but became increasingly so during the Donald Trump’s presidency.The bill House Democrats introduced on Thursday would create an amendment in Section 230 that would hold companies responsible for the personalized algorithmic amplification of problematic content.In other words it seeks to simply “turn off” the Facebook news algorithm, said Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight For the Future.The law would apply only to large tech firms with 5,000,000 or more monthly users, but could still have negative consequences for firms large enough to qualify but that still have fewer resources than Facebook.“Facebook would likely be able to survive this, but smaller competitors wouldn’t,” Greer said. “That’s why Facebook has repeatedly called for changes to Section 230 – they know it will only serve to solidify their dominance and monopoly power.“This bill is well-intentioned, but it’s a total mess,” added Greer. “Democrats are playing right into Facebook’s hands by proposing tweaks to Section 230 instead of thoughtful policies that will actually reduce the harm done by surveillance-driven algorithms.”Lawmakers are “failing to understand how these policies will actually play out in the real world”, she added.Earlier this year more than 70 civil rights, LGBTQ+, sex worker advocacy and human rights organizations sent a letter cautioning lawmakers against changing Section 230.They instead prefer an approach to reining in Facebook and other platforms by attacking the data harvesting and surveillance practices they rely on as a business model.Democrats should instead “pass a privacy bill strong enough to kill Facebook’s surveillance driven business model while leaving the democratizing power of the internet intact”, Greer said.Reuters contributed to this reportTopicsTechnologyFacebookUS politicsSocial mediaApplenewsReuse this content More

Steve BannonSteve Bannon: Capitol attack panel to consider criminal contempt referralHouse 6 January select committee to decide on Trump’s former strategist, who has snubbed subpoena requests, on Tuesday Hugo Lowell in WashingtonThu 14 Oct 2021 14.52 EDTFirst published on Thu 14 Oct 2021 13.54 EDTBennie Thompson, the chairman of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Thursday announced the panel’s intention to consider a criminal contempt referral against Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon for defying a subpoena as part of its 6 January inquiry.The vow to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings against Bannon – one of Donald Trump’s top advisers – puts the select committee on the path to enforce the subpoena issued to uncover what the former president knew in advance of plans to mount an insurrection.House Capitol attack panel issues subpoena to Trump official Jeffrey ClarkRead moreThompson said in a statement that the committee would move to consider prosecuting Bannon for refusing to comply with a subpoena demanding documents and testimony after rejecting his claims that he could not appear for a deposition because of executive privilege.“The select committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr Bannon for criminal contempt,” Thompson said. “Witnesses who try to stonewall the select committee will not succeed.”The select committee will meet on Tuesday to decide whether to recommend the full House authorize a criminal referral for Bannon to the justice department, Thompson said, though with the panel’s members united in their fury, the decision is expected to be unanimous.House select committee investigators had ordered Bannon and Kash Patel, a former Trump defense department aide, to testify on Thursday, with additional closed-door interviews with Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and his deputy, Dan Scavino, on Friday.Neither Bannon nor Patel ultimately appeared on Capitol Hill for the first set of scheduled depositions, after Trump instructed his aides to defy the subpoenas on grounds that any discussions that involved him were protected by executive privilege.The select committee temporarily postponed depositions with Patel and Meadows while their lawyers continued to discuss cooperation, according to a source familiar with the matter. Scavino was also granted a reprieve after having his subpoena served late.But Thompson made clear that he had run out of patience with Bannon, who twice told the select committee that he intended to defy his subpoena in its entirety, abiding by the former president’s instructions first reported by the Guardian.“Mr Bannon has declined to cooperate with the select committee, and is instead hiding behind the former president’s insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges,” Thompson said. “We reject his position entirely.”The select committee chairman also rejected Bannon’s executive privilege claim, in part because the protection exists to protect the interests of the country, and not the private, political interests of a former president, the source said.Once the select committee adopts a contempt report, it is referred to the full House for a vote. Should the House approve the report, Congress can then send the request for a criminal referral to the US attorney for the District of Columbia.The earliest the select committee can vote to adopt a contempt report for Bannon is Tuesday, because House rules require Thompson to issue a three-day notice in advance of a business meeting at which members can discharge the report.Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, a member of the select committee, said on MSNBC that the panel was moving to enforce the subpoenas as soon as it could. “I fully expect this Department of Justice to uphold and enforce that subpoena,” she added.House select committee investigators had expressed optimism when they first issued subpoenas to the four Trump administration officials that they would be able to hear from at least one of their marquee witnesses on the scheduled deposition dates.Yet the initial optimism rapidly turned sour in the weeks that followed, after Trump announced his intention to block the select committee at every turn and the prospects of deposing some of the closest aides to the former president vanished before their eyes.The move to consider launching a criminal referral for Bannon to the justice department sets up a potentially lengthy legal battle that is certain to test Congress’s oversight authority over the executive branch and ability to uncover presidential secrets.And in preparing for the first step to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress, the select committee now faces the prospect of fighting Trump in court on two fronts – over the release of White House records, as well as his power to block his aides’ testimony.The former president, however, faces a steep uphill struggle in both instances after the justice department previously authorized officials from the Trump administration to testify to Congress about the Capitol attack and Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election.TopicsSteve BannonUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

