More stories

  • in

    Clarence Thomas took additional trips funded by Harlan Crow, senator reveals

    The US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas took at least three additional trips funded by the billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow that the conservative justice failed to disclose, the chair of the Senate judiciary committee said on Thursday.Crow, a Texas businessman and Republican donor, disclosed details about the justice’s travel between 2017 and 2021 in response to a judiciary committee vote last November to authorize subpoenas to Crow and another influential conservative, according to the committee chair, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat representing Illinois.“The Senate judiciary committee’s investigation into the supreme court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we’ve revealed [on Thursday] – and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said.A supreme court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did a lawyer for Crow.Thomas has previously come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from Crow. Most recently, Thomas last week belatedly revised his 2019 financial disclosure form to acknowledge that Crow had paid for his “food and lodging” at a hotel in Bali, Indonesia, and at a California club.But the recent filing by Thomas failed to disclose that Crow had paid for his travel by private jet related to the Bali and California trips, and an eight-day excursion on a yacht in Indonesia, omissions that were revealed on Thursday in a redacted document that Durbin’s office said contained travel itineraries where Crow had provided the justice with transportation.The document shows private jet travel in May 2017 between St Louis in Missouri, the state of Montana, and Dallas. It also shows private jet travel in March 2019 between Washington DC and Savannah, Georgia, and private jet travel in June 2021 between Washington DC and San Jose, California.Under pressure from criticism over ethics, following a series of rows focusing mainly on Thomas and Samuel Alito, the most conservative justices, the nine justices of the supreme court last November adopted their first code of conduct.However, critics and some congressional Democrats have said the code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to recuse from cases to the justices themselves and providing no mechanism of enforcement.Earlier this week, the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said he would block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US supreme court.And the Democratic congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the court had been “captured and corrupted by money and extremism”, provoking a “crisis of legitimacy” that threatens the stability of US democracy.Reuters contributed reporting More

  • in

    Pelosi condemns Trump’s Capitol visit: ‘Returning to the scene of the crime’

    Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic former House speaker, mounted a forceful denunciation of Thursday’s first visit to the US Capitol by Donald Trump since he incited a mob to attack it on January 6 2021, accusing him of returning with “the same mission of dismantling our democracy”.In remarks that triggered a fresh war of words between the pair, Pelosi said the former president’s visit to discuss strategy with congressional Republicans in advance of the election amounted to a symbolic return to the scene of a crime that he deliberately initiated.“Today, the instigator of an insurrection is returning to the scene of the crime,” Pelosi said in a statement. “January 6 was a crime against the Capitol, that saw Nazi and Confederate flags flying under the dome that Lincoln built.”She added: “It was a crime against the constitution and its peaceful transfer of power, in a desperate attempt to cling to power. And it was a crime against members, heroic police officers and staff, that resulted in death, injury and trauma that endure to this day.”Pelosi, whose office was overrun and defiled by invading Trump supporters in the assault, as rioters ran through the halls of Congress calling her name, added: “With his pledges to be a dictator on day one and seek revenge against his political opponents, Donald Trump comes to Capitol Hill today with the same mission of dismantling our democracy. But make no mistake – Trump has already cemented his legacy of shame in our hallowed halls.”Her furious broadside may have provided the fuel for outlandish comments attributed to Trump in his Thursday morning meeting with House Republicans.Jake Sherman, a reporter for the website Punchbowl, posted on X that Trump had digressed to talk about an imagined romantic relationship between Pelosi and himself, which he said had been suggested by one of the former speaker’s daughters, whom he did not identify by name.“Nancy Pelosi’s daughter is a wacko … her daughter told me if things were different Nancy and I would be perfect together. There’s an age difference, though,” Sherman quoted Trump as saying, adding that his words were “close to an exact quote”.The reported comments provoked an angry response from one Pelosi daughter, Christine Pelosi, also on X.“Speaking for all 4 Pelosi daughters – this is a LIE,” she wrote. “His deceitful, deranged obsession with our mother is yet another reason Donald Trump is unwell, unhinged and unfit to step foot anywhere near her – or the White House.”The Hill quoted a spokesman for Pelosi as saying: “That guy has clearly lost his marbles. Not that he had many to begin with.” More

