US Politics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed Maya Wiley for mayor of New York, a dramatic intervention that could heighten the chances of the city electing a woman for the first time and only its second Black leader.Ocasio-Cortez, a leading progressive in Congress popularly known as AOC, shot to national fame in 2018 when she beat a longtime incumbent, Joe Crowley, for the Democratic nomination in a district in Queens and the Bronx.“If we don’t come together as a movement we will get a New York City built by and for billionaires, and we need a city by and for working people,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Saturday. “So we will vote for Maya No1.”Wiley is a lawyer and community organiser who was a counsel to the current mayor, Bill de Blasio, and has taught urban policy and social justice at the New School in Manhattan.“She will be a progressive in Gracie Mansion,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to the mayoral residence. “We can’t let New York become a playground for the wealthy where working people cannot afford to live.”Wiley lauded Ocasio-Cortez as a strong leader and promised to do the same for the city.“It’s time we have this kind of courage leading us at a historic crossroads,” Wiley said, according to New York Daily News, referring to the city’s prospects after the coronavirus pandemic. “We need the courage to bring every New Yorker back with us.”This week Wiley told the New Yorker: “There’s one progressive in this race who can win this race. And it’s me.”In April, she told the Guardian she wanted to change a history which has seen New York elect 109 mayors – 108 of them white men, the exception David Dinkins, who led the city for three years from 1990 and who died last November, aged 93.For long periods the New York race has been led by Andrew Yang, a centrist tech entrepreneur who achieved his own national fame with a surprisingly strong run in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.After failing to land a place in Joe Biden’s cabinet, Yang entered the race to succeed De Blasio in New York.Gaffes and missteps including choosing to live outside the city during the pandemic, not voting for mayor between 2001 and 2017 and supposedly misunderstanding the subway system did not stop him dominating early polls.Democrats will choose their candidate – and in all likelihood the next mayor, given the political leanings of the city – on 22 June. The primary will be conducted through ranked-choice voting, which lets voters pick up to five candidates in order of preference. Some early results in other contests might be known that evening but the nominees for mayor are unlikely to be known for weeks.Polls have tightened, with Yang, Wiley, Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams and former sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia the top four in a crowded field.Garcia has been endorsed by the New York Times. Wiley will hope Ocasio-Cortez speaks to young New Yorkers as the Grey Lady does to the city’s establishment.Hit hard in the early stages of the pandemic, New Yorkers are only now beginning to return to normal life. In her interview with the Guardian, Wiley said Covid “laid bare once again – like all our crises that reveal racial inequity – our failure to invest in our people.“… You know, 88% of New Yorkers who have died from Covid are people of colour. We are not 80% of the New York City population. The highest rates of unemployment are in the same communities that had the highest rates of death due to Covid. And the highest infection rates, and are the same communities that are over-policed, and are the same communities that are struggling to get the vaccine.“If we want to recover from Covid we have to pay attention to all our people. And what we love about the city … is the fact that 800 languages are spoken here, and the fact that 40% of our people were born in another country, and the fact that we have descendants from North American slaves, and the fact that we have people who live in luxury housing and people who live in public housing, and that’s part of what makes us rich.”She was also asked how she would manage the notoriously difficult relationship between the mayor’s office and Andrew Cuomo, the powerful Democratic governor of New York state.“I would manage the relationship with the governor the way I manage all relationships,” she said. “Open communication, starting with principles and purpose that meets the needs of people.“We have a shared constituency. There are many partnerships, we need to get what we need from the state government. And if you want partnerships that focus on hard problems and real solutions, then pick a Black woman. Because that’s what we do every single day and in every single way.” More

