US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares42 Views

      in US Politics

      Mocktails for Maga: why the US right is turning sober

      by

      Butterworth’s, an eclectically decorated restaurant in Washington DC, is an unofficial lounge of the Maga elite. A nameplate on one table declares it the official “nook” of Raheem Kassam, the former adviser to the rightwing British politician Nigel Farage and a co-owner of the restaurant. Steve Bannon is also frequently sighted holding court over Carolina gold rice – though the signature dish is bone-marrow escargot, which some young Maga politicos swear is good for your collagen.When he opened the farm-to-table brasserie in 2024, Bart Hutchins, Butterworth’s chef and one of its partners, was determined to resist what he sees as “the new puritanism” of wellness and sobriety culture. Hutchins finds non-alcoholic “mocktails” annoying on principle. “I did this edict, where I was like, ‘I’m not stocking that stuff,’” he said. “If you want to drink a glass of juice, just ask for a glass of juice; I’m not gonna pretend it’s a cocktail.”Hutchins has never felt teetotalism’s temptation, he told me, and his memory of drinks marketed as alcohol alternatives, like the near-beer O’Doul’s, was that they were “terrible”. But lately, as more Republican staffers, pundits and politicians patronize Butterworth’s antler-bedecked environs, a fifth column of non-drinkers has quietly undermined his anti-mocktail edict.It’s not just at Butterworth’s where rightwingers are drinking less. A Gallup poll in August found that the share of Americans of any political stripe who say they consume alcohol is at its lowest in nearly 90 years – though by only one percentage point. More strikingly, Republicans are the group, of the many demographic cohorts measured, that has turned most aggressively to sobriety.Gallup, which has asked Americans about their alcohol use since the 1930s, found in 2023 that 65% of Republicans said they drink alcohol – about the same as Democrats and independents. Just two years later, in 2025, that number has plunged a staggering 19 points to 46%. Democrats and independents also report drinking less, but each only by single digits. (All the results are self-reported; Gallup took participants at their word.)The decline is surprising and “statistically significant”, Lydia Saad, the director of US social research at Gallup, told me – though she has “no real hypothesis” for the sudden rise of Republican teetotalism.View image in fullscreenLaurence Whyatt, an analyst at Barclays who covers the beverage industry, “can’t explain it” either. He suspects the broader US decline in drinking may have to do with pandemic-era inflation and belt-tightening and may not last. “But there’s no obvious reason why Republicans would be drinking less,” he said. “Of course, I’m aware that some prominent Republicans don’t drink. Could that be the reason?”Yet theories abound. Perhaps this is another manifestation of the cult of personality around Donald Trump, a Diet Coke enthusiast. Maybe the rising tide of Christian nationalism has revived an old-fashioned Protestant temperance. Or perhaps red-blooded rightwingers, eager to “Make America healthy again”, are eschewing beer, barbecues and bourbon to become the sort of smoothie-drinking health nuts they might once have mocked.Prominent rightwing or right-adjacent abstainers include Trump himself, whose older brother died of alcoholism-related heart attack; Robert F Kennedy Jr (who has spoken about his own substance problems); Tucker Carlson (a recovering alcoholic); and the activist Charlie Kirk (for health reasons). JD Vance drinks, but his predecessor Mike Pence, a devout born-again Christian, did not. Joe Rogan, the podcaster and gym-bro whisperer who endorsed Trump in 2024, quit drinking this year for health reasons.“None of my core team [of colleagues] under 30 drinks,” Bannon, who hosts the podcast War Room, said in a text message.The War Room’s 24-year-old White House correspondent, Natalie Winters, does not drink for health reasons – nor wear perfume, consume seed oils or drink fluoridated tap water. Earlier this year a friend of hers told the Times of London that elective sobriety had become common and accepted in rightwing political circles. “Here you don’t second-guess,” the friend said. “In London if someone isn’t drinking, you think they have an alcohol problem. Here it’s either that, or they’re Mormon, or because they’re focused on health.”Carlson, speaking to me by phone as he returned from grouse hunting with his dogs, said he had noticed that young conservatives, particularly men, were far more health-conscious than they once were. When he came up as a journalist, he said, the milieu was awash in booze and cigarette smoke. “I’m just from a different world. When I was 25, the health question was ‘filter or non-filter?’” he said. “And I always went with non-filter.”Carlson quit drinking in 2002, after a spiral whose nadir saw him having two double screwdrivers for breakfast. He said he was surprised – but happy – to see people today, even those who are not problem drinkers, quitting or moderating their consumption. The Athletic Brewing Company’s alcohol-free beers are popular, he has noticed, and not just among “sad rehab cases like me. I think it’s normal young people.”Carlson – who has recently offered a range of unorthodox health advice