  • in

    ACLU hails supreme court’s mifepristone decision: ‘This fight is far from over’ – as it happened

    Joe Biden has released the following statement on the supreme court’s decision to uphold mifepristone:
    Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.It does mean that mifepristone, or medication abortion, remains available and approved. Women can continue to access this medication – approved by the FDA as safe and effective more than 20 years ago. But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide … The stakes could not be higher for women across America.
    It is just past 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
    The supreme court has rejected a bid to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone. The decision overturned an appeals court ruling that would have restricted mail-order prescriptions of the common abortion drug. The nation’s highest court arrived at the decision unanimously, in turn marking a win for reproductive rights across the country.
    Joe Biden released the following statement on the supreme court’s decision to uphold mifepristone: “Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.”
    The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the supreme court’s decision on mifepristone, saying: “The supreme court just unanimously rejected a request by anti-abortion extremists to impose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in most abortions nationwide.”
    Donald Trump visited Capitol Hill for the first time since the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Trump was invited to address House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club and also meet with Senate Republicans at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters.
    Ahead of Donald Trump’s visit to Capitol Hill, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “Donald Trump comes to Capitol Hill today with the same mission of dismantling our democracy. But make no mistake – Trump has already cemented his legacy of shame in our hallowed halls.”
    That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.When voters are asked to sum up Joe Biden in one word, the most popular response is “old”, according to a survey by polling firm JL Partners.Facing the same question with regard to Biden’s election-challenger Donald Trump, the word “criminal” comes up more than any other.The poll also found that voters expect Trump to perform better in the first presidential debate later this month in Atlanta. Some 70% expect “Biden to mess up his words” and 49% even expect “Biden to forget where he is”.Responding to the findings at a panel discussion in Washington on Thursday, political consultant and pollster Patrick Ruffini said: “This age issue for Biden really ties into voter perceptions of his competence and his ability to get things done.“I think why that has proven to be a such a devastating issue for him, that has really underlied the failure to message around accomplishments, is that when people look at him they don’t see somebody who is going to [have] the ability to do a whole lot to actively change the course of events in a potential second term.”JL Partners, using a representative sample size of 500 people and conducting fieldwork on 10 and 11 June, asked: “Thinking about anyone alive today, who would be your dream President?” In the resulting word cloud, “Donald Trump” loomed largest, followed by “Obama” – a combination of both Barack and Michelle.Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, joined the Biden campaign press call and warned that anti-abortion advocates would likely pursue other means to block access to mifepristone after the supreme court’s decision.“Regardless of today’s ruling, Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to ban medication abortion nationwide,” Timmaraju said.“They want to try and use executive power to jail doctors and patients for sending or receiving abortion medication in the mail, and they could extend that strategy to try to jail those mailing anything intended for producing abortion.”Anti-abortion advocates have already tried to argue that the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-obscenity law, bans the mailing of abortion-related materials, and Trump could use that strategy to threaten reproductive rights across the country, Timmaraju said.“The road ahead is long. The fight to restore rights will be hard,” she told reporters. “But we know President Biden and Vice-President Harris are on our side. So that’s why I’m so proud to be fighting alongside them.”Joe Biden’s campaign officials celebrated the supreme court’s ruling preserving access to the abortion medication mifepristone, but they emphasized that the case was “only one tactic in a broader relentless strategy to strip away access to reproductive freedom”.“If Trump regains power in November, Trump’s allies will be ready to deploy their plans to ban abortion access nationwide without the help of Congress or the court,” Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden’s campaign manager, said on a press call.“President Biden is going to make Donald Trump answer for the state of reproductive rights in this country. There’s so much at stake in 2024, and we’re going to continue to make sure that every single voter knows it.”As the country marks two years since Roe v Wade was overturned, Rodriguez indicated that Biden would make the issue of abortion access a central focus of the first general election debate, which will take place later this month.