US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares173 Views

      in US Politics

      Ted Cruz compares threats to ABC by FCC chair to those of mob boss

      by

      Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, compared Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr’s threats to revoke the broadcast licenses of ABC stations over late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary to “mafioso” tactics similar to those in Goodfellas, the 1990 mobster movie.“Look, Jimmy Kimmel has been canned. He has been suspended indefinitely. I think that it a fantastic thing,” Cruz said at the start of the latest episode of his podcast Verdict with Ted Cruz. There were, however “first amendment implications” of the FCC’s role, the senator, a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for US supreme court chief justice William Rehnquist, added.Cruz, a formerly fierce political rival of Donald Trump turned strong supporter, called Carr’s comments “unbelievably dangerous” and warned that government attempts to police speech could harm conservatives if Democrats return to power.“He threatens explicitly: ‘We’re going to cancel ABC’s license. We’re going to take him off the air so ABC cannot broadcast any more’ … He says: ‘We can do this the easy way, but we can do this the hard way.’ And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” Cruz said.“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz also said. “But let me tell you: if the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said. We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”During an Oval Office event on Friday, when Trump was asked about Cruz’s comments on Carr, the president raised the issue of licenses and suggested stations might be “illegally” using the airwaves to broadcast critical coverage of him in news reports.“When you have networks that give somebody 97% bad publicity,” the president said, “I think that’s dishonesty.”“I think Brendan Carr is a patriot. I think Brendan Carr is a courageous person. I think Brendan Carr doesn’t like to see the airwaves be used illegally and incorrectly,” Trump said. “So I disagree with Ted Cruz on that.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe president’s claim that news coverage on ABC, NBC and CBS was almost entirely negative appears to have been based on a subjective analysis of “the networks’ spin” by NewsBusters, a conservative media watchdog group founded by Trump’s nominee to serve as US ambassador to South Africa, the activist L Brent Bozell III. More

    • 150 Shares193 Views

      in US Politics

      Chinese executive jailed for 25 years in US for trafficking fentanyl chemicals

      by

      A Chinese company executive has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for trafficking in chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, the US justice department has said.Qingzhou Wang, 37, principal executive of Amarvel Biotech, a company based in Wuhan, and Yiyi Chen, 33, the firm’s marketing manager, were convicted in New York in February of fentanyl precusor importation and money laundering.District judge Paul Gardephe sentenced Wang to 25 years in prison on Friday. Chen was sentenced to 15 years in prison on 22 August.“These executives turned a Chinese chemical company into a pipeline of poison, shipping hundreds of kilos of fentanyl-related precursors into the United States, disguising them as everyday goods, and cashing in through cryptocurrency,” Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) chief Terrance Cole said in a statement.Wang and Chen were among eight Chinese nationals and four Chinese companies charged by the justice department in June 2023 with trafficking fentanyl precursor chemicals into the US.It was the first time the United States had charged Chinese companies for trafficking fentanyl precursor chemicals inside the United States, rather than shipping them to Mexico, the origin of most of the fentanyl found in the country.Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more powerful than heroin and much easier and cheaper to produce. It has largely replaced heroin and prescription opioids such as oxycodone as a cause of overdoses in the United States.The June 2023 indictment of the Chinese executives and companies drew protests from Beijing.“It is completely illegal and seriously damages the basic human rights of Chinese citizens and Chinese companies,” the Chinese foreign ministry said at the time. “China strongly condemns this.”Although Mexico has been the main source of fentanyl sold in the United States, Washington has increasingly focused its attention on China-based suppliers of ingredients. More

    • 263 Shares135 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate fails to pass short-term funding bill, with both parties blaming the other for looming government shutdown – US politics live

