US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump makes rare admission of Musk’s conflicts of interest after Pentagon visit

      by

      Donald Trump said on Friday that plans for possible war with China should not be shared with Elon Musk because of his business interests, a rare admission that the billionaire faces conflicts of interests in his role as a senior adviser to the US president.Trump rejected reports that Musk would be briefed on how the United States would fight a hypothetical war with China, saying: “Elon has businesses in China. And he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that.”The reference to Musk’s businesses – which include Tesla, an electric vehicle manufacturer trying to expand sales and production in China – is an unusual acknowledgment of concerns about Musk balancing his corporate and government responsibilities.Trump had previously brushed off questions about Musk’s potential conflicts of interest, simply saying that he would steer clear when necessary.The president said that Musk visited the Pentagon on Friday morning to discuss reducing costs, which he has been working on through the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge).The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Musk was there “to talk about efficiencies, to talk about innovations”.Musk said while leaving the Pentagon that he was ready to do “anything that could be helpful”. He also refused to answer questions as to whether he received a classified briefing on China as part of the visit.As a key adviser to Trump and the head of Doge, Musk has exercised broad powers in the two months since Trump returned to the White House, conducting mass layoffs and slashing budgets across the federal government. But while the Pentagon was also in line to be a target for job cuts, Musk has yet to play any role there, including in defense intelligence and military operations.A senior defense official told reporters on Tuesday that roughly 50,000 to 60,000 civilian jobs would be cut in the defense department.Musk’s involvement in any US plans or dealings with China would raise not only security concerns but questions over a significant conflict of interest, as he has considerable economic interests in China as the owner of Tesla and SpaceX, which also has contracts with the US air force.In the early hours of Friday morning, Musk denied the reports that he would be briefed on war with China, calling it “pure propaganda” and threatening to find those who leaked the information.“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information,” he wrote. “They will be found.”Musk repeated his demand for such prosecutions upon arrival at the Department of Defense on the outskirts of Washington DC on Friday morning. He left the Pentagon about 90 minutes after arriving.A Pentagon spokesperson, asked by email to explain the true purpose of Musk’s briefing given administration denials that it would involve putative war plans with China, referred the Guardian to a statement posted on social media by Hegseth.In a Friday meeting at the White House to announce new air force fighter planes, Trump and Hegseth both firmly rejected reports that Musk was shown any Pentagon plans regarding a potential conflict with China during his visit earlier that day.“They made that up because it’s a good story to make up. They’re very dishonest people,” Trump said about the New York Times reporting. “I called up Pete [Hegseth] and I said: ‘Is there any truth to that?’ Absolutely not, he’s there for Doge, not there for China. And if you ever mentioned China, I think he’d walk out of the room.”Hegseth echoed Trump’s notion that the visit was focused on discussing government efficiency initiatives and innovation opportunities, adding that there were “no Chinese war plans”.“We welcomed him today to the Pentagon to talk about [the ‘department of government efficiency’], to talk about efficiencies, to talk about innovations. It was a great informal conversation,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHegseth suggested the reporting was deliberately intended to “undermine whatever relationship the Pentagon has with” the Tesla CEO.However, some military experts have still expressed concern about Musk’s level of access to sensitive information.Wesley Clark, retired general and former Nato supreme commander, told CNN in an interview on Friday afternoon that the administration has been “cutting a lot of corners in a lot of areas”.“It’s no problem giving him a general impression, we do this for contractors, but the conflict of interest – I’m more interested in his interests abroad, he talks to Putin, he has business in China, he has other considerations and those can impact things,” Clark said.“I’m more worried about Elon Musk coming into the Pentagon and saying ‘I’m high tech and I have smart people in Silicon Valley and these generals do not know anything’. You have got to be really careful about jumping on the next shiny object.”According to a New York Times report, the meeting was set to take place not in Hegseth’s office, where informal meetings about innovation would normally take place, but in a secure conference room known as “the Tank”, which is typically used for higher-level meetings. Musk was to be briefed on a plan that contains 20 to 30 slides and details how the US military would fight a conflict with China.Officials who spoke anonymously with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal offered up potential reasons why Musk was receiving the briefing. The Times suggested that Musk, in his Doge capacity, might be looking into trimming the Pentagon’s budget and would need to know what military assets the US would use in a potential conflict with China.One source told the Journal that Musk was receiving the briefing because he asked for one.Though Musk has a “top-secret” clearance within the federal government, lawyers at SpaceX advised him in December not to seek higher levels of security clearances, which would probably be denied due to his foreign ties and personal drug use.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US blocks Canadian access to cross-border library, sparking outcry