“That’s the contrast we will continue to highlight leading into the debate, using the Dobbs anniversary as another core inflection point,” Rodriguez said.Here are some images coming through the newswires from Capitol Hill, where Donald Trump made his first visit since the January 6 riots in 2021:The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said that the Trump meeting was “entirely positive”, Punchbowl News reported.McConnell specified that he and Trump “got a chance to talk”, adding that their meeting was policy focused.The meeting between McConnell and Trump is the first time the two have spoken since December 2020.The US House speaker, Mike Johnson, has issued a statement declaring that Republicans will win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives after he and other party members hosted Donald Trump.Johnson said that Trump brought “an extraordinary amount of energy and excitement and enthusiasm” during the morning meeting.Johnson said: “We believe we are going to win back the White House, and the Senate, and grow the House majority, and when we do that, we will not waste a moment.”The House speaker promised an “aggressive agenda” with the new Congress in January. So far, such an agenda could look like pushing far-right legislation around immigration, gun control and other policies.Hello, US politics readers, it’s been a busy morning in Washington with an important decision from the US supreme court relating to reproductive rights and the first visit to Capitol Hill by Donald Trump since some of his extremist supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.We’ll have much more news for you coming up.Here’s where things stand:
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed the supreme court’s decision on mifepristone, while warning: “This fight isn’t over. Anti-abortion politicians have already pledged to continue their efforts in this case to deny people access to medication abortion.”
    Joe Biden took a similar stance and said, in part: “Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.” He additionally warned of “Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide”.
    The US supreme court has rejected a bid to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, with a unanimous decision from the nine-member bench that, essentially, the plaintiff did not have standing. FDA-approved mifepristone therefore continues to be available.
    Donald Trump visited Capitol Hill for the first time since the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Trump was invited to address House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club and also meet with Senate Republicans at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters.
    A crowd of reporters, protesters and aides gathered outside the Capitol Hill Club. Former House speaker and sitting California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s visit was with the “mission of dismantling our democracy”.
    The Democratic National Committee has echoed similar sentiments as other Democratic leaders including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris following the supreme court’s decision on mifepristone.In a statement on Thursday, the DNC said:
    The supreme court’s unanimous ruling that the Maga extremists who sued the FDA in an attempt to ban medication abortion nationwide lacked standing does not change the dire stakes of this election for reproductive freedom.
    It does not change the fact that because of Trump, millions of women in states across the country cannot access the health care they need. It does not change the fact that Trump bragged about overturning Roe and thinks women suffering extreme physical, mental, and emotional harm because they can’t access reproductive health care is a ‘beautiful thing to watch.’
    And it does not change the fact that if elected, Trump and his allies want to effectively ban abortion nationwide with or without the help of Congress and the courts … The only way to stop the Maga movement’s attacks on our freedoms is to turn out the vote in November to win Democratic majorities in Congress and reelect President Biden and Vice President Harris – who will never stop fighting to guarantee women in every state have access to the care they need.
    In a statement on the supreme court’s ruling, Kamala Harris said that it “does not change the fact that millions of American women are today living under cruel abortion bans because of Donald Trump”.The vice-president went on to add:
    Nor does this ruling change the threat to medication abortion. We know the Trump team has a plan to try to end access to medication abortion and carry out a Trump abortion ban in all 50 states, with or without Congress, if they get the chance. We cannot and will not let that happen.
    The contrast is stark: while Trump relentlessly attacks reproductive freedoms, President Biden and I will never stop fighting to protect them. Americans have repeatedly made it clear they want more freedom, not less, and they will make their voices heard at the ballot box once again this November.
    The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the supreme court’s decision on mifepristone, saying:
    The supreme court just unanimously rejected a request by anti-abortion extremists to impose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in most abortions nationwide.
    This fight isn’t over. Anti-abortion politicians have already pledged to continue their efforts in this case to deny people access to medication abortion.”
    Joe Biden has released the following statement on the supreme court’s decision to uphold mifepristone:
    Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.It does mean that mifepristone, or medication abortion, remains available and approved. Women can continue to access this medication – approved by the FDA as safe and effective more than 20 years ago. But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide … The stakes could not be higher for women across America.
    Washington’s Democratic representative Pramila Jayapal echoed similar sentiments as other Democrats following the supreme court’s mifepristone decision.In a tweet on X, Jayapal wrote:
    This is a massive victory for abortion access, but there is no question – we must codify access to reproductive care nationwide. More