“Somebody’s shooting on campus!”The words ripped my concentration away from my laptop screen. Our law school classroom fell silent. “What should we do?” I asked our professor. He said: “Well, if I were you, I’d run.” I paused to type “There’s a shooter” in a chat box to my husband Aaron before slamming my laptop shut.I took refuge between stacks in the law library until police said it was safe to leave, hours later. When I walked out of the law school, I heard loud rumbling above me and looked up to see news helicopters circling overhead against a cold, gray sky. Some kind of war had been waged on our campus, and the air was heavy with it. I was going home to my family, but the flashing lights of police cars and ambulances suggested others weren’t.Surviving a school shooting was an initiation of evil. The world didn’t look or feel the same afterward. Its colors were less vivid, and any sense of peace and security that once surrounded me was gone. I knew I’d never exist with quite the same ease again.The trauma of what’s since become known as the Northern Illinois University “Valentine’s Day Massacre” has never left me. More than a decade later, I can still recall the terror of that day with precise, photographic dread. But I’m no longer a 24-year-old student; I’m a 37-year-old mother of three. Despite 12 years and countless other mass shooting incidents across the country, not much has been done by our federal legislators to make anyone safer from gun violence anywhere – let alone at school.One hundred and ninety-four mass shootings occurred in the US this year, with at least 45 in April alone.I assumed the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary shooting would be the wake-up call our country needed to act on gun violence. Multiple school shootings had taken place since the one I experienced in 2008, yet Sandy Hook was the first to invade my consciousness as a mother.I clutched my eight-month-old son to my chest as the precious faces of young children murdered at school cycled across my television screen on the evening news. As tears streamed down my face, my mind tried to reconcile the fact that the victims in these manmade tragedies were no longer limited to teenagers and college students.Little kids were new casualties in our country’s ongoing struggle to define itself. Its endless argument over guns appeared to be a symptom of a national identity crisis between political polar opposites – two parties so ideologically opposed that even the needless deaths of tiny innocents couldn’t bridge the divide between them.What sickened me most, though, wasn’t our government’s failure to prioritize people over partisanship. It was knowing that there were parents who took their kids to school and returned home eternally empty-handed. My stomach churned over whether their children might have experienced some iteration or degree of what I remembered from the NIU shooting: the hell, helplessness and panic of staring at a doorway, wondering if a person on the other side was about to end my life.The only thing worse than knowing those feelings first-hand was wondering how many more children might one day know them, too.The human cost of school shootings extends beyond those who are injured or die, negatively affecting the mental health of survivorsSo far, hundreds of thousands of American students have been exposed to school shootings, and these incidents have increased in recent years. The human cost of school shootings extends beyond those who are injured or die, negatively affecting the mental health of survivors. According to a 2019 Stanford University study, “local exposure to fatal school shootings increased antidepressant use among youths”.Yet children are not the only ones suffering from this epidemic. Parents are also struggling.Survivors of school shootings like me are now raising kids of their own, worrying they will suffer similar fates. Although the psychological effects of school shootings on parents may not yet be fully known or understood, research suggests that those with loved ones who have been exposed to “assaultive violence” have a higher risk of mental health disorders. Another study found that parents of terrorist survivors were five times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress and three times more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression than the population at large. (Mass shootings can be classified as acts of terrorism in many cases.)Like spouses of military veterans, parents of school shooting survivors might also be more susceptible to secondary traumatic stress, especially if they experienced a school shooting themselves or have a history of past trauma. But school shootings may pose mental health risks to all parents, not just those whose children are victims or survivors. One study concluded that acts of terrorism can have detrimental emotional impacts on general populations.School shootings don’t just deprive children of their lives and innocence; they deprive parents of a sense of safety and security their parents and grandparents took for granted. The sanctity and sanctuary of school are long gone. This reality is a painful part of our collective consciousness. We send our kids to school, hoping the horror of gun violence won’t happen there, but knowing no child or school is immune.Carrying this mental load may be commonplace for modern parents, but it doesn’t have to be. Biden recently took executive action to address gun violence, and although Americans are divided on gun policy, strong bipartisan support exists for expanded background checks and preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Measures like these, limiting who has access to firearms, have proven more effective in reducing gun-related deaths than limiting access to specific types of firearms.Precious time has been wasted on political finger-pointing and partisan talking points, particularly when leftists and conservatives have each historically supported and opposed gun control (albeit for morally divergent reasons). Both sides seem content to debate the second amendment and the founders’ intent until they run out of breath. But in the meantime, Congress must come together, in earnest, to find common ground and common-sense solutions to stop this bleeding. The consequences of inaction have become too high – and our kids are counting on them.