including using nicotine to improve focus and testicle tanning to improve testosterone levels – says political professionals and journalists today also inhabit a 24/7 news cycle in which “there’s just, substantively, a lot more going on; the world is reshaping in front of our eyes,” he said. “I think there’s an incentive to pay attention in a way that there wasn’t before. It’s just kind of hard to imagine spending three hours away from your phone – or three hours, like, getting loaded midday.”View image in fullscreenHutchins, Butterworth’s chef, noticed when diners, including those he considered “reasonable people, and not insufferable”, kept asking for non-alcoholic options. The restaurant was gradually “brought over to the dark side”, he said, ruefully. He tested a few zero-proof drinks that he deemed respectable enough to serve beside marrow without shame.Many patrons still drink enthusiastically, and by 10pm most nights the atmosphere is “pretty bacchanalian”, he said. But Butterworth’s now offers a pre-packaged alcohol-free Negroni, verjus (a wine alternative made from unripe grapes) and non-alcoholic Guinness (“super popular”, Hutchins said).Changing health attitudes are probably a factor in the broader decline in US alcohol consumption. Recent research has cast doubt on the idea that even moderate drinking is an acceptable health risk. In January, the US surgeon general suggested that alcohol bottles should carry warnings that drinking can contribute to cancer.Malcolm Purinton, a beer historian at Northeastern University, noted that many young people learned adult socialization during Covid lockdowns, meaning their relationship with alcohol may differ from that of their parents or older siblings. People turning 21, the legal drinking age, do not necessarily see drinking as cool.“There’s always some form of rebellion between generations,” he said. Thanks to the cruel march of time, for instance, craft beer – which millennials once embraced as a sophisticated alternative to their fathers’ Miller Lites – is now itself a “dad drink”.Yet none of this explains the dramatic shift among Republicans. Nor does it explain another odd anomaly: the same Gallup poll found that Republicans, despite reporting drinking less than other groups, were less likely than Democrats or independents to say they viewed moderate drinking as dangerous.Some observers suggest the shift may have more to do with who now identifies as Republican. “Republicans made a big push in toss-up states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania in 2024 to register more Republicans, especially among far-right Christians, Mormons and Amish,” Mark Will-Weber, the author of a book on US presidents’ drinking habits, told the Financial Times in August. “These religious groups abstain from alcohol.”Saad is not sure. Republican respondents report drinking less regardless of other factors such as religiosity, she noted. “We’re not seeing anything that would tell us, you know, ‘It’s religious Republicans,’ ‘It’s pro-Trump Republicans,’ ‘It’s Republicans paying attention to the news.’ It’s really across the board.”It’s also difficult to determine the ideological correlation with sobriety. Although rightwing parties have gained ground in many other countries in recent years, Whyatt said, those places have not typically seen the same “aggressive decline in consumption”. The phenomenon seems specific to conservative Americans.The best guess may be that Republicans have turned against alcohol for the same economic and health reasons that Americans in general have – but amplified by “Make America healthy again” politics (with its hostility to vaccines and chemicals, and its faint granola paranoia) and a self-help podcast culture popular on the right that extols wellness, discipline, and treating your body like a temple.Months before his death, Charlie Kirk spoke on his podcast about the reasons he had quit drinking. He said he had done so “four or five” years earlier to improve his sleep and general health. Sobriety was “becoming trendier”, he argued, listing Trump, Carlson, Elon Musk and the Christian pundit Dennis Prager among prominent conservatives who don’t drink – or, in Musk’s case, don’t often.“The top-performing people I’ve ever been around,” Kirk said, “are very against alcohol, against substances. They’ll tell you they perform better, think clearer, have better memory, better recall, more energy, more pace. And I [also] find that some of the people who drink the most, they’re hiding something, they’re masking something.”Most experts acknowledged that it is too soon to tell whether this new sobriety will stick. “You can tie yourself in knots trying to solve those puzzles,” said Saad, the Gallup pollster. “We’re going to just have to wait and see if this holds up next year … maybe by then we’ll see other groups catch up.”Hutchins said Butterworth’s will continue to cater to drinkers and non-drinkers, just as it caters to diners of all political persuasions. But one group of patrons, he added, seems particularly unsettled by the sight of conservatives – or anyone – succumbing to the vice of sobriety.“We have a lot of British clientele, for some reason,” he said. “As soon as some new [British] journalist or diplomat type moves to DC, they come here. And they all say: ‘Nobody drinks here. Nobody even has martinis at lunch. What is happening in this country?’” More