      by

      The US has blocked Canadian access to a library straddling the Canada-US border, drawing criticism from a Quebec town where people have long enjoyed easy entry to the space.The Haskell Free Library and Opera House is located between Stanstead, Quebec, and Derby Line, Vermont. It was built deliberately to straddle the frontier between the two countries – a symbol of cooperation and friendship between Canada and the US.The library’s entrance is on the Vermont side. Previously, Canadian visitors were able to enter using the sidewalk and entrance on the American side but were encouraged to bring documentation, according to the library’s website.Inside, a line of electrical tape demarcates the international boundary. About 60% of the building, including the books, is located in Canada. Upstairs, in the opera house, the audience sits in the US while the performers are in Canada.Under the new rules, Canadians will need to go through a formal border crossing before entering the library.“This closure not only compromises Canadian visitors’ access to a historic symbol of cooperation and harmony between the two countries but also weakens the spirit of cross-border collaboration that defines this iconic location,” the town of Stanstead said in a press release on Thursday.US Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to queries posed on Friday.In a statement to Reuters, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the US was responding to drug trafficking.“Drug traffickers and smugglers were exploiting the fact that Canadians could use the US entrance without going through customs. We are ending such exploitation by criminals and protecting Americans,” the statement said.The department provided no evidence of drug trafficking or smuggling and did not immediately respond to a request for additional information.In 2018 a Quebec man named Alexis Vlachos pleaded guilty in a Vermont court to charges relating to a plot to use the library to smuggle backpacks full of handguns into Canada on at least two occasions. He was later sentenced to 51 months in a US prison.Relations between the United States and Canada, longtime allies, have deteriorated since Donald Trump threatened to annex Canada as the 51st state and imposed tariffs.The library is a relic of a time when Americans and Canadians could cross the border with simply a nod and a wave at border agents, residents say. It was the gift of a local family in the early 1900s to serve the nearby Canadian and American communities.A small group of American and Canadian protesters gathered outside on Friday.Peter Welch, a Democratic senator from Vermont, called reports of the closure troubling.“Vermont loves Canada. This shared cultural institution celebrates a partnership between our two nations,” Welch said on X. More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is abandoning democracy and freedom. That creates an opening for Europe – and Britain | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      Thanks to Donald Trump, a vacancy is opening up in the international jobs market. For decades, if not centuries, and always imperfectly, the US offered itself to the world as the guarantor of democracy and the land of the free. Now that it’s pivoting away from that job description, there’s an opportunity for someone else to step in.The evidence that the US is moving, even galloping, away from basic notions of democracy and freedom is piling up. Just because the changes have happened so fast doesn’t make them any less fundamental. We now have a US administration that blithely ignores court rulings, whose officials say out loud “I don’t care what the judges think”. In a matter of weeks, it has become an open question whether the US remains a society governed by the rule of law.In the name of defeating “woke” and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, even historic efforts to advance civil rights are disdained or banished into the memory hole: this week it emerged that an army webpage celebrating Harry Truman’s 1948 order to integrate the military had disappeared, along with several others honouring distinguished Black soldiers. When asked about it, the press secretary at the Pentagon said: “DEI is dead at the defense department.” As for the Department of Education, this week Trump moved to abolish it altogether.But if the US is being upended by the Trump hurricane, so is everywhere else in its path, including those places that once looked to the US with admiration. We can all see the coercion of Ukraine into accepting a supposed peace that will require it to surrender its territory to Vladimir Putin and its minerals to Trump. Less visible is the way in which the scything of the US federal government by Trump and Elon Musk is aiding Putin’s assault on Ukraine’s most vulnerable people – its children.Among the US projects cut is a state department initiative to collect evidence of Russian war crimes, including the abduction of more than 20,000 Ukrainian children, many of them sent to Russia for forced adoption. Now there are fears that that information, which might have helped find the children and