Ashley Jordan is a writer and activist who has contributed to written for the Washington Post, Woman’s Day, Teen Vogue, HuffPost, Business Insider, the Independent and more More

First it was a lottery to win $1m in Ohio. Then another lottery was set up in West Virginia.In Illinois people could get free tickets to the Six Flags amusement park.In New Jersey it meant a free beer.The governor of Minnesota announced giveaways that included fishing licenses, gift cards and state park permits, among others.And West Virginia upped the ante, adding the chance to win hunting rifles or shotguns.Governors across the country are resorting to almost shameless incentives to lure Americans who haven’t gotten a coronavirus vaccine to willingly take a jab. And a few folks who have entered in these raffles have come away winning prizes – even $1m.It’s partially a move of necessity. There are still Americans who are either actively refraining from getting a Covid-19 vaccine or just haven’t got round to it yet.Businesses, too, have stepped in to nudge the unvaccinated. The percentage of a state’s population that has been vaccinated varies dramatically. Some states are approaching 70%, and others are still below 50%.So governors have had to get creative. On Thursday, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington state announced a “shot of a lifetime” state lottery for getting a vaccine, with prizes including a lottery for $2m, game systems and speakers, and “higher education tuition and expense assistance”.In New Jersey, the governor, in partnership with the state’s department of health, set up a “shot and a beer” incentive program, which lets any New Jerseyan of legal drinking age who gets their first vaccine shot in May to also enjoy a free beer through breweries participating in the program.That sort of approach got a shoutout from Joe Biden on Wednesday when he announced a month of action to reach the goal of vaccinating 70% of US adults by the Fourth of July holiday, with the president nodding to a beer-maker’s proposed giveaway by saying: “That’s right, get a shot and have a beer. Free beer for everyone 21 years and over to celebrate independence from the virus.”The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, echoed this on Thursday at the daily briefing.“Free beer – that seems to be very appealing to the public, it seems, by [the] headlines,” Psaki said.In a video that went viral in May, Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia sat at his desk with his English bulldog, named Babydog, in his lap.“If you won’t do it for your family, you’ve got to get vaccinated for Babydog,” Justice tells the camera. “That’s all there is to it. Now she wants you vaccinated so badly and she’s going to absolutely be the one to lead us through on this all these incentives. And without any questions she’ll give you a high five right now but you have got to get yourself vaccinated.”The incentive programs have become a bipartisan trend with governors from deep-red states like West Virginia or deep-blue states like California offering a range of inducements.And already there have been some million-dollar winners. In Ohio, Jonathan Carlyle of Toledo won the state’s Vax-a-Million lottery.“I kept hemming and hawing about it, and I work all the time, and when the Vax-a-Million thing started I immediately went down there and got it. It pushed me over the edge,” Carlyle told the Toledo Blade. He said he would use the money to pay off some bills and buy a house.Not every governor has rolled out prizes. In Utah, Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, says he’s monitoring how effective the lotteries are.“It would be really great if we didn’t need any incentives at all. Hopefully, not dying is a great incentive,” the governor said according to the Deseret News.In North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, is considering a vaccine lottery.“We need to do everything we can to make sure we can get as many shots in arms as possible,” Cooper said according to ABC affiliate KATV.North Carolina already has a $25 cash-card giveaway incentive program for vaccine shots.In South Carolina, the state house of representatives minority leader, Todd Rutherford, has proposed using leftover Covid-19 relief money to set up $1m prizes for people to get vaccinated. In an interview, when the Guardian suggested it was surprising that some people still had not been vaccinated, Rutherford lamented with a groan: “You and me both!“The only way that I think we can start breaking through is to use what’s working in other states and I think Ohio saw a 29% uptick in their vaccinations because of this,” Rutherford said. “And if we can get that kind of uptick by spending a million, two million dollars, I think it’s a no-brainer.” More