      by

      The Republican-controlled Senate has failed to pass a short-term funding bill that would prevent a government shutdown at the end of the month.Earlier, continuing resolution (CR) cleared the House, but ultimately stalled in the upper chamber – unable to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster.Democrats remain resolute that they will continue to block any bill if it doesn’t include significant amendments to health care provisions. Today, senator John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, was the lone Democrat to vote for the GOP-drawn CR. While Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined their colleagues across the aisle and voted no.The Trump administration officially announced plans to raise the fee companies pay to sponsor H‑1B workers to $100,000, claiming the move will ensure only highly skilled, irreplaceable workers are brought to the US while protecting American jobs.“I think it’s going to be a fantastic thing, and we’re going to take that money and we’re going to reduce taxes, we’re going to reduce debt,” Trump said.Lutnick criticized the H‑1B visa program, saying it has been “abused” to bring in foreign workers who compete with American employees.“All of the big companies are on board,” Lutnick said.President Donald Trump, along with commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, unveiled a new immigration program called the “Gold Card,” which would create an expedited visa pathway for foreigners who pay $1 million to the US Treasury.If visa holders are sponsored by a corporation, they must pay $2 million.“Essentially, we’re having people come in, people that, in many cases, I guess, are very successful or whatever,” Trump said. “They’re going to spend a lot of money to come in. They’re going to pay, as opposed to walking over the borders.”After a reporter asked President Donald Trump about his thoughts on cancel culture amid surging debates about free speech, the president claimed that networks gave him overwhelmingly negative coverage, citing – without evidence – that more than 90% of stories about him were “bad.”“I think that’s really illegal,” he said.Trump told reporters that the level of negative coverage made his election victory “a miracle” and said that the networks lack credibility with the public.He also repeated a false claim that the Federal Communications Commission licenses US TV networks. While the FCC requires the owners of local television stations, which are often affiliated with national networks that produce programming, to obtain licenses, the FCC states on its website: “We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations that stations have relationships with, such as PBS or NPR.”President Donald Trump scolded House Democrats who voted against a resolution honoring slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.In a 310-58 vote, the resolution passed nine days after a gunman assassinated Kirk while he was speaking to a crowd at Utah Valley University. Several Democrats who opposed the resolution said they condemned Kirk’s murder, as well as political violence, but could not support a figure who used his speech. Many critics have pointed out that Kirk had disparaged Martin Luther King Jr. and called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “huge mistake.”“Just today, the House Democrats voted against condemning the political assassination of Charlie Turk,” the president said during his remarks at the White House today. “Who could vote against that?”President Donald Trump is expected to announce a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, Bloomberg reports, in what marks the administration’s latest move to deter legal immigration.The presidential proclamation is slated to be signed today.Trump aides have previously argued that the H-1B program, designed to bring skilled foreign workers to the US, suppresses wages for Americans and discourages US-born workers from pursuing STEM fields.The additional fee would add to the already costly process to obtain an H-1B visa, which could go from about $1,700 to $4,500. About 85,000 H-1B visas are granted every year. More than half a million people are authorized to work in the US under H-1B visas. While these are temporary, and typically granted for three years, holders can try to extend them, or apply for green cards.Republican senator Ted Cruz compared Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr’s threats to revoke ABC’s broadcast license to “mafioso” tactics similar to those in Goodfellas, the 1990 mobster movie.On his podcast Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican called Carr’s comments “unbelievably dangerous” and warned that government attempts to police speech could ultimately harm conservatives if Democrats return to power.“He threatens explicitly: ‘We’re going to cancel ABC’s license. We’re going to take him off the air so ABC cannot broadcast anymore’… He says: ‘We can do this the easy way, but we can do this the hard way.’ And I got to say, that’s right out of GoodFellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” Cruz said.“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz said. “But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said. We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”The acting inspector general of the department of education, Heidi Semann, said that her office would be launching a probe into the department’s handling of sensitive data.It comes after several Democratic lawmakers, led by senator Elizabeth Warren, wrote to the department’s watchdog – asking her to review the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) “infiltration” of the education department.“Because of the Department’s refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE’s role and influence at ED remains unknown,” the letter states.In response, Semann – whose office serves as an independent entity tasked with rooting out waste, fraud and abuse within the agency – said the following: “Given the sensitive nature of the data it holds, it is crucial that the [education] Department ensures appropriate access to its data systems and maintains effective access controls for system security and privacy protection purposes.”

      On Capitol Hill today, a flurry of action and inaction, after the House passed a stopgap funding bill – written by Republicans to stave off a government shutdown – only for Democrats to reject it in the Senate. In kind, GOP lawmakers blocked a Democratic version of the bill. Funding expires at the end of September, and with congressional lawmakers on recess next week the threat of a shutdown is perilously close.