eventually reunite them with their parents, has been lost, destroyed by the Musk chainsaw. Captain America thought he was a superhero; turns out he’s the villain’s accomplice.Now it is those contemptuous of democracy who look to the US for inspiration. This week, Benjamin Netanyahu broke a ceasefire he had agreed with Hamas, resuming devastating airstrikes on Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians, in part because he doubtless presumed Trump would give him no grief. But he also sacked the independent-minded head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, the latest move in his ongoing attempt to remove every legal or constitutional constraint on his power. If that reminds you of someone, there’s good reason. “In America and in Israel, when a strong rightwing leader wins an election, the leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people’s will,” Netanyahu tweeted on Wednesday. “They won’t win in either place! We stand strong together.” Trump’s authoritarian power grab is providing cover for others to do the same.This new role for the US, as a beacon of anti-democracy, is having some unintended consequences. Canada was on course to elect a Conservative government; now, by way of a backlash, the Liberals under Mark Carney look set to ride an anti-Trump wave to victory. However it operates, Trumpism is becoming a key determinant of politics the world over.Perhaps especially in Britain. For most of the last century, the US has been Britain’s foremost ally. Put more baldly, London has all but relied on Washington for its own defence. Britain’s military and intelligence systems are intricately integrated with those of the US; its nuclear capability is not operationally independent. These last two months, it has become obvious that that is no longer sustainable: Britain cannot rely on a US that behaves more like an enemy than a friend.That, in turn, creates a new political fact – we are in an age of rearmament – that will be the organising principle of Rachel Reeves’s spring statement next week. It will require either deep cuts or new taxes. Trump has scrambled Britain’s finances.By itself, that represents a monumental change. But it won’t end there. Almost everything we do will need to be rethought. Much of that is cause for alarm – how can Nato function when its mightiest member has become an adversary? – but it also creates opportunities for Britain, if we are only willing to seize them.Take, as just one example, Trump’s war on science. The US has long been the world leader in almost every field of research. But Trump and Musk are slashing or closing one research hub after another, whether at the National Institutes of Health or the Environmental Protection Agency, which could lay off thousands of talented scientists. The administration is threatening academic freedom, forcing US universities to bendto Trumpism or lose funding. This week, a French scientist travelling to the US for a conference was denied entry because, according to the French government, his “phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration’s research policy”. You read that right: the man was subjected to a random check at the airport, US officials went through his laptop and phone, found private messages speaking ill of the president and sent him back home.This is an opening for Britain, which should be promoting itself as a haven for free, unhindered scientific inquiry. The EU has already spotted the chance, and is devising a plan to lure US scholars. But the UK has the advantage of the English language; it should be first in line. Some see the opportunity, but sadly the UK government is not among them: petitioned to reduce upfront visa costs for overseas scientists, which is an average of 17 times higher than for comparable countries, ministers this week said no.But science is only one area where Britain could be taking up the slack. Trump is silencing the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe: the BBC should be given the relatively modest funds required to step in and do the job instead, thereby boosting British soft power at a stroke.The first step is understanding that the world has changed and that the old shibboleths no longer apply. It’s absurd that Britain, home to Europe’s biggest arms industry, is, thanks to Brexit, shut out of the new €150bn (£125bn) EU defence procurement fund, the latest example of how standing apart from its neighbours amounts to reckless folly in the Trump era.What the moment calls for is great boldness. It means Keir Starmer having the courage to tell the country that everything has changed and that we will have to change, too. Yes, that will involve painful sacrifices to pay for rearmament, and the breaking of political taboos, including listening to the majority of Britons who tell pollsters it’s time we rejoined the EU.It adds up to a vision of a Europe that includes Britain, stepping into the space the US is vacating, guaranteeing and promoting free speech and democratic accountability at the very moment the US is abandoning those ideals. Trump has blasted the door open. All we have to do is walk through it.