    • 213 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘You cannot undo a wrongful execution’: push to halt killing of Texas man in ‘shaken baby’ case

      by

      At 6pm next Thursday, barring a last-minute reprieve, Robert Roberson will become the first person in America to be executed under the theory of “shaken baby syndrome”, a medical diagnosis from the 1970s that is so disputed it is now widely denounced as junk science.Roberson, 58, will enter the death chamber at the Huntsville unit in Texas, where he will be strapped to a gurney and injected with a cocktail of lethal drugs. He will be put to death having been convicted of shaking to death his two-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis in 2002.A coalition of advocates is calling for the execution to be called off, arguing Roberson is innocent of a crime that never even happened. They include several people exonerated from shaken baby syndrome convictions; more than 80 bipartisan Texas lawmakers; the lead detective in Roberson’s original investigation; and members of his trial jury.Roberson’s lawyer, Gretchen Sween, told the Guardian that not only was her client’s life in the balance – so too was justice. “If Robert is executed next week, with all that is known about the profound due-process problems on top of his actual innocence, then Texas would have no legitimate justice system.”She added: “How could you have confidence in a system that cannot fix a case like this, where the science has been so thoroughly discredited?”A year ago, Roberson came within two hours of dying by lethal injection and was only saved by a frenzied late-night intervention by Texas legislators. In an interview with the Guardian from death row shortly before that execution date, he denied having shaken his daughter.“I don’t know what happened to her,” he said. “I wouldn’t want that to be on nobody: to lose a child, especially if you tried to do right and you loved her and tried to get to know her, then to be accused.”Now Sween and Roberson’s legal team are scrambling yet again to prevent him becoming a statistic – as the first person on death row to be judicially killed on the back of disputed shaken baby syndrome.Last week his defense team petitioned the US fifth circuit court of appeals requesting a federal review of new evidence that points to an alternative explanation for Nikki’s death. The petition includes expert testimony from 10 medical pathologists who question the findings of Nikki’s 2002 autopsy.The experts conclude that the child’s brain swelling was not caused by violent shaking, but was the result of serious infection. Nikki had undiagnosed pneumonia at the time she slumped into a coma, according to the experts, exacerbated by improper prescription of dangerous medicines and a short fall from the bed in which she was sleeping.The petition also highlights that a few years ago Roberson was found to have autism, a condition which had gone undiagnosed at the time of his daughter’s death. His lawyers argue that this helps explain how flat and unemotional he appeared when he brought the dying girl into hospital, a demeanor that was used against him at trial as evidence of guilt.A separate petition has been pending for eight months at the state’s top criminal court, the Texas court of criminal appeals. The 163-page document filed by Roberson’s lawyers in February argues that science behind shaken baby syndrome had been so undermined by new evidence that today “no rational juror would find Roberson guilty of capital murder”.A decision from the court is expected any day.Last year, the same criminal appeals court overturned the 35-year sentence of Andrew Roark, who had been found guilty of injuring his girlfriend’s 13-month-old child in 1997. The judges found that key scientific testimony at Roark’s trial had been unreliable, and concluded that if it were presented to a jury today it would “likely yield an acquittal”.There are glaring similarities between the Roark case and Roberson’s conviction. Both men became the subject of shaken baby syndrome accusations on the back of a diagnosis from the same child abuse specialist, Janet Squires, delivered from the same hospital.“The similarities between the cases are overwhelming,” Sween said.The attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, continues to stand by Roberson’s death sentence, describing the efforts of the condemned man’s supporters as “11th-hour, one-sided, extra­ju­di­cial stunts that attempt to obscure facts and rewrite his past”.In an unusual move, Paxton secured next week’s execution date while the prisoner’s petition was still pending before the appeals court.Some of Nikki’s other family members are also pressing for the execution to go ahead.Shaken baby syndrome (SBS), which often now goes under the name “abusive head trauma”, was developed in the early 1970s to diagnose children who became severely ill or died from internal brain injuries without necessarily showing outward signs of harm. One of its earliest proponents was the British pediatric neurosurgeon Norman Guthkelch.View image in fullscreenBy the 1980s the theory had hardened into the presumption that a triad of symptoms in children under two years old conclusively indicated abusive shaking. If those three symptoms were indicated – brain swelling, bleeding between the tissues covering the brain, and bleeding behind the eyes – then a crime must have been committed.In the past 15 years medical understanding has grown. It is now widely recognised that other factors can lie behind such brain injuries, including underlying conditions, infections, and even relatively short falls.Studies have also shown that it is physically unlikely that severe brain trauma is caused by shaking alone, without there also being visible injuries to the spine or skull. In Roberson’s case, Nikki displayed no such injuries.Guthkelch himself warned in 2012 that the three symptoms he had identified should not be taken as categoric signs of abuse. “There was not a vestige of proof when the name was suggested that shaking, and nothing else, causes the triad,” he said.In 2023 a group of global experts drawn from many disciplines including pediatrics, pathology, ophthalmology, neurology, physics and biomechanics reviewed the literature on SBS. Their work was published as a book, Shaken Baby Syndrome: Investigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy.The book’s co-editor, Keith Findley, said that “we consistently reached the conclusion that the scientific underpinnings for shaken baby syndrome are just not there. This is not to deny that abuse happens. It’s to say that medical findings alone simply cannot be a reliable basis for diagnosing child abuse.”Findley, who is founder of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, said: “It is absolutely horrifying to think we are days away from killing a man based on scientific assertions that are known to be wrong”.As medical doubts have grown about the reliability of an SBS diagnosis, so too have concerns about its application in criminal cases. Since 1989, 39 parents and caregivers have been exonerated in the US having been convicted largely on the grounds of a faulty SBS hypothesis, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.Two of those exonerations were in Texas, including Roark’s last November.Josh Burns, 49, is an SBS exoneree. In 2014, when he was working as a Delta Air Lines pilot and living in Michigan, his daughter Naomi suffered a bout of vomiting and he was accused of having harmed her by violent shaking.The girl was taken into foster care, and he was convicted of child abuse and spent a year in jail. It took him 10 years to clear his name.An investigation by the state’s conviction integrity unit last year concluded there had been no reliable evidence of harm. Naomi’s symptoms could be explained by dehydration caused by a stomach bug.Burns and his family paid a devastating price for his wrongful conviction. He lost his job as a pilot, and his family was forced to move out of Michigan – ironically, they ended up in Texas, where Roberson is now scheduled to be executed.“I know how gut-wrenching and soul-crushing it is to be accused of harming the person that you love the most,” Burns told the Guardian. He has joined other SBS exonerees to campaign for a reprieve for Roberson, viscerally aware that there is a critical difference between his plight and Roberson’s.“You can undo a wrongful conviction like mine,” he said. “But you cannot undo a wrongful execution.”Audrey Edmunds, 64, has also joined the campaign to save Roberson. She was babysitting a neighbor’s child, Natalie, in Wisconsin in 1995 when the girl fell ill and died.She was convicted a year later of first-degree reckless homicide under the SBS hypothesis. At trial key facts, including that Natalie had visited the doctor 24 times in the 27 weeks before her death, were glossed over.Edmunds served 11 years of an 18-year sentence, before the forensic pathologist in her case recanted his own testimony having taken on board changes in scientific understanding. In 2008 she was released and all charges against her dismissed.“Mr Roberson should never have been put on death row,” Edmunds said. “Executing him would be a crime. He has been through more than enough.”She said that she saw strong parallels between her case and Roberson’s. “They checked into junk science. They went down a one-way road, and didn’t look at all the other factors.”Texas was the first state in the country to allow prisoners to challenge their sentences on grounds of junk science. Since its inception in 2013, the so-called “junk science writ” has been taken up by about 70 death row prisoners.None of their challenges have been successful. More

