US Politics

Joe Biden’s administration is facing an onslaught of criticism from environmentalists after opting to defend the approval of a massive oil and gas drilling project in the frigid northern reaches of Alaska.In a briefing filed in federal court on Wednesday, the US Department of Justice said the Trump-era decision to allow the project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska’s north slope was “reasonable and consistent” with the law and should be allowed to go ahead.This stance means the Biden administration is contesting a lawsuit brought by environmental groups aimed at halting the drilling due to concerns over the impact upon wildlife and planet-heating emissions. The US president has paused all new drilling leases on public land but is allowing this Alaska lease, approved under Trump, to go ahead.The project, known as Willow, is being overseen by the oil company ConocoPhillips and is designed to extract more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 30 years. Environmentalists say allowing the project is at odds with Biden’s vow to combat the climate crisis and drastically reduce US emissions.“It’s incredibly disappointing to see the Biden administration defending this environmentally disastrous project,” said Kristen Monsell, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that have sued to stop the drilling. “President Biden promised climate action and our climate can’t afford more huge new oil-drilling projects.”The Arctic is heating up at three times the rate of the rest of the planet and ConocoPhillips will have to resort to Kafkaesque interventions to be able to drill for oil in an environment being destroyed by the burning of that fuel. The company plans to install “chillers’ into the Alaskan permafrost, which is rapidly melting due to global heating, to ensure it is stable enough to host drilling equipment.Monsell said the attempts to refreeze the thawing permafrost in order to extract more fossil fuel “highlights the ridiculousness of drilling in the Arctic”. Kirsten Miller, acting executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said Willow “is the poster child for the type of massive fossil fuel development that must be avoided today if we’re to avoid the worst climate impacts down the road”.The Willow project will involve drilling up to 250 wells and associated infrastructure, such as a processing facility, hundreds of miles of new pipelines and roads and an airstrip, in the north-eastern corner of the petroleum reserve, which is a federally owned tract of land roughly the size of Indiana.Trump’s administration approved the drilling late in the former president’s term and activists hoped Biden would reverse this decision to meet his climate goals. A recent landmark report by the International Energy Agency found that there can be no new fossil fuel projects anywhere if the world is to avoid dangerous global heating.Native Alaskan groups have also opposed the project over fears it will adversely impact the abundant local wildlife, such as polar bears, fish and migrating caribou.“This project is in the important fall migration for Nuiqsut,” said Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a resident of Nuiqsut, a community in the north slope. “It should not happen. The village spoke in opposition and the greed for profit should not be allowed over our village.” More

Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterHappy Thursday,For months, Democrats in Congress have remained united behind passing the For the People Act, legislation that would amount to the most sweeping protections for voting rights in a generation.But those efforts – which would ensure automatic and same-day registration, limit severe partisan gerrymandering and mandate new transparency in political donations – appear to be hitting a wall. “Failure is very much an option – it is, in fact, the most likely one,” the Washington Post reported bluntly earlier this month.The senator getting in Democrats’ way is one of their own: Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, who has publicly signaled recently that he does not back the bill and wants bipartisan support for it. Manchin also does not favor getting rid of the filibuster, a procedural rule that requires 60 votes for legislation to advance in the Senate, making it nearly impossible for Democrats to pass this bill or any other without support from 10 Republicans. Even after six months of an unprecedented Republican effort to restrict voting rights across the country, Manchin still isn’t budging.My colleague Daniel Strauss and I wrote about this quagmire for Democrats this week. We asked senators and voting rights groups how exactly they might win over Manchin and how they plan to move forward. They told us they were still optimistic about the bill’s prospects and they thought Manchin would ultimately come around as public pressure grew.“There is a ticking timebomb,” said Wendy Weiser, the director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which supports the bill. If it doesn’t pass “it will be a significant failure for the country, for the American people … I don’t think Joe Manchin wants that on himself.”Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, told us he saw a “glimmer of hope” last week. He pointed to a letter Manchin released with Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, calling to reinstate a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that would require states to get election changes approved by the federal government before they went into effect. Such provision was originally included in the Voting Rights Act and forestalled discriminatory changes to voting rules, but in 2013 it was gutted by the US supreme court. “Inaction is not an option,” Manchin and Murkowski wrote.Weiser and other voting rights advocates also pointed to that letter as evidence that Manchin understood the stakes of acting to protect voting rights. But they said it would not be acceptable to treat restoring pre-clearance as a substitute for the more sweeping voting rights bill. Pre-clearance will be a guardrail against future discrimination, they said, but the For the People Act would set a national floor for voting standards.“It has to be both,” said Stephen Spaulding, senior counsel for public policy and government affairs at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “They’re both critically important pieces of legislation and it’s a false choice to say I’m for the other and not for this. Because only together will we fully rebalance the state of voting in America to favor access.”Also worth watching …
The Republican effort to review 2.1m ballots cast in Arizona’s largest county is getting even stranger. One of the subcontractors that was involved in running the audit is no longer participating, the Arizona Republic reported on Tuesday. The same firm had previously been hired by the non-profit of Sidney Powell, a Trump ally who promulgated lies about the 2020 election, to do an audit in Pennsylvania.
There is growing concern that conservative activists are seeking to emulate the Arizona review elsewhere, including in California, Michigan and New Hampshire. Experts say the efforts in Arizona are so shoddy as to be illegitimate, and are simply an effort to sow more uncertainty about the 2020 election results.
Texas Republicans are in the final stages of negotiating new voting rights restrictions. The Texas Tribune has a really good analysis of how that law would limit the number of polling places in Democratic-leaning areas as well as areas where there is a high share of voters of color. More

After six months of aggressive Republican efforts to restrict voting access, Democrats are facing new questions about how they will actually pass voting rights reforms through Congress.The most recent hand-wringing comes as Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democratic senator, made clear earlier this month he still is not on board with the For the People Act, which would require early voting, automatic and same-day registration, and prevent the severe manipulation of district boundaries for partisan gain.Senate Democrats, including Manchin, met privately on Wednesday to map out a path forward on the bill, which has already passed the US House. They were mostly mum about the discussions of that meeting but overall resolute that some kind of voting rights bill has to pass. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said: “It was a really productive meeting.”Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia said: “I think members of the caucus understand the urgency and we’re focused on getting something passed. We have an obligation to the American people to find a way to protect our democracy.”Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterManchin’s opposition comes at a critical moment when there is escalating concern about aggressive state Republican efforts to curtail access to the ballot. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Montana have all put new restrictions in place this year. Many see this as an existential moment for the Democratic party and fear that Republicans will permanently reap the benefits of a distorted electoral system if Democrats cannot pass federal legislation. There is heightened urgency to act quickly so that crucial protections can be in place when the once-per-decade redistricting process gets under way later this year.“There is a ticking timebomb,” said Wendy Weiser, the director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which supports the bill. “It will be a significant failure if [Congress] doesn’t pass these two pieces of major voting legislation. It will be a significant failure for the country, for the American people … I don’t think Joe Manchin wants that on himself.”Manchin is concerned the bill still does not have enough Republican buy-in, and favors an alternative piece of legislation that would reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and require election changes to be pre-approved by the federal government. Some observers say that solely passing that bill, named the John R Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would be inadequate to undo the suppressive laws that have gone into effect and that trying to get bipartisan support for the measure is a fool’s errand, given the Republican party’s embrace of Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. Senator Mitch McConnell has also taken a personal interest in trying to sink the bill, saying it would be devastating to Republicans, McClatchy reported earlier this month.The West Virginia senator’s concern highlights an even bigger question looming over the Democratic party – how to pass any priority legislation with only, at best, 51 votes in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has set August as a deadline for passing a voting rights bill – a deadline the White House has embraced.Schumer has repeatedly said “failure is not an option”. But absent a shift on eliminating the filibuster, a procedural rule in the Senate that requires 60 votes to advance legislation, failure seems to be the most likely option, the Washington Post reported. Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, another Democrat who does not support eliminating the filibuster, bluntly asked the caucus what the plan on the legislation was earlier this month.“The goal of the authors is to get it signed into law. I don’t see a path,” one Democratic senator vented to Politico.In the past few months it seemed like a showdown over the filibuster would come on a voting rights bill. Now, though, some Democrats think that showdown may come over a vote on a 6 January commission to investigate the mob attack on the Capitol. In both cases Democrats don’t seem to have the votes to overcome a filibuster which would spur a showdown.“Part of what I’ve heard is let’s not race to abolish or even reform the filibuster rule because frankly there hasn’t been a ‘casualty on the floor of the Senate’,” said Senator Alex Padilla of California, a former top elections official in his home state. “There’s no bill this session that has died because of the filibuster rule. So what might it be that breaks the filibuster’s back? Is it the infrastructure package? Is it the voting rights bill? Is it a climate change bill?”Manchin’s comments are being closely watched because Democrats cannot afford to lose his vote – or that of any other senator – since they control only 50 seats in the Senate. Manchin has said he does not favor getting rid of the filibuster.But outside groups supporting the For the People Act say they are unfazed by Manchin’s recalcitrance. They remain optimistic that he will eventually come around to support it.“Reports of the bill’s death are very premature. It is still the priority for Democrats in Congress,” Weiser said.“We remain optimistic about the path forward for this bill,” said Tiffany Muller, the president and executive director of End Citizens United/Let America Vote, which is backing a $30m effort to support the bill.Manchin has pointed to a reauthorization of preclearance requirements as a better way to protect voting rights than a sweeping voting bill. Last week, he released a letter with the Republican senator Lisa Murkowski calling on Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, including the preclearance provision gutted by the US supreme court in 2013. “Inaction is not an option,” they wrote.That letter was a “glimmer of hope”, said Padilla.“All the more reason to continue to make the case not just in Senate chambers but in the court of public opinion across the country,” he added, stressing that Democratic efforts to engage in genuine debate would address Manchin’s concern that a real attempt at bipartisanship should be made.Voting groups say it would be a mistake to only pass a voting rights reauthorization. While current proposals would only require certain places with documented evidence of voting discrimination to be subject to preclearance, Manchin told ABC he thinks every state should have to get its voting changes preapproved. Republicans are unlikely to support such an idea. “That’s just not actually in the cards,” Weiser said.“It’s a false choice. It has to be both,” said Stephen Spaulding, senior counsel for public policy and government affairs at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “They’re both critically important pieces of legislation and it’s a false choice to say I’m for the other and not for this. Because only together will we fully rebalance the state of voting in America to favor access.”Four House Democrats sent a letter to colleagues last week making a similar argument. Advocates are heartened by polling that shows the measure is extremely popular and the fact that Democrats have held together so far and brought the bill to the verge of a Senate floor vote despite some grumbling from their own caucus.“What you’re seeing is a commitment to a floor vote and getting people on record,” Spaulding said.If Democrats went into the 2022 midterms without doing anything to protect voting rights, it would be disastrous, advocates said.“Voters showed up in record numbers to choose new leadership. There were commitments made across multiple Congresses on both bills and so saying ‘we tried’ isn’t going to work,” Spaulding said.“If these bills weren’t to go to President Biden’s desk, they’d have … to articulate why they did nothing when they had the power to do so.” More