      In response, legislators from both sides of the aisle have spent the day shirking blame and claiming the other party would be responsible for a shutdown on 1 October. Senate majority leader John Thune said that “Democrats are yielding to the desires of their rabidly leftist base and are attempting to hold government funding hostage to a long list of partisan demands.” While his counterpart, Chuck Schumer said that Republicans “want” the shutdown to happen. “They’re in the majority. They don’t negotiate, they cause the shutdown – plain and simple,” he said.

      Also on the Hill today, a resolution honoring murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, but only after causing considerable consternation among Democrats. All Republicans in attendance voted in favor of the resolution, which describes Kirk as “a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence”. Ninety five Democrats supported the resolution, while 58 opposed it. Several Democrats who opposed the resolution said they condemned Kirk’s murder, and political violence at large, but could not support a figure who used his speech.

      Meanwhile, a federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s $15bn defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over its content. US district judge Steven Merryday said Trump violated a federal procedural rule requiring a short and plain statement of why he deserves relief. He gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint, and reminded the administration it was “not a protected platform to rage against an adversary”.

      The Trump’s administration also asked the supreme court on Friday to intervene in a bid to refuse to issue passports to transgender and non-binary Americans that reflect their gender identities. It’s one of several disputes in regard to an executive order Trump signed after returning to office in January that directs the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes: male and female. A lower court judge had blocked the policy earlier this year, and an appeals court let the judge’s ruling stay in place.

      And on foreign policy, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping “made progress on many very important issues” during their call this morning, according to a Truth Social post from the president. Trump said that the pair discussed “trade, fentanyl, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and the TikTok deal”. The president also said he and Xi would have a face-to-face meeting at the APEC summit in South Korea next month, he would travel to China “in the early part of next year”, and Xi would also come to the US at a later date.
      A top donor to Donald Trump and other Maga Republicans has privately mocked the US president’s longtime position that he has an upper hand in trade negotiations with China, in a sign that even some loyal supporters have been uneasy with the White House strategy.Liz Uihlein, the billionaire businesswoman who co-founded office supply company Uline with her husband, Richard, sent an email to her staff earlier this year that contained a cartoon in which Trump can be seen playing cards with Chinese president Xi Jinping. In the cartoon, Trump claims: “I hold the cards”, to which Xi responds: “The cards are made in China.”The email, seen by the Guardian, appears to have been sent in April by an administrative assistant on Liz Uihlein’s behalf. Uihlein prefaced the cartoon with a short remark: “All – The usual. Liz”.The barb is significant because it was sent by an important political ally to Trump and his movement. Liz and Richard Uihlein were the fourth largest political donors in the presidential election cycle, having given $143m to Republicans, according to Opensecrets, which tracks political giving.A Uline spokesperson said Liz Uihlein had no comment. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.Also on Capitol Hill today, Alex Acosta, the former US attorney for southern Florida who also served as the labor secretary during the first Trump administration, testified before lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee today in a closed-door deposition.Acosta negotiated the deal in 2008 that saw Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty and receive no federal charges for soliciting minors. At the time he served a 13-month prison sentence in a county jail and received various work privileges.Then, in 2019, Epstein was eventually charged with federal sex trafficking crimes, which shone the spotlight back on Acosta – now the labor secretary under Trump – who resigned from his cabinet position.The 2008 plea deal has come up again throughout the Oversight committee’s investigation into the handling of the Epstein case. Democrats on the committee have called it a “sweetheart deal”, and after today’s deposition several of those lawmakers characterised Acosta was “evasive” and “non-credible”.“It’s very difficult to get straightforward answers out of him regarding what happened during this time, what he knew of the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein,” said congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat who sits on the Oversight committee.Earlier today, Republican congressman James Comer said that the committee, which he chairs, has begun receiving documents from the treasury department relating to the Epstein case.“When we met with the victims, and we said, ‘what can we do to expedite this investigation to be able to provide justice for you all?’, they said, ‘follow the money, follow the money’,” Comer told reporters today.A reminder, government funding lapses on 30 September. The Senate isn’t back from recess until 29 September, meaning that any vote to avoid a shutdown would need to happen less than 48 hours before the deadline.In response, congressional Democrats just wrapped a press conference where they said that any blame for a government shutdown lays squarely at the feet of their Republican colleagues.“The bare minimum here is for Republican leadership to simply sit down with Democratic leadership to hammer out a path forward. Now they’re leaving town instead of sitting down with Democrats,” said Democratic senator Patty Murray, who serves as the vice-chair of the Senate appropriations committee.Minority leader Chuck Schumer said today that plans by House lawmakers to not return from recess until 1 October – effectively stymieing Democrat’s hopes of negotiations before government funding expires at the end of this month – was proof that Republicans “want” the shutdown to happen.“They’re in the majority. They don’t negotiate, they cause the shutdown – plain and simple,” Schumer added.Per my last post, on the Senate floor today, majority leader John Thune said he is unlikely to call back lawmakers next week (when Congress is on recess). Instead, he shirked any blame for government funding expiring, and said the“ball is in the Democrats’ court” now.“I can’t stop Democrats from opposing our nonpartisan continuing resolution. If they want to shut down the government, they have the power to do so,” the South Dakota Republican said. “If they think they’re going to gain political points from shutting down the government over a clean, non partisan CR, something they voted for 13 times under the Biden administration, I would strongly urge them to think again.” More