      On 30 April, join Jonathan Freedland, Kim Darroch, Devika Bhat and Leslie Vinjamuri as they discuss Trump’s presidency on his 100th day in office, live at Conway Hall London, and live streamed globally. You can book tickets here

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats’ US tour gathers support in fight against Trump: ‘Get angry, man’

      by

      A Minnesota veteran who found work at the Veterans Benefits Administration after suffering two traumatic brain injuries on overseas deployments stood in front of hundreds of people and five Democratic state attorneys general on Thursday night and recalled the moment she learned she lost her job.“All I was given was a Post-it note,” Joy Marver said, inspiring gasps and boos from a raucous crowd. “The Post-it note contained just the HR email address and my supervisor’s phone number. This came from an external source. Doge terminated me. No one in my chain of command knew I was being terminated. No one knew. It took two weeks to get my termination email sent to me.”The firing was so demoralizing she said she considered driving her truck off a bridge but instead went into the VA for crisis care.“Don’t fuck with a veteran,” she concluded.The story was one of many shared by former federal workers and others impacted by the Trump administration’s policies during a town hall in St Paul, Minnesota, on Thursday, part of a national tour that has offered an avenue for grievances against Donald Trump’s first two months, but also a way to gather evidence for ongoing lawsuits, totaling about 10 so far, that Democratic attorneys general have filed against the Trump administration.“Everybody’s putting in double duty. But the point is, we’re absolutely up to it. We got four and a half years of gas in our tanks, and we’re here to fight for the American people all the way through,” Ellison told reporters before the event began.The community impact hearings, as they’re calling them, kicked off in Arizona earlier this month and will continue in Oregon, Colorado, Vermont and New York, the attorneys general said. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Kris Mayes of Arizona, Letitia James of New York, Matthew Platkin of New Jersey and Kwame Raoul of Illinois attended the event in Minnesota on Thursday, where the crowd filled a high school auditorium and spilled into an overflow room.Attendees were given the opportunity to take the mic and share their stories.Another veteran who worked at the Veterans Benefit Administration was fired via email by Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency”, she said. She was part of the probationary employee purge, and her supervisors didn’t know she was let go. She recalled that her boss’ response to her firing was: “WTF”.A probationary employee at an unnamed federal agency said she was also let go. She interviewed and did background checks for 11 months to secure her federal role. “Now we are forced to put our plans of starting a family, of owning a home on hold indefinitely, and I feel that this disruption of this dream will be felt for the rest of our lives,” she said.A former employee of 18F, the federal government’s digital services agency, said they were laid off in the middle of the night on a weekend. “I’m grieving. We didn’t deserve this,” they said. A former USAID worker said she watched as Doge moved through the agency, accessing files and threatening employees if they spoke up, before she was fired.After several probationary employees shared their stories, Arizona’s Mayes cut in to ask whether the Trump administration or their agencies had reached out to rehire them. The Democratic attorneys general secured a win in a lawsuit over these firings, and a judge ruled they needed to be reinstated. If that wasn’t happening, Mayes said, they needed to know.“We can bring a motion to enforce,” Ellison explained. “We can bring, perhaps, a motion for contempt. There’s a lot of things. But if we don’t know that, we certainly can’t do anything.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBefore the town hall began, the attorneys general said that they had secured temporary restraining orders halting or reversing Trump administration directives in nearly all of their cases so far. In several instances, they have had to file additional actions to get the administration to comply with the orders. In a case that ended a “pause” on federal grants, for example, the pause was ended – but some programs still were not restarted. James said they had to file a motion to enforce to get those programs running again.Trans people shared how the Trump administration’s disdain for their community was affecting them. A young trans athlete was kicked off her softball team, her mom shared. A trans veteran was worried about her access to life-saving healthcare. Doctors who treat trans youth said their patients are on edge.Immigrants and people from mixed-status families talked about the specter of deportation and how the threat loomed over their day to day. One woman said her mother’s partner was deported, as was her husband’s uncle. She worries daily whether her mom is next. “The Trump administration has impacted me deeply during these past two months alone, but more than ever, we have to come together organized because I’ll be damned if they keep hurting my family,” she said.Suzanne Kelly, the CEO of the Minnesota Council of Churches, said her organization, which helps resettle refugees, is losing $4m in federal funds that would go directly to their clients, an amount that can’t be replaced with local dollars. She has had to lay off 26 employees, most of whom are refugees or asylees themselves. Refugees they were expecting to help are now stranded overseas in refugee camps, she said. People already here will lose rental aid and other assistance.“Whatever your faith tradition, please pray with us for those individuals, and pray with us for this country. We’re better than this,” Kelly said.After two hours of testimony a Minnesota activist stood up and shared their vision of the way forward: “The first step of that call to action is just to get fucking angry, man.” More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