Standing in court, the former president pleaded not guilty to charges of financial crimes that he insists are part of a politically motivated witch hunt. Jacob Zuma, once the populist leader of South Africa, cut a humbled figure on Wednesday – and offered a potential glimpse of America’s future.A similar fate for Donald Trump became significantly more likely with reports that New York prosecutors have convened a grand jury to decide whether to indict him on criminal charges.The jurists will examine evidence gathered during the Manhattan district attorney’s two-year investigation into the former US president’s business dealings and alleged hush money payments to women on his behalf.There is a long way to go, but it is a sign that the long arm of the law may reach parts where Congress, in particular the Republican party, consistently failed by holding Trump accountable for his actions.Prosecutors have a decent chance of maintaining the perception of independence because the decision whether to bring charges rests with a jury of citizens studying evidence in secret rather than with Democrat Joe Biden’s department of justice.Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, will be sure to stay as far away from the case as possible to avoid any hint of political interference. If the jury goes against him, Trump would be the first former US president charged with a crime.This would surely produce the trial of the century, a fittingly Trumpian spectacle dominating every screen. Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, told the MSNBC network: “I think it’s a potential sign that it looks like Donald Trump is moving on from the presidency to his next turn on TV, which is as a defendant.”A criminal conviction and jail sentence would be seen by America’s admirers as evidence of the rule of law – and by its detractors as the vindictive pursuit of a former leader reminiscent of a failing state.Trump is bound to play on such fears when he soon resumes campaign rallies. He said in a statement on Tuesday: “This is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in American history.”He added pointedly: “Interesting that today a poll came out indicating I’m far in the lead for the Republican Presidential Primary and the General Election in 2024.”The fact that the message is tired and predictable makes it no less potent among his core supporters. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and the Democrats’ impeachment of Trump over his quid pro quo with the Ukraine, became regular foils for Trump on the campaign trail.When the rallies resume, expect to hear these golden oldies combined with some new material: how the 6 January insurrection was actually a fun day out with supporters kissing police, only to be hijacked by Antifa; and how the Manhattan district attorney’s case is a Democratic conspiracy designed to thwart any Trump reelection plans.Prosecutors cannot allow such nonsense to blow them off course; Trump will always find some grievance to weaponise. With the help of rightwing media and an acquiescent Republican party, it might secure him millions of votes but not enough to win the national popular vote and, current polls suggest, not the electoral college.A Trump 2024 election campaign depends on numerous variables: his age (he turns 75 next month), the lure of the golf course, how Republicans fare in the 2022 midterm elections, whether Republicans produce a viable alternative and how Biden’s economy performs. But the grand jury could scuttle it before it begins.In America, anything is possible. Four or five years from now, Trump might be back in the White House – or he might be in prison. Only the brave or foolhardy would bet which. More

Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow and loyal Donald Trump ally, has said he was turned away from a convention of Republican governors in Nashville, Tennessee, this week.Lindell, who has been sued for defamation over his baseless claims that a company’s voting machines stole the election from Trump for Joe Biden, was turned away as he attempted to go to a dinner at the Tennessee governor’s mansion.A spokesperson for the Republican Governor’s Association told Politico that the event was for members of the association “and Mike Lindell is not currently an RGA member”.On Tuesday, according to Politico, Lindell said he had been invited to the conference and shared a screenshot headlined “RGA – Nashville Meeting”.Lindell’s attempt to attend the dinner comes amid Republican confusion over the future of the party and the role Trump, and his ardent supporters, may play in its makeup.Lindell previously attended meetings of the group, including one last year in which he was floated as a candidate for the Minnesota governorship. That plan, supported by Trump, has not advanced.Lindell, a familiar face on Fox News, found political fame after being invited by Trump to speak at a White House press conference.Lindell later promoted Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election and mass voter fraud, including being photographed with a document mentioning “martial law” after the 6 January attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters intent on denying the election results.The following month, Lindell was sued by Dominion Voting Systems in a $1.3bn defamation suit that accuses him of repeatedly and falsely saying that the company’s voting machines had been involved in foul play.As recently as last month, Lindell told Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist, that Fox News was mounting a conspiracy against him over his election fraud claims.“You know, I’m gonna have those answers soon because I’ve hired private investigators and I’ve spent a lot of money on them to investigate everything,” Lindell said. More