“I love you, as you know,” says Richard Nixon. “Like my brother.”The 37th president is bidding farewell to chief of staff Bob Haldeman in an unexpectedly intimate phone call that, half a century later, lingers in the air like a ghost.Donald Trump had tweets but Nixon had tapes: 3,700 hours of them, secretly recorded by a White House system the East German Stasi might have envied. The conversations were released between 2007 and 2013, an eavesdropping opportunity never likely to be repeated.They have proved a goldmine for Michael Dobbs, a British-born author and journalist whose elegantly written book, King Richard – Nixon and Watergate: An American Tragedy, zooms in on the hundred days that followed Nixon’s second inauguration and led to his downfall.The narrative follows Nixon from room to room, day by day, sometimes minute by minute. It tells how the tapes capture ice cubes tinkling in a glass, Nixon’s voice softening when his 24-year-old daughter Julie calls and, as the world knows, some bilious rants about the media as the Watergate scandal deepens.Why did this famously secretive president leave such an incriminating trace? Nixon never intended for the tapes, made between February 1971 and July 1973, to become public. But he did have an eye on posterity.“It’s a bit like Churchill said: ‘History will be kind to me because I intend to write it myself,’” says Dobbs, 70.“That was Nixon’s idea as well. This is one difference from Trump: [Nixon] really had studied history in some depth, and compared himself to people like Churchill and De Gaulle. He wanted to write memoirs that would justify his place in history and particularly undercut any attempts by uppity aides like [Henry] Kissinger to claim all the credit for his foreign policy initiatives.The tapes force a writer to step into his shoes and to see events from his point of view so you see him destroy himself“So he never imagined that the tapes would become public. He thought they were just going to be his private property that he could draw on for writing his memoirs. Of course, he didn’t really understand that just to go back and listen to these tapes, he’d have to spend his entire retirement trying to decipher them. The tapes became completely out of control in the end.”Lyndon Johnson recorded about 800 hours of phone calls but Nixon took it to a whole new level. Dobbs says: “The difference with Nixon was that he was so ham-fisted and a bit of a klutz that he didn’t know how to turn tape recorders on and off so they invented a system which turned out to be completely diabolic: it would just turn on by itself. It recorded absolutely everything without any sort of input from him, which is what really did him in in the end.”Sometimes Nixon could forget the tapes were running as he and his aides plotted dirty tricks, unleashed crude diatribes or made racist asides. In one, Haldeman suggests that the White House counsel, John Dean, must have been taking out “all his frustrations in just pure, raw, animal, unadulterated sex”.Nixon’s Trump-like loathing of the media includes a boast that he “really stuck ’em in the groin”. It also crops up in a conversation with his special counsel, Chuck Colson, on the eve of his inauguration. Dobbs says: “He’s about to give this speech and he’s gloating with Colson, his hatchet man, about how he’s going to stick it to the Washington Post and drive the Post’s share price down. He generally calls the reporters ‘the bastards’.”At this point, Nixon was riding high after a thumping election victory and with a near-70% approval rating. The break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate complex, seven months prior, was seemingly behind him despite the efforts of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.“But then, within just a few weeks and months, the whole thing has completely unravelled and you have all these people within the White House at each other’s throats and, as Nixon says, ‘pissing on each other’ and eventually pissing on the president. So it’s an amazing three-month period in which probably one of the most disciplined White House operations in history completely falls apart.”By July 1973, some of Nixon’s advisers were pleading with him to destroy the tapes lest they reveal his part in the Watergate cover-up. He felt they would strengthen his defence. He was wrong.The supreme court ordered the release of a “smoking gun tape” confirming Dean’s testimony that Nixon told aides to order the CIA to shut down the FBI investigation into the burglary. Nixon lost the confidence of fellow Republicans and was forced to resign in August 1974, before he could be impeached.Dobbs reflects: “At a certain point, it becomes Dean’s word against Nixon’s word. There wasn’t sufficient evidence to impeach the president at that point. The only reason that he was forced to resign was because the tapes started coming out and that went all the way to the supreme court. Without the tapes, there would not have been a sufficient basis to force Nixon out of office.”And yet, as Dobbs listened, he also found the tapes that ruined Nixon’s reputation in the moment could yet provide a measure of redemption.“What they do is to force a writer to step into his shoes and to see events from his point of view so you see him destroy himself and destroy his presidency and the pain and agony that he feels.“Unless you’re an absolute dyed-in-the-wool Nixon hater, you have to feel some sympathy for the man, not because you approve of what he did, but just on a personal level.”The president’s conversations with his daughters help humanise him.