      by

      President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown’s four-year term in office.

      Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military’s top three lawyers – the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

      The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.

      Trump’s actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

      If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

      After the American Revolution, George Washington resigned his military commission and returned to civilian life.
      Herman Bencke via Library of Congress

      Political neutrality from the start

      Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

      Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell’s use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.

      One of Washington’s most significant contributions to the apolitical tradition of the military was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army after the American Revolution officially ended, in 1783. By voluntarily giving up his military power and returning to civilian life, the man who would become the nation’s first president demonstrated his commitment to civilian control of a military grounded in allegiance to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not allegiance to any one party, faction or person.

      Washington’s act set a powerful example for future generations. A few years later, the founders embedded civilian control over the military in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and fund armies, while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the military.

      This check and balance ensures the military remains neutral and subordinate to elected leaders. It also solidifies the allegiance of military leaders to a principled document, not to the ebbs and flows of politics.

      As part of their training, U.S. military members learn about their duty to obey lawful, constitutional orders.
      Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

      Training and response to orders

      Polling consistently shows that the American people trust the military more than any other element of the U.S. government. In part that trust comes from the military’s professional dedication to political neutrality, which includes training its personnel to uphold values like duty, honor and integrity.

      Military members up and down the ranks take their allegiance to the Constitution seriously. At the beginning of their service, at every reenlistment and usually during promotion ceremonies, all military members – officers and enlisted – swear to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted oath also includes a promise to follow the lawful orders of the president and of the officers appointed above them.

      This foundational oath ensures that if members of the military receive orders that they believe are questionable, they will not follow those orders blindly. They are taught throughout their career – during basic training, officer candidate training and in recurring sessions through the years – to seek clarification. If necessary, they are told to challenge those orders through their chain of command, or through attorneys associated with their units, or by contacting their branch’s inspector general.

      Depending on their ranks, military members’ responses to questionable orders can vary. Senior officers, who have extensive experience and higher levels of responsibility, have the authority and the duty to ensure that any orders they follow or pass down are lawful and in line with the Constitution. When evaluating uncertain orders or navigating unclear situations, they often consult with legal advisers, discuss the implications with peers and thoroughly analyze the situation before taking action.

      Junior officers and senior enlisted personnel often find themselves in positions where they must make quick decisions based on the information available to them. While they are trained to follow orders, they are also encouraged to use their judgment and seek guidance when they believe an order to be unlawful – including getting advice from people with direct access to attorneys.

      Junior enlisted personnel, who make up more than 40% of the military force, are also taught the importance of the legality and constitutionality of orders. They have the right to seek clarification if they believe an order is unlawful.

      Even so, their training focuses heavily on discipline and obedience. This can make it challenging for them to question orders, especially in high-pressure situations.