  • in

    Hillary Clinton endorses challenger for Jamaal Bowman’s New York House seat

    Hillary Clinton endorsed the primary challenger in representative Jamaal Bowman’s vulnerable re-election race in New York.The former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate gave her support to George Latimer, the Westchester county executive who has received significant support from the pro-Israel lobby group Aipac.“With Trump on the ballot, we need strong, principled Democrats in Congress more than ever,” Clinton wrote on X on Wednesday. “In Congress, [Latimer] will protect abortion rights, stand up to the NRA, and fight for President Biden’s agenda – just like he’s always done.”In a statement, Latimer said it was a “deep honor” to receive Clinton’s support. “Her voice gives even more momentum to our grassroots campaign, which keeps gaining strength because we stand strongly and honestly for our values and for our belief in delivering meaningful results for the communities we serve,” he said.Hours after Clinton’s announcement, Senator Bernie Sanders said in a post to X that he would be speaking at a rally for Bowman, hosted by the New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.“AIPAC, funded by rightwing billionaires, supports extremist Republican candidates. They will spend $100m against progressives this year, including $25m against [Bowman],” said Sanders, referring to the pro-Israel lobby.“Democrats must unite against this Super Pac. I look forward to joining Jamaal & [Ocasio-Cortez] in New York.”The upcoming race between Bowman and Latimer has grown increasingly contentious as the candidates’ divided stances on Israel’s deadly war in Gaza has become the focus.View image in fullscreenBowman has remained critical of Israel, like other progressive House representatives. Meanwhile, Latimer has received significant support from the the United Democracy Project, a Super Pac affiliated with Aipac, NBC News reported. The Super Pac has already spent millions on campaign funding to unseat Bowman.The latest endorsement for Latimer could increase his predicted sizable lead ahead of the 25 June primary election.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLatimer holds a 17-point lead over Bowman, according to a survey by Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill.Bowman has faced challenges during his tenure. The progressive representative was censured in December by mostly House Republicans after pulling the fire alarm in a congressional office building while the chamber was in session.He said that he pulled the alarm by mistake, while critics accuse him of doing so to delay a vote.Bowman faced additional backlash after a personal blog of his that included conspiracy theories on the September 11 attacks resurfaced. More

  • in

    People ambivalent about political issues support violence more than those with clear opinions

    Choices about political candidates and issues are inherently limited and imperfect, leading many people to feel mixed emotions, and even conflicting opinions, about which candidate or position they prefer.

    In general, being ambivalent reduces political participation. For example, the more ambivalent a person is about candidates in an election, the less likely that person is to vote.

    We are social psychologists who study how people’s beliefs affect their behavior.

    In a new article in the journal Science Advances, we find something that runs counter to that trend of uninvolved ambivalence: The more ambivalent a person is about a political issue, the more likely they are to support violence and other extreme actions relating to that topic.

    Ambivalent people are more supportive of extreme actions

    In one study in a series we conducted, we measured the opinions of several thousand people across several surveys on one of several topics, such as abortion, gun control or COVID-19 policies. We also measured how ambivalent they were about that opinion. Then we asked about their willingness to potentially engage in various actions in support of their opinion. Some of the actions were ordinary, such as voting for candidates whom the participants agreed with, donating money or volunteering. Other actions were more extreme, such as engaging in violence against their partisan opponents.

    In other studies, we examined national data collected by researchers at the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group and the Cooperative Election Study that included similar questions.

    When we analyzed the links between people’s ambivalence and their willingness to engage in or support each behavior, we found that the results in all the studies depended on the behaviors’ extremity. As expected, more ambivalent people were less willing to support or engage in the moderate actions, such as voting. But contrary to our initial expectations, people who felt more ambivalent were also more willing to support or engage in the extreme actions, especially if they felt strongly about the issue.

    People who wrestle with political views often feel uncomfortable with their ambivalence.
    Povozniuk/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Handling discomfort

    In subsequent studies, we tried to understand why more ambivalent people express more support for extreme political actions, from confronting one’s political opponents or campaigning to get them fired to even more extreme acts, including violence.