“You can relate to him the way he talks to Julie, particularly if you’ve listened to the previous tape of him talking to Haldeman. Suddenly he’s switching from being an irascible president who’s barking orders at people to being a loving father.”Then there is that wistful call with Haldeman, who knew the president better than anyone.“Nixon never invited him to a family meal, never shook hands with him, and then suddenly here is Nixon saying, ‘I love you like my brother.’ If you know the background of Nixon’s two brothers dying from tuberculosis when he was a young man, it’s extraordinary.”Dobbs wrote the book during Trump’s scandal-peppered, twice-impeached, one-term presidency. Parallels with Nixon were inescapable: the exploitation of racial resentment, the whipping up of the “silent majority”, the hostility towards the press and east coast elites. But he believes there are key differences too.“Nixon is a much more substantive, serious person than Trump and he had a real sophisticated understanding of history and foreign policy. We don’t know how Trump is going to be treated by historians, 40, 50 years later, but I find Nixon a more empathetic character than Trump.“To some extent, Nixon has succeeded in rehabilitating himself, or at least we have a more nuanced picture of Nixon now. I’m not sure that Trump is going to be rehabilitated, at least among historians.”The author, a dual British-American citizen who has worked for the Guardian and Washington Post, continues: “One distinguishing thing between the two of them is the whole claim that the election was rigged and stolen from Trump. Although Nixon did have a lot of grudges about particularly the 1960 election and felt the Kennedys had stolen it from him, he did not go public with that and he did not try to dispute it in any serious way.“He accepted it because he thought that was one rule of the game. Trump completely threw that rule of the game overboard. Nixon is within the mainstream American presidents. Trump is outside the mainstream.”It remains to be seen whether historians will regard Trump as a Shakespearean figure or conclude he was simply not that psychologically interesting. Dobbs believes Nixon, who rose from poverty to the presidency only to endure catastrophe, does meet the King Lear standard. Along with its theatrical title, the book is divided into four “acts” and has a list of “dramatic personae”.“To call him a Shakespearean tragic hero does not mean that you approve of him or you like him,” Dobbs says. “It means that you’re just struck by this fall from grace and you’ve become aware of the suffering involved. I was more interested in telling the story than to pass judgment.”Exit, pursued by a tape recorder. More

If Donald Trump’s inaugural address can be summed up in two words – “American carnage” – Joe Biden’s might be remembered for three: “Democracy has prevailed.”The new president, speaking from the spot where just two weeks earlier a pro-Trump mob had stormed the US Capitol, promised that the worst was over in a battered, bruised yet resilient Washington.But now, four and a half months later the alarm bells are sounding on American democracy again. Even as the coronavirus retreats, the pandemic of Trump’s “big lie” about a stolen election spreads, manifest in Republicans’ blocking of a commission to investigate the insurrection. And state after state is imposing new voting restrictions and Trump allies are now vying to run future election themselves.With Republicans still in thrall to Trump and odds-on to win control of the House of Representatives next year, there are growing fears that his presidency was less a historical blip than a harbinger of systemic decline.“There was a momentary sigh of relief but the level of anxiety is actually strangely higher now than in 2016 in the sense that it’s not just about one person but there are broader structural issues,” said Daniel Ziblatt, co-author of How Democracies Die. “The weird emails that I get are more ominous now than they were in 2016: there seems to be a much deeper level of misinformation and conspiracy theories.”There seems to be a much deeper level of misinformation and conspiracy theoriesJust hours after the terror of 6 January, 147 Republicans in Congress voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election despite no evidence of irregularities. Trump was impeached for inciting the violence but Senate Republicans ensured his acquittal – a fork in the road where the party could have chosen another destiny.As Trump continued to push his false claims of election fraud, rightwing media and Republican state parties fell into line. A farcical “audit” of votes is under way in Arizona with more states threatening to follow suit. Trump is reportedly so fixated on the audits that he has even suggested – wrongly – he could be reinstated as president later this year.Perhaps more insidiously, Trump supporters who tried to overturn the 2020 election are maneuvering to serve as election officials in swing states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada. If they succeed in becoming secretaries of state, they would exercise huge influence over the conduct of future elections and certifying their results. Some moderate Republican secretaries of state were crucial bulwarks against Trump’s toxic conspiracy theories last year.The offensive is coupled with a dramatic and sweeping assault on voting rights. Republican-controlled state legislatures have rammed through bills that make it harder to vote in states such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Montana. Their all-out effort in Texas was temporarily derailed when Democrats walked out of the chamber, denying them a quorum.Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard University, commented: “The most worrying threat is at the state level, the effort to change voting rules, which I think is prompted by the failed effort to alter the election outcome of 2020.“The lesson Republicans have learnt from that is they don’t really suffer any electoral consequences from their base pursuing this kind of thing. In fact, they’re rewarded for it. That’s very ominous because that suggests they’ll continue to try to do this until they pay an electoral price for it, and so far they don’t sense they’re paying an electoral price for it.”Where is this authoritarian ecosystem heading? For many, the nightmare scenario is that Trump will run again in 2024 and, with the benefit of voter suppression, sneak a win in the electoral college as he did in 2016. If that fails, plan B would be for a Republican-controlled House to refuse to certify a Democratic winner and overturn the result in Trump’s favour.Disputed presidential elections have been thrown to the House before, Ziblatt noted. “It’s not unprecedented but in those earlier periods you had two parties that were constitutional, fully democratic parties. The thought of having a dispute like that when one of the parties is only questionably committed to democratic rules and norms is very frightening.”People use elections to get into power and then, once in power, assault democratic institutionsIn How Democracies Die, Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky argue that democracies often come under threat not from invading armies or violent revolutions but at the ballot box: death by a thousand cuts. “People use elections to get into power and then, once in power, assault democratic institutions,” Ziblatt said.“That’s Viktor Orbán [in Hungary], that’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [in Turkey], that’s Hugo Chávez [in Venezuela] and what’s distinctive about that is that it often begins incrementally. So people continue to go about their lives, continue to vote, parliament continues to meet and so you think, ‘Is there really a threat?’ But the power concentrates so it becomes harder and harder to unseat an incumbent.”He added: “We shouldn’t overlook that fact that we had a change in government in January. What that suggests is our electoral institutions do work better than they do in Hungary. The opposition in the United States is more well-organised and financed than the Hungarian opposition or the Turkish opposition, so we shouldn’t overstate that. But on the other hand, the tendencies are very similar.”Republicans are also playing a very long game, rewiring democracy’s hard drive in an attempt to consolidate power. Trump is arguably both cause and effect of the lurch right, which takes place in the wider context of white Christians losing majority status in America’s changing demographics.His grip on the party appears only to have tightened since his defeat, as evidenced by the ousting of Trump critic Liz Cheney from House leadership and their use of a procedural move known as the filibuster to block the 6 January commission. Critics say that, in an atmosphere of partisan tribalism, the party is now driven by a conviction that Democratic victories are by definition illegitimate.Kurt Bardella, a former Republican congressional aide who is now a Democrat, said: “It’s very clear that the next time there is a violent effort to overthrow our government, Republicans in Congress will be knowing accomplices in that effort. They are the getaway driver for the democratic arsonists.”Bardella, a political commentator, added: “It has become painfully transparent that the Republican party platform is 100% anti-democratic and it is their ambition to impose minority rule on the majority going forward, because they know that when the playing field is level, they can’t win and so they have instead decided to double down on supporting a wannabe autocrat, and are doing everything they can to destabilise the democratic safeguards that we’ve had in place since the founding of our country.