    • 163 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr’s vaccine advisers remove prescription need for Covid vaccine, emphasizing personal choice

      by

      A powerful committee that advises the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy voted on Friday against recommending that people obtain a prescription for a Covid-19 vaccine. However, the panel also voted to recommend that people speak with a clinician before obtaining the shot and that coronavirus vaccinations should be based on “individual-based decision making”.The votes on the recommendations came after hours of impassioned debate that, at times, devolved into confusion and apparent animosity over the committee’s procedures and the safety of vaccines. Healthcare professionals and experts following the committee’s meeting were also left deeply confused about the significance of the committee’s votes and recommendations, and whether they would make it more difficult for people to obtain Covid vaccines.The recommendation over Covid vaccine prescriptions left the panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), sharply divided, as six members voted to adopt it while six voted to reject it. The chair, Martin Kulldorff, broke the tie by voting against the recommendation.Among other votes, the committee also voted to recommend the CDC “engages in an effort to promote more consistent and comprehensive informed consent processes”, including potentially highlighting six “risks and uncertainties” around Covid vaccines. But it offered little guidance on what this wording may look like in practice. It was also not entirely clear what “individual-based decision making” – which the committee also called “shared clinical decision making” – would entail, although the committee wanted the process to be different for patients under 65 and those over 65.The committee’s recommendations can determine which vaccines are provided free of charge through the US government, shape state and local laws around vaccine requirements, and influence which vaccines health insurers tend to cover.Now, the committee’s moves are sure to further complicate the already fragmented landscape of vaccine availability.The vaccine landscape has changed rapidly since Robert F Kennedy, who has long questioned the safety of vaccines, took control of the US Department of Health and Human Services.In August, the Food and Drug Administration approved updated versions of the Covid-19 vaccine only for people who are 65 or older or for people who have a medical condition that renders them high risk. That move unleashed widespread bewilderment over whether young, healthy people can still get vaccinated against Covid.Some pharmacy chains, like CVS and Walgreens, said they would require prescriptions for the vaccine or cease offering them entirely in some states. Other states, including New York, moved to protect access to the vaccine for people who don’t have prescriptions.Kennedy fired the previous iteration of the advisory committee and instead appointed several advisers who have little to no documented expertise with vaccines, or have criticized them heavily. That lack of experience came into focus repeatedly during the committee’s two-day meeting.On Thursday, during the first day of the meeting, the committee voted to recommend that children receive multiple shots to protect against mumps, measles, rubella and varicella – or chicken pox – rather than a single vaccine. But afterward, when asked to vote on whether they would recommend that Vaccines for Children, a US government program that provides free vaccines to low-income children, continue covering the combined MMRV vaccine, many of the members seemed unsure of what Vaccines for Children was.However, they initially voted to maintain Vaccines for Children’s coverage of the combined MMRV vaccine. Then, on Friday morning, the committee voted to reverse that vote and instead eliminate coverage for the combined vaccine.The Friday meeting was punctuated by highly tense outbursts. A microphone caught one member calling another “an idiot”, although it wasn’t clear who was speaking. During one barbed exchange, one member demanded of another: “Show me that study!”At one point, a member took the floor to announce that the discussions at the meeting had demonstrated that “we are not, as a committee, anti-vaxxers”.A planned vote on the hepatitis B vaccine was also tabled after members pointed out inconsistencies in the wording of the vote and suggested that they would prefer to recommend delaying the hepatitis B vaccine until even later in a child’s life. Although voting had begun, the members ultimately decided to postpone the vote until at least their next meeting.Experts who spoke to the committee at the meeting highlighted the members’ tendency to raise hypothetical situations, opinions and anecdotal experiences, rather than focusing on data that demonstrates the safety of Covid vaccines.“Relying on case reports, anecdotes and selected basic science data – is that enough to justify a change in policy or a recommendation that limits an effective vaccine?” said Grant Paulsen, who spoke on behalf of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.“I would encourage the committee to make decisions based on the data rather than theoretical concerns that are raised. Those are certainly valid concerns – I’m not here to dismiss them. Continued monitoring, continuing research is vital, but really should not be a barrier to families looking to access this tool to protect their children.” More