    • 175 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The stakes are quite large’: US supreme court case could gut Voting Rights Act

      by

      The US supreme court is set to hear a case this month that could gut what remains of the Voting Rights Act, effectively killing one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement and the nation’s most powerful statute to prevent discrimination in voting.The court’s decision in the case, Louisiana v Callais, could be one of the most consequential rulings for the Voting Rights Act since it was enacted in 1965 and is almost certainly the biggest test for the law since its decision in Shelby county v Holder in 2013, when the justices hollowed out a provision of the law, section five, that required certain places to get voting changes approved by the federal government before they go into effect.The supreme court is considering the constitutionality of the most powerful remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act: section two. The measure outlaws election practices that are racially discriminatory and has been the tool that minority voters and voting rights advocates have frequently turned to challenge redistricting plans – from congressional districts to county commissions and school boards – that group voters in such a way to dilute the political influence of a minority group.Getting rid of section two, or severely limiting the ways in which it can be applied, would effectively kill the Voting Rights Act. It would take away the most powerful tool voters have to challenge racially discriminatory districts.“The stakes are potentially quite large,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the voting rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “The outcome of the case will not only determine the next steps for Louisiana’s congressional map, but may also shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide.”The dispute at the court is focused on a challenge by white voters to a majority-Black district in Louisiana that stretches from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. The justices already heard oral argument in the case in March that focused on whether Louisiana Republicans had overly relied on race when they redrew the district in response to a Section 2 lawsuit by Black voters. In an unusual move, the court did not reach a decision at the end of the court’s term this summer, and instead set the case for re-argument this fall.The justices announced in August they wanted the parties to submit briefing on whether Louisiana’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments to the US constitution”. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of law for all US citizens and the 15th amendment prohibits the government from denying someone the right to vote based on their race.The question raised the stakes of the case at the court, giving opponents of the law a chance to argue that the landmark civil rights statute should either be significantly narrowed or struck down entirely.“The challengers and the state do not limit themselves to whether conditions in Louisiana continue to justify application of the Voting Rights Act there,” said Stuart Naifeh, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing voters defending the existing map. “They have attempted to expand the question beyond what the court has asked. And they argue that section two is not constitutional at all, anywhere.”There are many possibilities for how the court could rule. The justices could beat back those arguments and affirm the constitutionality of section two. The court could also say once and for all that the provision is unconstitutional, dealing a fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act. It could also rule somewhere in between, leaving section two intact, but make the test to deploy it much harder, in effect neutering it.“The two key pillars, at least since 1982, were section two and section five,” said Richard Hasen, an election law scholar at the University of California Los Angeles. “Shelby county already knocked down one of those pillars, and this case could potentially either knock it down or render it so weak that you might as well say it’s been knocked down.” He added that weakening but not killing section two might “potentially avoid some of the political cost”.The case arrives at the court after many of the court’s conservative justices have openly expressed skepticism about the continued need for section two. “The authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2023 concurring opinion, a remark that was widely seen as an ominous sign for section two. Justice Clarence Thomas has long publicly said he thinks the statute is unconstitutional when it comes to redistricting.Congress amended section two in 1982 to clarify that it outlawed practices that resulted in discriminations – one did not need to prove intent. Working as an attorney in the justice department, John Roberts advocated strongly against those amendments.The consequences of gutting section two would be drastic, Lakin and other attorneys representing Black voters defending Louisiana’s current map wrote in a brief to the justices.