    We thought one factor might be the psychological discomfort that ambivalent people experience: When people feel uncomfortable about their beliefs, they often look for ways to compensate by signaling strength. For instance, when their beliefs are challenged, people sometimes respond by supporting them even more strongly.

    Similarly, we thought ambivalent people might support extreme actions because they feel uneasy and want to signal clarity and conviction about their beliefs.

    Our results were consistent with this idea that people might compensate for their discomfort by supporting extreme actions: When we asked how uncomfortable participants felt about the opinions they held on the issue, more ambivalent people reported feeling less comfortable with their views, which was also related to them supporting extreme behaviors more.

    Extreme actions with real stakes

    These are hypothetical behaviors, though. Are more ambivalent people actually more willing to take extreme actions?

    We tested this by asking people about specific actions with real consequences. We gave participants a chance to allocate money to pro-environmental organizations known for their radical ideologies and tactics, such as sabotaging energy infrastructure and obstructing traffic – JustStopOil and EarthFirst! Alternatively, participants could opt for a chance to win some of or all the money themselves.

    We found that people who were ambivalent about environmentalism allocated more money to JustStopOil and EarthFirst! than people who were not ambivalent, especially if they felt strongly about environmental issues. And this was specific to the radical charities. When given the same opportunity to donate to mainstream organizations – the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy – ambivalent people did not allocate more money than nonambivalent people.

    We didn’t directly test why people would strongly support environmentalism despite feeling ambivalent about environmental issues. But perhaps it’s that people who worry about climate change also are concerned about the economic consequences of addressing it. Or people who struggle to make environmentally friendly choices and feel like they are not living up to their own standards. Or maybe people with a more general type of political ambivalence, such as a belief that even good policies have trade-offs.

    A bigger picture

    The link between ambivalence and supporting extreme actions in our studies was one of correlation – where two items are connected but the cause of that connection is not determined. So we can’t be sure ambivalence is the cause of that support. Maybe the relationship goes the other way, and supporting extreme actions makes people more ambivalent. Or maybe some other factor that we overlooked affects both.

    But when we looked for evidence for these alternative explanations, we didn’t find much. For example, changing whether we asked about ambivalence before or after asking about support for the extreme actions didn’t affect the results. And although extreme behavior is related to other factors, such as tendency toward aggressiveness, even when we compared people who were equal on those other factors, ambivalence still mattered. Still, we don’t know everything about the relationship between ambivalence and extreme action.

    The psychology of extreme behavior is complex. To explain its causes, many studies highlight that some people are especially susceptible to extremism, including those who struggle to regulate their emotions. Our research suggests another possibility: that some beliefs themselves have characteristics – especially ambivalence – that promote support for extreme actions. More

  • in

    ‘Perilous for democracy, good for profits’: is big business ready to love Trump again?