Low-income immigrants in the US who struggled to afford basic needs during the coronavirus pandemic avoided seeking government benefits and other assistance because of immigration-related concerns, according to a new report by the Urban Institute.Immigrants, and especially immigrant women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic-induced recession, enduring higher unemployment rates than workers born in the United States, the Migration Policy Institute reports.While the economy sputtered, more than a quarter of adults in low-income immigrant families said they or their partner lost a job, the Urban Institute found. Roughly half said the pandemic had negatively affected their family’s employment, whether through layoffs, furloughs, lost income or other threats to their livelihoods.For many, that sudden economic distress coincided with serious material hardship in 2020, as they forwent costly medical care and scrambled to make rent or mortgage payments.Over 41% of adults in low-income immigrant families suffered food insecurity, more than a quarter had trouble paying family medical bills, and almost 23% struggled to cover their utilities.By December, a majority said they were concerned about paying for housing and medical costs, picking up enough work hours and being able to pay debts in the next month.But, even as low-income immigrant families worried about meeting their needs, a sizable chunk – 27.5% – decided against using non-cash government benefits or other help because of immigration-related concerns. They didn’t apply for or stopped participating in nutrition, health and housing programs, which could have provided the life-sustaining basics they needed.Low-income families with nonpermanent residents – undocumented immigrants, temporary visa holders, etc – were especially vulnerable to those chilling effects. Nearly 44% avoided assistance because of fears over their immigration status or enforcement, including whether it would affect their ability to get a green card.Their hesitation came during a high-profile, years-long battle around the trumped up public charge rule, which made it harder for poorer immigrants to become legal permanent residents and has since been rescinded.Under the former Trump administration, the talking points around that policy underscored a hostility toward immigrants who live in poverty, even though many aren’t eligible for public benefits anyway.“Give me your tired and your poor,” said Ken Cuccinelli, then the acting director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, “who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge”. More

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has denied allegations he and Donald Trump attempted to pay a US senator money in order to drop an investigation into a cheating scandal involving the team.According to a report published on Wednesday by ESPN, Trump met with late senator Arlen Specter in 2008 and offered him “money in Palm Beach” if he dropped his investigation into the Spygate scandal, in which the Patriots were disciplined by the NFL for filming a rival team’s coaching signals. Trump had not started his political career at the time and was well-known as the star of reality show The Apprentice. ESPN says Trump was acting on behalf of Kraft, a claim those close to the former president and the team deny.“This [report] is completely false,” Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, told ESPN when asked about the story. “We have no idea what you’re talking about.”A spokesman for the Patriots also denied the allegations to ESPN. “Mr Kraft is not aware of any involvement of Trump on this topic and he did not have any other engagement with Specter or his staff,” the spokesman said via email.Specter was senator for Pennsylvania at the time and ran as a Democrat and Republican during his political career. He was also a personal friend of Trump. Trump himself has been on friendly terms with several prominent members of the Patriots including Kraft, head coach Bill Belichick and former quarterback Tom Brady. Both Brady and Belichick have distanced themselves from Trump recently. In January, following the US Capitol invasion, Belichick turned down Trump’s offer of the presidential medal of freedom.The bulk of the allegations behind ESPN’s story come from Specter’s son, Shanin. He says the reference to money was for campaign contributions rather than cash. “My father told me that Trump was acting as a messenger for Kraft,” Shanin Specter told ESPN. “But I’m equally sure the reference to money in Palm Beach was campaign contributions, not cash. The offer was Kraft assistance with campaign contributions. … My father said it was Kraft’s offer, not someone else’s.”Specter eventually ended the investigation himself after he failed to gain support from fellow senators and due to his own ill health after being diagnosed with cancer and starting chemotherapy.The NFL conducted its own investigation into Spygate and fined Belichick and the Patriots a total of $750,000 as well as docking them a first-round pick in the 2008 draft. More