“We cannot underestimate the gravity of this moment in time because what happens over the next month or year could be the turning point in this battle to preserve our democracy.”The threat poses a dilemma for Biden, who was elected on a promise of building bridges and seeking bipartisanship. He continues to do so while issuing increasingly stark calls to arms. Speaking in Tulsa, Oklahoma, this week, he repeated his “democracy prevailed” mantra but then warned of a “truly unprecedented assault on our democracy” and announced that the vice-president, Kamala Harris, would lead an effort to strengthen voting rights.Proposed national legislation to address the issue, however, depends on a Senate currently split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans (Harris has the tie-breaking vote). In order to pass it with a simple majority, Democrats would first have to abolish the filibuster but at least two senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have ruled out such a step.Facing this stalemate, activists and civil society are trying to create a sense of urgency. More than a hundred scholars this week released a joint statement, posted by the New America thinktank, expressing “deep concern” at “radical changes to core electoral procedures” that jeopardise free and fair elections. “Our entire democracy is now at risk,” the scholars wrote.Last year’s poll was dubbed “the election that could break America” and the nation was widely considered to have dodged a bullet; it may not be so fortunate in 2024. Yvette Simpson, chief executive of the progressive group Democracy for Action, added: “We’re getting to the place where we might not be able to call ourselves a democracy any more. That’s how dire it is.“It is not just the fact that there is an orchestrated, concerted effort across our country to interfere with the most fundamental right of any democracy but that they’re doing it so blatantly, so out in the open and so unapologetically, and that there have been many attempts and there’s no easy way to stop it.”Simpson compared Democrats’ victory over Trump to the film Avengers: Endgame and warned against complacency. “We just defeated Thanos and everybody was like, ‘OK, let’s take a break,’ and I’m like, ‘No, we cannot take a break because the GOP never take a break’. They know that we’re taking a break and that’s why they’re doing it now and so aggressively: ‘You think you won because Trump is out? Oh, we got you.’”Ibram X Kendi, a historian and author of How to Be an Antiracist, added: “At the end of the day, there is an all out war on American voters, particularly younger voters, particularly younger voters of colour, and it’s happening from Texas to Florida and it’s really causing the American people to decide whether we want our democracy or not.” More

After historic turnout in the 2020 election, where voters rejected Donald Trump and his lies about election integrity, you may be mistaken for thinking US democracy was back on track.Instead, the US is facing an unprecedented attack on the ballot box: Republicans have raised hundreds of bills to restrict voting, conspiracy theories about election integrity remain rampant, and the redistricting effort that happens every 10 years could make our electoral maps more partisan than ever.This year, the Fight to Vote newsletter is taking on the new wave of voting rights issues, and telling stories from every corner of the country where people are at risk of disenfranchisement. Join us by signing up below:Sign up to Fight to VoteEach week we’ll tell you about the powerful yet often hidden forces trying to keep Americans from casting their vote – whether it’s spreading misinformation, intimidating poll watchers, election security breaches or kneecapping the US Postal Service. Undecided? Read the latest version.No sign-up button? Users viewing this page via Google Amp may experience a technical fault. Please click here to reload the page on theguardian.com which should correct the problem.More newsletters from our US teamThe Guardian Today US edition: Cut through the noise. Get straight to the heart of the day’s breaking news in double-quick time with the Guardian Today. We’ll email you the stories you need to read, and bundle them up with the best of sport, culture, lifestyle and moreFirst Thing: the US morning briefing: Stay informed with a summary of the top stories from the US and the day’s must-reads from across the GuardianThis Land Is Your Land: America’s public lands are under threat. Get updates on our two-year series as we cover the challenges facing national parks, forests, deserts, coral reefs and seamountsThe Week in Patriarchy: Sign up for weekly email updates from Arwa Mahdawi as she recaps the most important stories on feminism and sexism.Explore all our newsletters: whether you love film, football, fashion or food, we’ve got something for youThe Guardian’s newsletters include content from our website, which may be funded by outside parties. Newsletters may also display information about Guardian News and Media’s other products, services or events (such as Guardian Jobs or Masterclasses), chosen charities or online advertisements. More