“Without section two, jurisdictions could simply eliminate minority opportunity districts even where they remain necessary for voters of color to have any opportunity to elect candidates of choice, wiping out minority representation and re-segregating legislatures, city councils, and school boards – as some have recently attempted to do,” they wrote. “Districts based in obvious majority-minority communities, like Harlem or Tuskegee, could be divided along obvious racial lines without consequence.” Louisiana legislators reportedly have already been asked to hold dates for a possible special session on redistricting after the oral argument this fall.The case before the court on 15 October involves a long and twisted saga over Louisiana’s congressional map, which Linda Greenhouse, who covered the supreme court for decades for the New York Times, called “without doubt the most complicated voting rights case I have ever encountered”.After the 2020 census, the state drew a congressional map that had only one majority-Black district out of six, even though Black voters make up about a third of eligible voters in the state. Black voters sued the state under the Voting Rights Act. Two courts agreed with their claims and the state eventually drew a new map that created a second majority-minority district. Wanting to protect powerful incumbents in the state, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Representative Julia Letlow, while also being majority-Black, the new district has an extremely odd-shape.But after the new maps went into effect, a group of white voters sued in a different court, arguing the new district improperly sorted voters based on their race. A court agreed with that argument in 2024, but the US supreme court allowed the redrawn map to go into effect for last fall’s election. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, won the district by more than 13 points.His win was a big deal for people like Martha Davis, who worked as both a teacher and administrator for 40 years. She still remembers waiting in segregated waiting rooms as a young girl and going to a segregated Catholic school, where she got used books from the white Catholic school. Now, she lives in North Baton Rouge. “It’s like the wrong side of the track. It’s like the forgotten area,” said Davis, who was one of the Black voters who sued Louisiana over its original map. “There are no hospitals nearby, no grocery stores nearby. The streets are deplorable. Nobody could care less what happens in that part of town.“The fact that we were able to choose somebody that looks like me, somebody who knows what our needs are, and fight for us – that made me overjoyed,” she said.Fields’s win also made a difference to Davante Lewis, a member of the Louisiana public service commission who represents the Baton Rouge area. He said that since Fields’s election last year, it had been easier to get help on federal issues like disaster relief.“When we need help for certain areas, you want your member of Congress to know it,” said Lewis, who was also one of the plaintiffs in the original suit challenging Louisiana’s map. “You don’t want them to be 170 miles away, who have no connection to where you are.”When the case was before the supreme court in March, Louisiana defended its redrawn map – saying it had made a good faith effort to comply with the constitution and the Voting Rights Act after judges had blocked their original plan. But after the justices invited further briefing, the state switched its position and now says that its map is unconstitutional.There isn’t the kind of ongoing discrimination that would justify bringing racial considerations into redistricting, the state’s lawyers say. They argue that the supreme court has only recognized two contexts in which it is acceptable for the government to take race-based action: remedying specific past instances of discrimination and avoiding imminent safety risks in prisons, like preventing a race riot.“Those two interests share a critical feature that section two lacks: They turn on a specific harm and permit only a correspondingly narrow, temporary remedy,” they wrote in their own brief to the court. “Race-based redistricting pursuant to section two, by contrast, is nothing of the sort. It presents no imminent danger to human safety. In its heartland application today, it also has nothing to do with remedying past intentional discrimination, let alone specific, identified instances of intentional discrimination.”The US supreme court has allowed mapmakers to use race in drawing districts if it is in service of a “compelling interest” and its use is “narrowly tailored” to that interest. Writing for the court in a 2017 case, Justice Elena Kagan noted the justices had “long assumed” that complying with the Voting Rights Act was a compelling interest.Those defending the maps argue that supreme court precedent already requires them to clear a series of high hurdles to show that race-conscious redistricting is needed in a section two case. It is difficult to win a section two case. From 2012 to 2021 there were 48 section two cases dealing with vote dilution filed and just 21 of them were successful, according to data collected by the Voting Rights Institute at the University of Michigan. Clearing those hurdles, those defending Louisiana’s map say, requires them to show that there is ongoing discrimination.“Section two’s permanent nature does not mean that its application is without limitation. Congress ensured that section two’s results test is appropriately constrained and requires a remedy only where race is already shaping political decision-making,” they wrote in their brief to the court. “Where voting is starkly racially polarized, leading to a pattern of persistent and ongoing electoral losses for candidates preferred by a cohesive minority voting bloc, as is true in Louisiana, those current conditions may give rise to the need for a race conscious remedy for unlawful racial vote dilution.”The Trump administration has filed a brief in the case siding with the white voters challenging the map and urging the supreme court to make it harder to win a section two case. Since Trump’s inauguration, the justice department has withdrawn from all of its pending section two cases and has not filed any new ones. “Too often, section two is deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”Davis, the former teacher who recalled growing up during segregation, expressed disbelief at the argument that the Voting Rights Act was no longer needed. “The fact that they want to take that away, it’s like we just keep fighting and fighting and fighting, when does it end?” More