    • 125 Shares185 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats reject spending bill over healthcare cuts as shutdown looms

      by

      The US federal government drew closer to a shutdown on Friday, after Democrats made good on their vow not to support a Republican-backed measure that would extend funding for another two months because it did not include provisions to protect healthcare programs.The GOP-controlled House of Representatives had in the morning approved a bill to extend government funding through 21 November on a near party-line vote, but Democrats swiftly blocked it in the Senate, where most legislation must receive at least some bipartisan support. Republicans, in turn, rejected a Democratic proposal to extend funding through October while preventing cuts to healthcare programs, setting up a standoff that could see federal agencies shutter and workers sent home just nine months into Donald Trump’s term.“Senators will have to choose: to stand with Donald Trump and keep the same lousy status quo and cause the Trump healthcare shutdown, or stand with the American people, protect their healthcare, and keep the government functioning,” the top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, said before the votes.Democrats have seized on the annual government funding negotiations to use as leverage against Trump’s policies and particularly cuts to Medicaid, the healthcare program for poor and disabled Americans, which Republicans approved in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year. They are also demanding an extension of subsidies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans that are set to expire at the end of 2025, after which healthcare costs for millions of Americans are expected to increase.“We don’t work for Donald Trump, we don’t work for JD Vance, we don’t work for Elon Musk, we work for the American people,” Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat, said before the chamber voted. “And that is why we are a hard no on the partisan Republican spending bill because it continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans.”Republicans have backed a “clean” continuing resolution that extends funding without making significant changes to policies. Both parties’ proposals include millions of dollars in new security spending for judges, lawmakers and executive branch officials in response to the conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.The stopgap measures are intended to give congressional appropriators more time to pass the 12 bills that authorize federal spending for the fiscal year.John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader, called the Democratic proposal “fundamentally unserious” in a speech following the House vote.“Instead of working with Republicans to fund the government through a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution, so that we can get back to bipartisan negotiations on appropriations, Democrats are yielding to the desires of their rabidly leftist base and are attempting to hold government funding hostage to a long list of partisan demands,” he said.Under pressure from their base to oppose Trump and still smarting from a disappointing performance in last year’s elections, the spending impasse will pose a major test of Democratic unity across Congress.Maine’s Jared Golden was the only Democrat to vote for the Republican spending bill in the House, while Washington’s Marie Gluesenkamp Perez missed the vote but said she supported it. In the Senate, only Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman voted for the Republican spending bill. All represent states or districts won by Trump last year.Of greater concern to Democrats is whether Schumer, the Senate minority leader, will be able to resist pressure not to allow a shutdown. A similar spending deadlock took place earlier in the year but ended on a sour note for Democrats after Schumer encouraged his colleagues to vote for a Republican bill to keep the government funded, arguing a shutdown would be “devastating”.House Democrats opposed that bill and felt burned by Schumer’s compromise, but are once again counting on the Senate minority leader not to back down.“I think Senator Schumer knows he’s got to hold the line there. We’ll see what this negotiation brings, but this is about fighting for healthcare. That’s an easy one for them to give us,” said the California congressman Ami Bera after the vote.Democrats writ large believe they have leverage they need against a president who opinion polls show is growing unpopular with many voters, even though government shutdowns can bring their own risks for the party that instigates them.“I don’t know how you could be in control of the House, the Senate, the executive, have more votes on the supreme court, and then blame the other party that’s completely not in power. That’ll be a new one,” said the Florida congressman Jared Moskowitz. Asked if he was concerned about Schumer’s resolve to oppose the Republican bill, he replied: “I’m Jewish, I have a lot of anxiety, all the time.”The appropriations process is historically bipartisan, but the progressive Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal warned that even if a spending deal is reached, Republicans have damaged their trust with Democrats by actions like cancelling funding Congress had approved for foreign aid and public media.“We need to make sure that once we approve a budget, that they don’t just go back and do a partisan vote to strip money away or close an agency. So, there’s got to be some provision in there about making and keeping a promise, versus getting us to vote for something, saying that they’re going to do something, and then changing their mind the very next day and passing a partisan rescission package,” she said.There is little time left for Congress to find a compromise. Both chambers are out of session next week for the Rosh Hashanah holiday, and on Friday afternoon, the House’s Republican leaders cancelled two days in session that had been scheduled for the end of September, denying the Democrats the opportunity for another vote on the issue before funding lapses. More