      Members of the U.S. military swear an oath to the Constitution.
      Ethan Miller/Getty Images

      Ultimate responsibility

      The responsibility of scrutinizing orders falls on senior military leaders – admirals and generals, colonels and Navy captains. Junior officers and senior enlisted and junior enlisted personnel rely on their leaders to navigate the complexities of politics and ensure orders they receive are lawful and focused on national defense, not politics.

      If senior military leaders fail in their responsibility, chaos could ensue: Units may end up following conflicting orders or ignoring directives altogether. This can lead to a breakdown in command and control, with some units acting independently or based on politically motivated directives. This would be a dangerous shift, making the military extremely vulnerable to operational failures and enemy attack.

      President Lyndon Johnson, center, and Gen. William Westmoreland visit troops in South Vietnam in 1967.
      AP Photo

      Such a situation has never happened in the history of the U.S. military. But some events have come close to crossing the line. For instance, during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was determined to demonstrate American strength and resolve, famously stating, “I will not lose in Vietnam.” His pressure landed on the shoulders of Gen. William Westmoreland.

      Westmoreland responded by publicizing the numbers of enemy personnel killed in battle, attempting to show that U.S. efforts were reducing the size of opposing forces. But historians have found that this emphasis lacked clear military objectives, meaning troops faced confusion and contradictory orders. The price was a longer war, and more deaths for Americans and for Vietnamese civilians.

      Ultimately, Westmoreland was accused of manipulating enemy troop strength estimates to create an impression of progress – in service of Johnson’s political desire to avoid defeat. His decisions did not directly violate the Constitution or U.S. law, but they exemplify how political pressures can adversely influence military strategies, with devastating consequences.

      Unbiased sources of information

      In addition to senior military leaders’ responsibility to remain apolitical, leaders also have clear responsibilities to the civilians elected and appointed above them.

      For example, the president needs factual and unbiased information about the military’s capabilities from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on their experience and professional opinions. If advisers are hesitant to speak freely about what is and is not possible in any given situation, and about potential consequences both good and bad, the president will miss out on the kinds of critical insights that shape effective strategies.

      The bottom line is that when top military experts give advice and take action influenced by politics, they undermine the centuries-old system of military training and ethics. Some traditions are worth keeping. More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Politics have changed but the Democrats haven’t – they are old and out of touch | Moira Donegan