    • 225 Shares52 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: a note, a whisper and the first phase of a Gaza ceasefire deal

      by

      It started with a whisper. Marco Rubio interrupted Donald Trump’s roundtable event with conservative influencers discussing antifa, speaking quietly into Trump’s ear. Rubio handed the president a note, which read “Very close. We need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce deal first.”Soon afterwards Trump posted to Truth Social that the “first phase” of a peace plan to pause fighting and release some hostages and prisoners held in Gaza had been agreed by Israel and Hamas, bringing the best hope yet of a definitive end to a bloody two-year conflict.“This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” Trump wrote.Trump hails first step to peace Donald Trump hailed what he said was a “great day” for the Arab and Muslim world, Israel and all surrounding nations, as well as the US.“We thank the mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who worked with us to make this Historic and Unprecedented Event happen. BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!” he posted.Hamas said on Thursday it had reached the agreement after talks on the proposal, confirming the deal includes an Israeli withdrawal from the enclave and a hostage-prisoner exchange.Responding to the announcement, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said: “With God’s help, we will bring them all home.”Read the full storyRepublican lawmakers praise Trump for Gaza deal as Palestinian Americans remain wary: ‘So much remains unclear’While Republican lawmakers lined up to praise Donald Trump on Wednesday for brokering a tentative deal on the “first phase” of an agreement between Israel and Hamas to end the fighting in Gaza, and win the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, Palestinian American were more wary.Read the full storyKristi Noem compares antifa to MS-13, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic StateThe homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, on Wednesday compared antifa to MS-13, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic State, calling the loosely affiliated network of antifascist street activists “just as dangerous” as designated terrorist organizations during a White House roundtable discussion.“They are just as sophisticated as MS-13, as TDA [Tren de Aragua], as Isis, as Hezbollah, as Hamas, as all of them, they are just as dangerous,” Noem said. “They have an agenda to destroy us, just like the other terrorists we’ve dealt with for many, many years.”The roundtable featured rightwing social media journalists such as Andy Ngo, Nick Sortor, Katie Daviscourt and others who cover leftwing protests.Read the full storyUS shutdown deadlock deepens as senators reject competing billsThe deadlock over ending the US government shutdown deepened on Wednesday, with senators once again rejecting competing bills to restart funding as Democrats and Republicans remain dug in on their demands for reopening federal agencies.The funding lapse has forced offices, national parks and other federal government operations to close or curtail operations, while employees have been furloughed. Signs of strain have mounted in recent days in the parts of the federal government that remained operational, with staffing shortages reported at airports across the US as well as air traffic control centers.Read the full storyIRS to furlough nearly half its workforce due to government shutdownThe Internal Revenue Service will furlough nearly half of its employees – about 34,000 workers – due to the ongoing government shutdown.In a statement on Wednesday, the IRS said that “due to the lapse in appropriations”, it will begin its furlough on 8 October for “everyone except already-identified excepted and exempt employees”.Read the full storyTrump calls for jailing of Chicago mayor and Illinois governor as national guard arrives in cityDonald Trump on Wednesday called for the imprisonment of Brandon Johnson, Chicago’s mayor, and JB Pritzker, the Illinois governor, accusing them of failing to protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers.“Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday morning. “Governor Pritzker also!” Both Johnson and Pritzker are Democrats.Read the full storyEx-FBI director James Comey pleads not guilty on lying to Congress chargeThe former FBI director James Comey pleaded not guilty in court on Wednesday in connection with federal charges that he lied to Congress in 2020.Comey entered the federal courthouse shortly before 10am through a private entrance. He was joined in court by his legal team, as well as his wife and daughter, Maurene, who was fired last month as a federal prosecutor in the southern district of New York. Troy Edwards Jr, Comey’s son-in-law who resigned as a prosecutor in the eastern district of Virginia immediately after Comey was indicted, was also seen at the courthouse.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      Staffing shortages at US airports are anticipated to cause further disruption to air travelers on Wednesday as effects from the US government shutdown, now in its seventh day, ripple out across the country.

      The US supreme court appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to a challenge brought by a Republican congressman to an Illinois law governing how the state counts mail-in absentee ballots received after election day.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened 7 October 2025. More

    • 200 Shares49 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican lawmakers praise Trump for Gaza deal as Palestinian Americans remain wary: ‘So much remains unclear’

      by

      While Republican lawmakers lined up to praise Donald Trump on Wednesday for brokering a tentative deal on the “first phase” of an agreement between Israel and Hamas to end the fighting in Gaza, and win the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, Palestinian American were more wary.“President Trump is the peace president! Finally, the living nightmare the hostages have been forced to endure will end and Americans Itay and Omer can be laid to rest,” Joni Ernst, the Iowa senator wrote on social media, referring to Israeli hostages who died in captivity. The tentative agreement would ensure the return of living Israeli hostages, and the remains of those who have died in Gaza since 7 October 2021.Bernie Moreno, the Ohio senator who introduced a resolution in June calling for Trump to be awarded the Nobel peace prize for bombing nuclear sites in Iran, said the announcement made this a “historic” day, “for the United States, Israel, and peace in the Middle East”.“President Trump has once again delivered on his promise to achieve peace through strength. An incredible feat that will go down in history. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!” Moreno added.Brian Mast, a Florida representative who once served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli military, and wore his old Israeli uniform to work in the aftermath of the 7 October 2021 Hamas-led attack, also praised Trump.“President Trump just did what career diplomats never could – he brought the world closer than it’s ever been to peace in Gaza,” Mast, who chairs the House foreign affairs committee, wrote. “This deal only works if Hamas follows through. We don’t trust terrorists, we trust results.”While the US lawmakers did not mention the suffering of the Palestinian people, and the exact terms of the agreement remain unknown, a senior Qatari official said on social media that it also includes the release of Palestinian prisoners and the entry of aid.Still, Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian poet who won a 2025 Pulitzer prize for his New Yorker essays about Gaza and is now living in Syracuse, New York, expressed trepidation.“Trump officially announces that Hamas and Israel signed off the first phase of ‘Peace Plan.’ To be honest, I do not like the language here,” Abu Toha wrote on social media. “The agreement signed should be emphatically about a permanent ceasefire. No more slaughtering of more Palestinians. It must not take phases to end a genocide. This is not truly anything close to peace! To me, it sounds like a pause of bloodshed for a few days or weeks!”“I’m old enough to remember the first phase of the previous ‘ceasefire deal’ in January this year,” he added.There was caution too from Yousef Munayyer, a Palestinian American who leads the Palestine/Israel program at Arab Center Washington DC. “Very likely scenario moving forward,” he wrote on X. “1 Trump gets his Nobel Friday 2 Israel gets it’s captives back Saturday 3 Genocide continues Sunday.”Shibley Telhami, a Palestinian American who is the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, scoffed at the idea that Trump deserves to be awarded the Nobel peace prize this week.The agreement Trump announced on Wednesday “would be very welcome, especially if it includes full ceasefire and flood of badly needed Gaza aid”, Telhami wrote. “But so much remains unclear, even about first phase, including point of Israeli withdrawal. Key will be measures agreed to assure that first phase doesn’t become last phase.”“While ending carnage is badly needed, Keep in mind: Gaza is obliterated, 10% of its population killed or wounded, possibly more, with overwhelming majority rendered homeless. Could take decades just to build what has been destroyed – and that’s assuming killing has really ended,” the scholar, who was born into a family of Palestinian Christians outside Haifa, added.“Agreement is welcome, but ‘peacemakers’ don’t enable war crimes, including the killing of thousands of children, for most of a year, then expect Nobel prize when a ceasefire is finally achieved,” Telhami observed. “Italy’s PM has been referred to the ICC for much lesser enablement of war crimes.”The Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, said on Tuesday that she had been reported to the international criminal court for alleged complicity in genocide in connection with support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza. More