    Chief executives of some of America’s largest companies will meet privately with Donald Trump later on Thursday, and many CEOs who were once critical of his unprecedented conduct appear increasingly open to the former president’s return to office, a Guardian analysis has found.The private audience with the former president will take place at the quarterly gathering of the Business Roundtable, a powerful Washington lobbying group that advocates for the interests of chief executives of big US firms. Joe Biden was also invited; his chief of staff will attend while the US president is abroad, a Business Roundtable spokesperson said.The meeting comes less than five months before the election and less than four years after CEOs raised the alarm about political polarization and threats to democracy when Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election and incited an insurrection at the US Capitol.Back then, the Business Roundtable – whose members include Apple’s Tim Cook, General Motors’ Mary Barra and JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon – led a chorus of condemnation from corporate America. “The country deserves better,” the Business Roundtable said in a statement on 6 January 2021, calling on Trump and his administration “to put an end to the chaos and to facilitate the peaceful transition of power”.Today, with Biden and Trump tied in the polls, Trump can expect a far warmer reception from corporate bosses. “The reality is … we as CEOs and we as a Business Roundtable, we’re going to work with whoever is in the White House,” Chuck Robbins, the lobby group’s chair and the CEO of Cisco Systems, told Fortune in March.“The way we think about it is, if we have a Trump administration or if we have a Biden administration, regardless, there are going to be things we can align on in both,” Robbins said.While corporate America’s views appear to have changed, Trump’s have not. The former president still has not accepted the results of the 2020 election, nor has he committed to accepting the 2024 outcome. He maintains that the supporters who he urged to storm the Capitol “were there with love in their heart”.And Trump and his campaign have promised a range of divisive and anti-democratic initiatives if he is re-elected, from mass firings of non-partisan government officials to the weaponization of the US Department of Justice against his perceived enemies.Yet a second Trump term promises benefits for CEOs and their companies in a variety of policy areas, from lucrative tax breaks – Trump’s recent pledges include a “business class big tax cut” – to sweeping rollbacks of Biden-era efforts to promote market competition and strengthen worker power.“It has always been clear that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 are not what is going to preserve democracy, and that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 work for their investors who demand insatiable amounts of profit,” said Lindsay Owens of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive advocacy group.“If they think that President Trump is perilous for democracy but good for profits, I think it has always been clear where they are going to land on this question.”‘A sad time for our country’A few days after the 2020 election, dozens of CEOs gathered on a hastily organized 7am Zoom call to discuss Trump’s refusal to accept that he had lost.The executives met “to share observations and talk about what possible roles they might play in encouraging a smooth transfer of power”, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who has spent decades counseling chief executives, and who convened the post-election Zoom, later wrote.Attending the call were the heads of some of America’s largest corporations, including Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Blackstone, Comcast and Goldman Sachs.The next day, the Business Roundtable, which counted many of the attending CEOs as members, issued a high-profile statement congratulating Biden and Kamala Harris and urging “elected officials and Americans across the political spectrum to work in good faith to find common ground”.View image in fullscreenA similar pattern played out in the days surrounding the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol: CEOs and their companies quickly distanced themselves from Trump. Many pledged to stop making campaign contributions to Republican politicians who voted against certifying the election results. Executives were portrayed in the media as patriots who put their self-interest aside and their reputations at risk to speak out.“It’s just a sad time for our country,” Robbins, the Cisco boss, told the New York Times. “At a time where we have so many challenges, the partisanship is astounding.”“Our leaders must call for peace and unity now,” tweeted Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, on 6 January. “There is no room for violence in our democracy. May the one who brings peace bring peace to our country.”While the full list of attendees of the 2020 Zoom call has not been published, the Guardian contacted a dozen companies and trade groups whose current or previous CEOs or members were reported to have joined the call or expressed concerns about Trump’s commitment to the democratic process, such as Cisco and Salesforce.The Guardian sought comment from the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers, another corporate lobbying group, which on January 6 called for Trump’s cabinet to consider removing him from office using the 25th amendment.One company declined to comment. Of the other firms and trade groups, none responded to inquiries about whether they remained concerned about Trump’s commitment to democracy, or whether they would speak out if Trump were to express an unwillingness to accept the results of the 2024 election if he loses.