      by

      Is this the way the Democratic party ends – not with a bang, but with a whimper? Last week, the party’s Senate caucus seemed poised to do something that they had never done before: block the Trump administration’s proposed continuing resolution, and shut down the government. It would have been a largely symbolic move, one that signaled opposition to the Trump administration’s usurpation of Congress’s spending authority and a willingness to play procedural hardball in order to slow Elon Musk’s radical anti-government agenda. It would have signaled, too, a party willing to take itself seriously as the opposition to a president with authoritarian ambitions.Government shutdowns are unpopular, but so, right now, is the Democratic party: several senators from swing states seemed ready to stick their necks out, ready to bet that it would be better to be seen doing something – anything – to oppose the Trump agenda than to roll over yet again. And for a few days, at least, it looked like Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, would back them up.Then he didn’t. Schumer abruptly reversed course on the continuing resolution, vowing to both allow the government funding bill to come to the Senate floor and to vote for it himself. The bill passed.For many, the moment was emblematic of the Democratic leadership’s singular unwillingness to oppose Donald Trump, and their bizarre belief that the Republican party – that cabal of increasingly fascist politicians that has spent the past decade calling their opposition pedophiles, attacking the rule of law and eroding democratic self-government – can be reasoned with, cajoled and brought back to their senses. Weak, ineffectual, unburdened by conscience or principle, unwilling to take their own side in an argument, and preferring to lose with dignity than to win at the risk of offending anyone: in the budget fight, Schumer embodied all of his party’s worst impulses, the ones that have allowed Donald Trump to seize control of American politics and turn our constitutional order to dust.In many ways, Schumer is reading from a 30-year-old playbook, the one that brought Bill Clinton to power in 1992. Clinton, a moderate, tracked to the right, distanced himself from his party on social issues, prized compromise, and touted himself as tough on crime. This formula worked once, and Democratic party conventional wisdom has demanded that the party return to it, over and over again, in spite of changed circumstances and diminishing returns – like the pet dog who continues to lick a greasy spot on the sofa where she once found a piece of dropped cheese. Times have changed since 1992; the people who were infants that year that Clinton’s centrism swept to power are now not only adults, but adults with back pain. There was a moment in the 2024 campaign, after the selection of Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’s running mate, when it looked like the party might finally abandon this old strategy and take on a more aggressive and affirmative tactic; instead, Walz was muffled, and the party leaders are now mistaking the result of their rightward-tacking strategy as a product of the failure to adhere to it faithfully enough. Politics have changed, but the Democrats haven’t: they are old and out of touch, not just in their gerontocratic leadership, but in their worldview. In the New York Times last month, James Carville, a veteran of the 1992 Clinton campaign, advised his party to “roll over and play dead”. But if the Democrats really were dead, would anyone be able to tell the difference?But one Democrat seems to be showing some refreshing signs of life. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young, progressive Democrat from New York, had in recent years seemed eager to show her willingness to cooperate with Democratic leadership, acting as a key vote and public messenger on crucial issues. But her patience with her party seems to have run out. In a CNN interview, she called Schumer’s capitulation to Trump a “tremendous mistake” and a “huge slap in the face” to Democratic voters – and to a major federal workers’ union, which had endorsed a shutdown. “There is a huge sense of betrayal” among voters, she told journalists, at the mainstream Democrats’ unwillingness to fight.The mainstream of the Democratic party has long accused progressives – like Ocasio-Cortez and her mentor, Bernie Sanders – of a kind of moral vanity, a willingness to sacrifice effective governance or policy gains for the sake of personal purity. The shoe is now on the other foot: it is the mainstream Democratic leadership – Schumer and his allies – who now favor decorum over the public interest, personal dignity over principle, a vain hope for a return to the politics of the past over their responsibility to engage with the realities of the present. It is the centrist Democrats, not the progressives, who are living in a delusion, and who are selling out the country in order to maintain it.Schumer may have been a better man for the job in a different era. “Schumer once had a salty, outer-borough pique that did some work to counter Trump,” the writer Sam Adler-Bell wrote in New York Magazine, “but his mien today is weary and distracted.” Now, he seems tired, his red glasses slipping down his nose, his affect exhausted. No wonder he doesn’t want to fight Donald Trump – he doesn’t have much fight left in him at all. After her public break with Schumer, some speculated that Ocasio Cortez might challenge him in a primary for his Senate seat. She should. Schumer comes up for re-election in 2028, at which point he will be nearly 78 years old; Ocasio-Cortez will be 39. Would it even be a fair fight? More

    • 288 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is poised to use terror laws against students. This could be worse than McCarthyism | Thomas Anthony Durkin and Bernard Harcourt