    • 150 Shares42 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans vote against check on Trump using deadly force against cartels

      by

      Senate Republicans voted down legislation Wednesday that would have put a check on Donald Trump’s ability to use deadly military force against drug cartels after Democrats tried to counter the administration’s extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers to destroy vessels in the Caribbean.The vote fell mostly along party lines, 48-51, with two Republicans, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, voting in favor and the Democrat John Fetterman voting against.It was the first vote in Congress on Trump’s military campaign, which according to the White House has so far destroyed four vessels, killed at least 21 people and stopped narcotics from reaching the US. The war powers resolution would have required the president to seek authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the cartels.The Trump administration has asserted that drug traffickers are armed combatants threatening the United States, creating justification to use military force. But that assertion has been met with some unease on Capitol Hill.Some Republicans are asking the White House for more clarification on its legal justification and specifics on how the strikes are conducted, while Democrats insist they are violations of US and international law. It’s a clash that could redefine how the world’s most powerful military uses lethal force and set the tone for future global conflict.The White House had indicated Trump would veto the legislation, and even though the Senate vote failed, it gave lawmakers an opportunity to go on the record with their objections to Trump’s declaration that the US is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.“It sends a message when a significant number of legislators say: ‘Hey, this is a bad idea,’” said the senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who pushed the resolution alongside Adam Schiff, a Democrat of California.Wednesday’s vote was brought under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war.“Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury and executioner,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has long pushed for greater congressional oversight of war powers, said during a floor speech.Paul was the only Republican to publicly speak in favor of the resolution before the vote, but a number of Republican senators have questioned the strikes on vessels and said they are not receiving enough information from the administration.The senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, acknowledged “there may be some concern” in the Republican conference about the strikes. However, Republican leaders stridently argued against the resolution on the Senate floor Wednesday, calling it a political ploy from Democrats.“People were attacking our country by bringing in poisonous substances to deposit into our country that would have killed Americans,” said the senator Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee. “Fortunately most of those drugs are now at the bottom of the ocean.”Risch thanked Trump for his actions and added that he hoped the military strikes would continue.Members of the Senate armed services committee received a classified briefing last week on the strikes, and Cramer said he was “comfortable with at least the plausibility of their legal argument”. But, he added, no one representing intelligence agencies or the military command structure for Central and South America was present for the briefing.“I’d be more comfortable defending the administration if they shared the information,” he said.Kaine also said the briefing did not include any information on why the military chose to destroy the vessels rather than interdict them or get into the specifics of how the military was so confident the vessels were carrying drugs.“Maybe they were engaged in human trafficking, or maybe it was the wrong ship,” Schiff said. “We just have little or no information about who was onboard these ships or what intelligence was used or what the rationale was and how certain we could be that everyone on that ship deserved to die.”The Democrats also said the administration has told them it is adding cartels to a list of organizations deemed “narco-terrorists” that are targets for military strikes, but it has not shown the lawmakers a complete list.“The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process,” the senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, said in a floor speech. “It is a real and present threat to our democracy.”The secretary of state Marco Rubio visited the Republican conference for lunch Wednesday to emphasize to senators that they should vote against the legislation. He told the senators that the administration was treating cartels like governmental entities because they had seized control of large portions of some Caribbean nations, according to the senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.Rubio told reporters at the Capitol: “These drug-trafficking organizations are a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States to unleash violence and criminality on our streets, fueled by the drugs and the drug profits that they make. … And the president, as the commander in chief, has an obligation to keep our country safe.”Still, Democrats said the recent buildup of US maritime forces in the Caribbean was a sign of shifting US priorities and tactics that could have grave repercussions. They worried that further military strikes could set off a conflict with Venezuela and argued that Congress should be actively deliberating whenever American troops are sent to war.Schiff said, “This is the kind of thing that leads a country, unexpectedly and unintentionally, into war.” More

    • 163 Shares36 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s ratings steady as the US government shutdown drags into a second week

      by

      It’s been eight days since a partial US government shutdown began on October 1, owing to a failure by Congress to agree to a new budget by the September 30 deadline.

      Democrats are refusing to help to pass a budget unless health insurance subsidies are extended, while Republicans and President Donald Trump want a budget passed without these subsidies. There does not appear to be any progress towards ending the shutdown.

      Analyst G. Elliott Morris has reported polls that have Republicans and Trump blamed for the shutdown by six to 17 points more than Democrats. In a YouGov poll for CBS News, by 40–28 respondents said the Democratic positions were not worth the shutdown, and by 45–23 they said the same of the Republican positions.