    • 163 Shares107 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes resolution to honor Charlie Kirk in vote that divided Democrats

      by

      The killing of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week has triggered a wave of political disquiet in Washington, with some House Democrats fearing a messaging trap over a Republican resolution to honor him while other lawmakers worry about the broader political temperature following government pressure on broadcasters.Democrats ultimately decided to side with the Republicans to pass the resolution, with 95 Democrats in support. Fifty-eight Democrats opposed it, 38 voted present and 22 did not vote.The five-page resolution, introduced by the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and co-sponsored by 165 House Republicans but no Democrats, praises Kirk as a “courageous American patriot” who sought to “elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic”.The House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, had told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday morning that leadership would vote for the resolution, but his team was not whipping the vote, leaving lawmakers to decide for themselves, multiple people present told Axios.Several Democrats who opposed the resolution said they condemned his murder, but could not support his speech.“I cannot vote yes on this resolution because it grossly misrepresents Charlie Kirk’s methods, views and beliefs while citing Christian nationalist language. I will always condemn heinous acts of violence, but this resolution ignores the false and hateful rhetoric that was too often present in his debates,” said Colorado’s Diana DeGette, who voted present.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who voted no, said in a statement: “We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.”But Maryland’s Jamie Raskin said he voted yes on the measure because it “repeatedly condemns all political violence, extremism and hatred in unequivocal terms”, while adding: “We should overlook whatever surplus verbiage is contained in this Resolution designed to make the vote difficult for Democrats. We cannot fall for that obvious political trap and should rise above it.” The measure calls Kirk’s shooting “a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society”.The internal Democratic tensions reflect broader concerns about political polarization following Kirk’s killing on 10 September at Utah Valley University.The struggle has extended beyond infighting on Capitol Hill, as the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, has now been criticized by a handful of Republicans after he pressured ABC to suspend the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments about Kirk’s killing.“We all should be very cautious,” Jerry Moran, a Republican senator from Kansas, told Politico. “The conservative position is free speech is free speech, and we better be very careful about any lines we cross in diminishing free speech.”The House energy and commerce chair, Brett Guthrie, whose committee oversees the FCC, said on Thursday: “Just because I don’t agree with what someone says, we need to be very careful. We have to be extremely cautious to try to use government to influence what people say.”However, more than a dozen Republicans told Politico they were not concerned by Carr’s intervention, largely framing Kimmel’s suspension as a business decision rather than government coercion.Donald Trump, while at a state visit and press conference in London with the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, blamed the Kimmel suspension on an exaggerated claim of supposedly bad ratings while simultaneously admitting the Kirk issue played a role.“Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else,” Trump said. “And he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk.”Eleven Democrats in the Senate, including the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said they were “outraged” by Carr’s comments, and demanded answers by 25 September, telling the FCC chair in a letter: “This is precisely what government censorship looks like.”Democratic leaders in the House took it a step further and demanded Carr’s resignation, accusing him of “corrupt abuse of power” in forcing ABC to suspend Kimmel’s late-night show through regulatory threats. They warned that House Democrats would “make sure the American people learn the truth, even if that requires the relentless unleashing of congressional subpoena power”. More