      by

      On Monday, the Department of Justice announced the launch of “Joint Task Force October 7 (JTF 10-7)”. In an accompanying press release, the DoJ said it would bring to justice Hamas leaders who murdered and kidnapped innocent civilians in the deadly attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. Few would quarrel with this ambition. In the same breath, however, the press release claimed that the taskforce would also “investigate acts of terrorism and civil rights violations by individuals and entities providing support and financing to Hamas, related Iran proxies, and their affiliates, as well as acts of antisemitism by these groups”.In plain English, this means the student protesters. It could also include universities and colleges that have entered the government’s crosshairs.The legal risks are real. They are perilous, and they are alarming. Where a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or related organizations such as the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network – is concerned, the line separating political advocacy from material support to terrorism can be razor thin, and any doubt tends to be resolved against those engaged in the political advocacy.FTOs are foreign organizations that the Bureau of Counterterrorism in the US state department designates as terrorist entities under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Once such a designation is made, it becomes unlawful for a US person to knowingly provide that group with “material support or resources”. That phrase is defined broadly in the statute as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service”, which can include “expert advice or assistance”. An aggressive interpretation of “service” and “assistance” may easily break down what were seemingly secure boundaries of free speech.What most people might assume is first amendment-protected speech and advocacy can be misconstrued by the government as assistance or propaganda provided under the direction of an FTO, and thus criminally prosecuted under the material-support-to-terrorism statutes.This is not just a theoretical possibility. Protected speech is often used to show predisposition, motive or intent in material support prosecutions. Such prosecutions have led to serious federal anti-terrorism convictions that result in lengthy sentences. Typically, sentencing guidelines call for 20 years to life in prison. Actual sentences in double-digit years are not uncommon. Even though this questionable legal strategy has been used before, its use against student protesters would be unprecedented and alarming.Legal jeopardy for political advocacy has long existed in this country despite its storied embrace of the first amendment. But the justice department’s new taskforce and threatened antiterrorist prosecutions reach deeper into policing political dissent than anything seen since the McCarthy era. The consequences could be far more draconian than the usual campus risk of a misdemeanor civil-disobedience arrest or student discipline. The threat to the values of free speech and open debate on college campuses could hardly be more consequential.Already, a number of well-funded US lawyers who aggressively support Israel’s war in Gaza have identified ways to prosecute civil claims against student protesters. On behalf of 7 October 2023 victims, these lawyers have filed federal lawsuits in Virginia, Florida, and Illinois that use the material-support statutes to seek damages against several loosely affiliated student-activist organizations that oppose the war. Like the government’s use of these criminal statutes, the civil cases allege that the US student groups have been acting under the direction of Hamas or its affiliates since 7 October 2023, essentially to disseminate Hamas propaganda.The incriminating evidence turns on the dissemination of someone else’s ideas, often by making arguments and using expressions, or distributing flyers that can be traced back to an FTO. In the ongoing detention and deportation of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident, the government accuses him of leading activities “aligned to Hamas” and attending protests at which activists distributed flyers from “the Hamas media office”. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security detained, with the intention to deport, a Georgetown University academic who is an Indian citizen on a visa. The spokesperson for the DHS stated that he was “spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media”. That is precisely how the criminal investigations could proceed: by connecting free speech to propaganda under the direction or control of an FTO.Right now, the United States is allied with Israel, so the most vulnerable are those students protesting the way the state of Israel is conducting its war in Gaza. But that will not always be the case. As evidenced by Donald Trump’s 180-degree pivot against Ukraine and our closest European allies, the situation could change in a heartbeat.All social protest movements occur within larger political contexts. That is especially true of the protests surrounding the Israel-Gaza war, which are taking place not only within the context of an actual ground war in Gaza, but also within the context of larger geopolitical forces, including the ongoing “global war on terror” declared by George W Bush after September 11.In that larger “war on terror”, strategies and emergency powers that have been developed in the international arena have increasingly been deployed domestically and are now coming home to roost with a vengeance on our campuses. Counterinsurgency strategies with fewer constitutional protections for non-citizens abroad are now being repurposed at home.College students should not be forced to shrink from their political beliefs and free speech and advocacy for fear of punitive civil actions, let alone the fear of federal grand jury investigations and the criminal prosecutions threatened by the justice department taskforce. Students arrive at universities at a young age when many of them are passionate about human rights and justice – and rightly so. Some universities and colleges pride themselves on a celebrated history of student protest.It goes without saying that university presidents should be fighting against the assault on the first amendment. But by and large, they have abdicated this responsibility. They must now make it part of their mission to protect students in this new reality. They should not disavow international students who face immigration reprisals, nor take adversarial action against their students to protect only themselves. The least they can do now is work with and counsel their students to help them understand the new threats to their exercise of free speech and enable them to make informed choices and judgments.

      Thomas Anthony Durkin in one of the country’s leading national security lawyers and the co-director of the National Security & Civil Liberties Program at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

      Bernard E Harcourt is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher professor of law at Columbia Law School and a leading death penalty lawyer. He is the author of The Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own Citizens More