      In analyst Nate Silver’s US national poll aggregate, Trump has a net approval of -9.4, with 52.7% disapproving and 43.3% approving. His net approval dropped two points in late September, but the shutdown hasn’t changed it yet.

      Trump’s net approval on the four issues tracked by Silver are -4.7 on immigration, -15.3 on the economy, -15.6 on trade and -27.4 on inflation. His net approval on trade and inflation has risen in the last two weeks.

      In November 2026 all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election at midterm elections. Morris’ generic ballot average has Democrats leading Republicans by 44.9–42.1. Democrats have led narrowly since April.

      In polling conducted before the shutdown started, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer averaged a net favourability of -20.5 according to Silver, making him the least popular of the six party leaders (Trump, Vice President JD Vance and the Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders).

      Schumer’s poor ratings are due to weak ratings from Democratic-aligned voters. A Pew poll gave him an overall 50–21 unfavourable rating, including 39–35 unfavourable with Democrats. There’s pressure on Schumer from his own party to fight Trump harder. If Democrats are perceived to have caved to Republicans, Schumer is likely to be blamed by other Democrats.

      How do shutdowns affect the US economy?

      There have been 11 US government shutdowns since 1980, with seven of them lasting five days or less. The longest shutdown (35 days) occurred during Trump’s first term after Democrats gained control of the House in November 2018 elections.

      Shutdowns are economically damaging, but past shutdowns haven’t lasted long enough to do great damage, and the economy rebounds once the shutdown is over.

      Shutdowns result in far less government economic data. The September jobs report was to be released last Friday, but this won’t happen until after the shutdown finishes.

      Despite the shutdown, the benchmark US S&P 500 stock index surged to a new record high in Wednesday’s session, and is up 4% in the last month. The stock market has been supporting Trump since it rebounded from April lows.

      Why is there a shutdown when Republicans control both chambers?

      Republicans won the House of Representatives by 220–215 over Democrats at the November 2024 elections and currently hold it by 219–213, with two special elections to occur later this year. A Democrat who won a September 23 special election has not yet been formally certified the winner.

      Republicans also hold a 53–47 majority in the Senate.

      In the Senate, legislation usually needs to clear a 60-vote “filibuster” threshold. The filibuster allows at least 41 senators to indefinitely delay legislation they disagree with. To reach 60 votes, Republicans need at least seven Democratic senators to vote with them.

      The filibuster is not part of the US Constitution, and the majority party could eliminate it. But some Republican senators are probably worried about what Democrats would do if they won the presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress.

      The filibuster cannot be applied to all legislation. Trump’s “big beautiful bill” passed the Senate using “reconciliation” by 51–50 on Vance’s tie-breaking vote. But reconciliation is a cumbersome process that isn’t appropriate for a normal budget bill.

      Ipsos poll on Trump’s troop deployments

      Trump has deployed national guard troops on home soil in Chicago, Illinois, and attempted to also do this in Portland, Oregon. The national guard has assisted before, during environmental disasters and protests, but Trump’s deployments are against the wishes of the affected states’ governors.

      In an Ipsos US national poll for Reuters, respondents thought by 58–25 that the president should only deploy troops to areas with external threats. By 48–37, they did not think the president should be able to send troops into a state if its governor objects. More

    • 150 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Kristi Noem compares antifa to MS-13, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic State

      by

      The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, on Wednesday compared antifa to MS-13, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic State, calling the loosely affiliated network of antifascist street activists “just as dangerous” as designated terrorist organizations during a White House roundtable discussion.“They are just as sophisticated as MS-13, as TDA [Tren de Aragua], as Isis, as Hezbollah, as Hamas, as all of them, they are just as dangerous,” Noem said. “They have an agenda to destroy us, just like the other terrorists we’ve dealt with for many, many years.”The roundtable featured rightwing social media journalists such as Andy Ngo, Nick Sortor, Katie Daviscourt and others who cover leftwing protests.Some of the groups Noem cited – Hamas, Hezbollah and Isis – are formally designated terrorist organizations that control territory, operate military wings, maintain command structures and have carried out mass casualty attacks including bombings, kidnappings and assassinations.Extremism experts have long described antifa, by contrast, as having no centralized leadership, formal membership or organizational structure, and it has generally been described by federal law enforcement as a decentralized movement of activists who engage in protest activity, some of which has included property destruction and street violence.The roundtable comes after Donald Trump signed an executive order in September designating antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization”.Days before the announcement, Joe Biggs, a Proud Boys leader who was convicted and then pardoned for his role on January 6, posted on X: “Who’s ready to go ANTIFA hunting? Because I know a few guys.”During Wednesday’s roundtable, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, sat beside Trump and repeated his condemnations of antifa. “This is not activism, it’s anarchy,” she said. “We can’t and we will not let masked terrorists burn our buildings, attack our law enforcement and intimidate our communities.”Trump also listed examples of attacks against federal agents which he has attributed to antifa, and suggested that the man charged with shooting Charlie Kirk was a member of the group. Law enforcement officials have not established a link between Tyler Robinson and any specific group.“The epidemic of leftwing violence and antifa-inspired terror has been escalating for nearly a decade,” Trump said.All of the witnesses who spoke during the roundtable were conservative influencers or partisan rightwing journalists, who all claimed that antifa was a terror organization without presenting any evidence. More