    • 275 Shares195 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump has dragged the US to the abyss and Nigel Farage would do the same to Britain. Here’s how to stop him

      by

      The march towards the darkness is becoming a sprint. In the US, warnings about the autocratic ambitions of Donald Trump that were once dismissed as hyperbole and hysteria now seem, if anything, too mild. Faster than most imagined, he has moved to weaken institutional checks on his power – whether the courts, the universities, the civil service or the press – and now has set to work gagging his critics, even, it seems, to outlaw large swathes of the opposition.This week saw the suspension by a major broadcasting network, Disney-owned ABC, of a late-night talkshow, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, following remarks Kimmel had made about the killing of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel did not criticise Kirk himself – an act now considered all but blasphemous in the US – but rather Republicans’ reaction to his murder, especially their eagerness to “score political points from it”.That was enough to prompt Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission – the body that grants, or revokes, licences to broadcast – to come on like a wannabe Tony Soprano, all but cracking his knuckles as he said: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” The threat worked: Kimmel is off the air.Of course, this is no one-off. Trump is also trying to cow the US’s biggest newspaper, filing a $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times, accusing it of “spreading false and defamatory content”. The NYT has the resources to resist, but smaller US papers will have got the message. They could hardly be blamed if they now pull their journalistic punches, if only because they do not have the money to pay for a protracted legal battle against a billionaire president.But the Trump administration is not confining its assault to the media. The Kirk killing has handed it an opportunity to crack down on dissent itself. Witness the promise Trump aide Stephen Miller made this week – on the Charlie Kirk podcast – to take on those left-of-centre organisations whose “messaging” is “designed to trigger and incite violence”. It is hardly a stretch to assume that Miller will define that category very broadly, so that it sweeps up most of those who express opposition to Trump. If that seems alarmist, recall that, even before Kirk was killed, Miller was calling the Democratic party a “domestic extremist organisation”.View image in fullscreenIn the UK, we like to think we can watch all this with, if not smug distance, then a measure of relief. It’s true that we are a long way from the precipice to which Trump has taken the US. But last week between 110,000 and 150,000 Britons took to the streets of London, heeding the summons of the rightwing agitator and serial convict who goes by the name of Tommy Robinson.It’s worth stressing that this was not a Reform or Conservative rally that was hijacked by Robinson. This was his event. Britons know who Robinson is and what he represents – and yet up to 150,000 of them marched behind him. They were undeterred by those who had labelled it a far-right protest and, indeed, by the racist rhetoric that came from the platform. Britain has an admirable history of confining the far right to the margins, ensuring that it had not, until now, demonstrated this kind of strength in numbers. So last Saturday should be understood as a watershed.Not least because of one speech in particular. Elon Musk, via video link, told the crowd “violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.” He added that the Labour government, democratically elected a year ago, needed to be brought down. This was one of the most powerful men in the world issuing a call that may not have broken the law but which seemed to give approval in advance for rightwing political violence in Britain.And yet the British prime minister did not rush to condemn this incendiary intrusion into our politics. Indeed, Downing Street said nothing at all until prompted by reporters’ questions, and MPs’ demands, the following day. We often fault those guilty of overreaction. But, at a moment like this, underreaction is the greater sin.The polls are telling a very stark story. Absent a dramatic shift, a party of nationalist populism is on course to beat both Labour and the Conservatives at the next election, and very probably form the next government. Nigel Farage may be no fan of Tommy Robinson, but he is Trump’s loudest UK cheerleader; he does not condemn the current US gallop towards authoritarianism but rather stands alongside those responsible for it. If we want to prevent Farage doing to Britain what Trump is doing to the US, we need to halt the advance of Reform.The first move in that effort is to puncture Farage’s core claim: that he somehow speaks for the British people, that his views reflect the “commonsense” views of the silent majority. It’s not true. On issue after issue, including those that define him, Farage is an outlier, articulating the positions of a noisy but often small minority.He was the chief advocate of Brexit, a decision so calamitous that only 31% now say it was the right move. Indeed, a healthy majority, 56%, favour its reversal and want to rejoin the EU. Farage is on the wrong side of that number.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe has long banged the drum for leaving the European convention on human rights. If you read the rightwing papers, you would assume that is now a majority view. Wrong. Support for staying in the ECHR is close to 60% and has actually increased as the subject has been debated. Farage is out of step with the British people.But surely on the issue he has made his own, immigration, he is in tune with the public? After all, Labour seems to have built its entire political strategy on that assumption. And yet, the numbers tell a different story. While 81% of Reform voters believe migrants have undermined Britain’s culture, only 31% of Britons in general believe that. Ask about the effect of migrants on the economy and you get a similar picture. It’s Reform that is badly out of touch.You can keep doing this – and Labour must, pointing out that Farage speaks for the fringes not the centre. Britons don’t support handing Afghan refugees back to the Taliban, as Farage advocates. They do not agree that Britain has become North Korea – and they don’t regard as a patriot someone who sits in Washington and tells a committee of American politicians that we have. They don’t reply to the question, “Which world leader do you most admire?”, with the words “Vladimir Putin”, as Farage did. And nor do they think that the Liz Truss measures that sent the UK economy spiralling represented “the best Conservative budget since 1986”, to quote Nigel Farage.Reform’s opponents need to expose every one of these gaps between Farage and the electorate, recasting Farage as a figure of the fringes. But this can’t be a task for Labour or the Liberal Democrats alone. Any party that claims to value democracy, including what remains of the Conservatives, and that sees how swiftly nationalist populism leads to authoritarianism, needs to engage in the same effort and fast. We all do. As Americans are learning to their cost, you cannot delay – otherwise the freedoms you thought would last for ever can vanish, in the blink of an eye.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist. His new nonfiction book, The Traitors Circle: The Rebels Against the Nazis and the Spy Who Betrayed Them (£25), is available from the Guardian Bookshop at £22 More