The House judiciary committee is poised to question Donald Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn behind closed doors on Friday, two years after House Democrats originally sought his testimony as part of investigations into the former president.The long-awaited interview is the result of an agreement reached last month in federal court. House Democrats then investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct the justice department’s inquiries into his presidential campaign’s ties to Russia originally sued after McGahn defied an April 2019 subpoena on Trump’s orders.That month, the DoJ released a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the matter. In the report, Mueller pointedly did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice but also did not recommend prosecuting him, citing justice department policy against indicting a sitting president. Mueller’s report quoted extensively from interviews with McGahn, who described numerous instances of the Republican president’s efforts to stifle the investigation.While the panel eventually won its fight for McGahn’s testimony, the court agreement almost guarantees its members will not learn anything new. The two sides agreed that McGahn will be questioned only about information attributed to him in publicly available portions of Mueller’s report.Still, House Democrats kept the case going, even past Trump’s presidency, and are moving forward with the interview to make an example of the former White House counsel. Panel chair Jerry Nadler said the agreement for McGahn’s testimony is a good-faith compromise that “satisfies our subpoena, protects the committee’s constitutional duty to conduct oversight in the future, and safeguards sensitive executive branch prerogatives”.It is unclear what House Democrats will do with the testimony, which they sought before twice impeaching Trump, the first time over the Ukraine scandal and the second following the 6 January insurrection. The Senate acquitted Trump of impeachment charges both times.As White House counsel, McGahn had an insider’s view of many of the episodes Mueller and his team examined for potential obstruction of justice during the Russia investigation. McGahn proved a pivotal and damning witness against Trump, with his name mentioned hundreds of times in the text of the Mueller report and its footnotes.McGahn described to investigators the president’s repeated efforts to choke off the investigation and directives he said he received from the president that unnerved him.He recounted how Trump had demanded that he contact Jeff Sessions, the attorney general at the time, to order him to unrecuse himself from the Russia investigation. McGahn also said Trump had implored him to tell the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod Rosenstein, to remove Mueller from his position because of perceived conflicts of interest and, after that episode was reported in the media, to publicly and falsely deny that demand had ever been made.Trump’s DoJ fought efforts to have McGahn testify, but US district judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2019 rejected Trump’s arguments that his close advisers were immune from congressional subpoena.Joe Biden has nominated Jackson to the appeals court in Washington. More

The US added 559,000 jobs in May as the coronavirus pandemic receded, shaking off fears of a substantial slowdown in hiring after April’s disappointing monthly report.The Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Friday that the unemployment rate had fallen to 5.8% from 6.1% in April, still significantly higher than the 3.8% unemployment rate recorded in February 2020 before Covid 19 hit the US but less than half its 14.8% peak in April last year.The news comes one month after the labor department shocked economists by announcing the US had added just 266,000 new jobs in April – far below the 1m gain that had been expected. May’s gains were less than economists had predicted and with the level of employment still 7.6m jobs below its pre-pandemic peak, the Capital Economics group calculates it would take more than 12 months at the current pace to fully eradicate the shortfall.April’s report led to sparring between the Biden administration and Republicans who claimed higher levels of unemployment benefits were keeping people from returning to work and this month’s lukewarm report is unlikely to end that row.But there are signs of a strong rebound across the US economy. Worker filings for unemployment benefits have dropped by 35% since late April and fell to a pandemic low of 385,000 last week, the labor department said on Thursday.Private sector employment increased by 978,000 jobs in May, according to ADP, the US’s largest payroll supplier. The figure was the strongest gain since the early days of the recovery. “Companies of all sizes experienced an uptick in job growth, reflecting the improving nature of the pandemic and economy,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP.More than half of adult Americans are now fully vaccinated and business is booming in many sectors as state and local governments ease restrictions. But employers across the country are reporting worker shortages as the recovery strengthens. The US Chamber of Commerce said this week that labor shortages now represent “the most critical and widespread challenge” to US businesses. Nearly half of small-business owners had unfilled job openings in May, according to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Business.Alongside evidence of strong growth, some economists are warning about the return of inflation. Prices on a broad range of goods from lumber to chicken have soared as demand has outstripped supply. In April a key inflation indicator – the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index – rose to 3.1% compared to last year, its highest level in 13 years. More