Oregon Nicholas Kristof quits New York Times to explore run for Oregon governorPulitzer winner filed papers to form a political action committee called ‘Nick for Oregon’, enabling him to raise money and hire staff David Smith in Washington@smithinamericaThu 14 Oct 2021 11.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 14 Oct 2021 11.04 EDTA Pulitzer prize-winning journalist has quit the New York Times after 37 years ahead of a potential run for governor of Oregon.House Capitol attack panel issues subpoena to Trump official Jeffrey ClarkRead moreNicholas Kristof, 62, renowned for his coverage of human rights issues around the world, filed papers on Tuesday to form a political action committee called “Nick for Oregon”, enabling him to raise money and hire staff for a campaign.Kristof – whose Twitter bio describes him as “Oregon farmboy turned NY Times columnist” – has been on leave from the newspaper since June while he explored the idea of a career in politics. He recently co-authored a book, Tightrope, about America’s underlying crises.In a statement to New York Times staff, where he has worked as a reporter, editor and opinion columnist, Kristof said: “This has been my dream job, even with malaria, a plane crash in Congo and periodic arrests abroad for committing journalism. Yet here I am, resigning – very reluctantly.”He added: “I’ve gotten to know presidents and tyrants, Nobel laureates and warlords, while visiting 160 countries. And precisely because I have a great job, outstanding editors and the best readers, I may be an idiot to leave.“But you all know how much I love Oregon, and how much I’ve been seared by the suffering of old friends there. So I’ve reluctantly concluded that I should try not only to expose problems but also see if I can fix them directly.”Kristof won a Pulitzer prize in 1990 along with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, for their reporting on the the protests at Tiananmen Square in China. He won the award again in 2006 for columns about the Darfur conflict in Sudan. His coverage last year highlighting the sexual exploitation of children on the pornography website Pornhub helped force it to introduce reforms.In the email to the staff announcing his departure, Kathleen Kingsbury, opinion editor of the Times, praised Kristof for “elevating the journalistic form to a new height of public service with a mix of incisive reporting, profound empathy and a determination to bear witness to those struggling and suffering across the globe”.Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 16 percentage points in Oregon in last year’s presidential election. The state has not elected a Republican governor since 1982, the second longest period of Democratic control in the country.Kristof grew up on a sheep and cherry farm in Yamhill, a town in the wine-producing Willamette Valley, and his family still owns land in the area.Papers submitted to Oregon’s secretary of state’s office indicate that Kristof would run as a Democrat to replace the current governor, Kate Brown, who is stepping down because of term limits. But he may struggle to meet Oregon’s three-year residency requirement for governor, given that last year he voted as a resident of New York.He would also face a keenly contested primary election among candidates including the state house speaker, Tina Kotek, the state treasurer, Tobias Read, and the Yamhill county commissioner, Casey Kulla, all of whom have declared their intention to stand.Kristof said in an interview in July: “All I know for sure is that we need someone with leadership and vision so that folks from all over the state can come together to get us back on track.”TopicsOregonNew York TimesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

The enormous, unprecedented pain and turmoil caused by the climate crisis is often discussed alongside what can seem like surprisingly small temperature increases – 1.5C or 2C hotter than it was in the era just before the car replaced the horse and cart. 
These temperature thresholds will again be the focus of upcoming UN climate talks at the COP26 summit in Scotland as countries variously dawdle or scramble to avert climate catastrophe. But the single digit numbers obscure huge ramifications at stake. “We have built a civilization based on a world that doesn’t exist anymore,” as Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, puts it.
The world has already heated up by around 1.2C, on average, since the preindustrial era, pushing humanity beyond almost all historical boundaries. Cranking up the temperature of the entire globe this much within little more than a century is, in fact, extraordinary, with the oceans alone absorbing the heat equivalent of five Hiroshima atomic bombs dropping into the water every second.

When global temperatures are projected to hit key benchmarksthis century
Average global surface temperature relative to a 1850-1900 baseline More