    • 113 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas A&M University president resigns after ‘gender ideology’ controversy

      by

      The president of Texas A&M University’s main campus is stepping down less than two weeks after a student’s viral complaint about “gender ideology” in the classroom set off a chain of repercussions, including the firing of the teacher as well as the dismissal of a dean and department chair.Mark A Welsh III, a retired air force four-star general, has been leading the university since 2022. His career before higher education included time as a fighter pilot, service on the joint chiefs of staff, work as the CIA’s associate director for military affairs, a term as commandant of cadets at the Air Force Academy, and a stint as dean of the Bush School of Government & Public Service at Texas A&M.“President Welsh is a man of honor who has led Texas A&M with selfless dedication,” the university’s chancellor, Glenn Hegar, said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and contributions. At the same time, we agree that now is the right moment to make a change and to position Texas A&M for continued excellence in the years ahead.”Welsh has not offered a specific reason for why he is leaving his position or clarified whether it is a result of the viral incident, instead simply saying: “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time” to step down, in a Friday statement.Welsh became president following the 2023 departure of Margaret Katherine Banks, who left amid uproar over the mishandled hiring of a journalism professor, Kathleen McElroy. That controversy drew fire from Texas Republicans because of McElroy’s ties to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which are now prohibited in the state.According to the Thursday evening announcement, Welsh’s resignation will take effect on Friday.“Today, President Welsh has submitted his resignation, and both the Board of Regents and I agree that this is the right moment for change,” Hegar said in a post on X.Brian Harrison, a Republican state representative who circulated the viral footage and pressed for Welsh’s removal, applauded the outcome.“As the first elected official to call for him to be fired, this news is welcome, although overdue,” Harrison wrote on X. “Now… END ALL DEI AND LGBTQ INDOCTRINATION IN TEXAS!!”The video clip at the center of the controversy, which Harrison shared on 8 September, was originally filmed in July during a children’s literature course. The student who spoke out, whose identity Harrison withheld at their request, and the instructor, Melissa McCoul, are not visible in the footage.In another recording Harrison shared on social media, the same student can be heard speaking with Welsh. She asks Welsh if he approves of LGBTQ+ content being taught at Texas A&M, to which Welsh replies that the courses are typically for students entering fields such as psychiatry, counseling, education and non-profit work.“Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are, what citizens they serve, and they want to understand the issues affecting the people they’re going to treat,” Welsh tells the student. “So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, had threatened to fire Welsh in January after the university’s business school invited advanced PhD students and faculty to a conference designed to recruit Black, Hispanic and Indigenous graduate students.Though Abbott cannot fire university presidents, he appoints the members of the Texas A&M University System board of regents, who do have that authority. Following the threat, Welsh said Texas A&M would pull out of the conference completely. More