‘They’ve done the math’Corporate America’s relationship to Trump is complicated. “The narrative that the business community is hedging their bets and that CEOs are ‘softening towards Donald Trump’ is escalating and fast becoming a fact-free echo chamber of unsupported pronouncements,” Yale’s Sonnenfeld argued earlier this year.Few chief executives of large US companies are personally donating to Trump’s campaign, Sonnenfeld noted. “The money trail, or lack thereof, speaks to the frayed ties between Trump and the business world.”In an interview with the Guardian, Sonnenfeld pointed to a number of policy issues on which CEOs disagreed with the former president. Chief executives “are pro-immigration reform. They are not xenophobes. And … they are not protectionist. They believe in a globalized economy,” Sonnenfeld said.“They also believe in social harmony, either out of personal character, patriotic values or enlightened self-interest. They don’t want furious communities tearing apart the social fabric. They don’t want shareholders screaming at them. They don’t want employees sabotaging each other. They depend on social harmony to navigate their businesses.”“Today, there’s no support of any public CEO for Trump, even though … the polls are far more favorable to him than they were in the earlier two elections,” Sonnenfeld said.But experts and advocates noted that on a range of issues – among them, tax cuts, efforts to undermine collective bargaining and worker power, and regulatory rollbacks, especially environmental protections – CEOs have plenty of reasons to expect that a second Trump term could prove lucrative.“We actually don’t need to overanalyze it,” said Michael Linden, a former Biden administration official who is now a fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “At the end of the day, corporations and CEOs have always liked low taxes. They’ve always liked deregulation.“For all of Donald Trump’s heterodoxy on some issues, [on] those things” – taxes and regulations – “he is standard. He is indistinguishable from Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or George W Bush or pick your standard Republican.”“I think they’ve done the math,” said Timi Iwayemi of the Revolving Door Project, which tracks corporate political influence. “They can say, ‘We’ve already seen Trump. We had Trump 1.0. Yeah, sure, it was bad, but it wasn’t the end of America. America is still here.’”‘The stakes are huge, and they are real’One of Trump’s few legislative achievements as president was a huge tax cut that permanently slashed the corporate tax rate by 40%.A recent report by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (Itep) found that the law saved some of America’s biggest and most profitable companies $240bn in taxes between 2018 – the first full year it was in effect – and 2021.Walmart, for instance, paid an average effective tax rate of 31% between 2013 and 2016. After Trump signed his tax cuts into law, the company’s average rate fell to 17%, Itep found. The change saved the consumer goods giant $9bn between 2018 and 2021.Salesforce, meanwhile, paid only $175m in federal taxes over the first five years of the Trump tax cuts, according to previous Itep research. Salesforce brought home about $6bn in profit during the same period.“Obviously, the US government is a large customer of Salesforce, and depending on who’s in office, it creates a whole stir with a different part of our employee base,” Salesforce’s Benioff told Bloomberg in January. “So that’s just a reality. But the reality is that, hey, we are the same company regardless of when that election is going to occur and regardless of who that president will be.”Trump has promised to reduce the corporate tax rate even further if he wins a second term. But corporations are gearing up for an even bigger tax fight next year.Cuts to individual income and estate taxes, as well as business “pass-through” rates – changes that overwhelmingly benefited wealthy and white Americans – are set to expire next December.“Whether they just expire, whether they get replaced by something, whether they get extended, is a massive question, and it will be a question that Congress has to deal with and the president has to deal with one way or the other,” said Equitable Growth’s Linden. “And so the stakes are huge, and they are real.”For corporations, these stakes are even higher following their failure earlier this year to secure passage of a congressional tax deal that would have rolled back some of the taxes meant to pay for Trump’s 2017 tax law.Companies and their trade groups lobbied aggressively for these provisions, which could have saved them hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, the Guardian previously reported.“I think they assume under Trump they will not only get an extension of the status quo, which is very beneficial to them, but they will also have another bite at the apple to get even more than they currently have,” said Owens of the Groundwork Collaborative.‘A huge turn-off to business leaders’In other policy areas, a second Trump administration would have more leeway to unilaterally pursue an agenda friendly to big business – and would enter office with a savvier understanding of how to achieve it.“In 2024 Trump will be a much more professional operation,” said the Revolving Door Project’s Iwayemi. “They have a much more clear and deep understanding of the executive branch. And they would have a team that would be fully equipped.”Last year, the rightwing Heritage Foundation published “Project 2025”, a policy-by-policy, agency-by-agency roadmap to “dismantle the administrative state”, as the organization’s president described it.Project 2025 includes a range of policy levers that would roll back efforts to promote economic competition and protect workers. Many of the recommendations align with positions that corporate interests have already taken.View image in fullscreenFor instance, Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission recently approved new requirements for public companies to disclose some of the risks that climate change presents to their businesses.The final SEC rule was weaker than the agency’s original proposal, and even incorporated recommendations from the Business Roundtable and other trade groups not to require companies to track or report on the climate impacts of their supply chains.Nevertheless, immediately after the rule was finalized, Republican state attorneys general and the US Chamber of Commerce, another corporate lobbying group, sued the agency.“Everybody here [at the Business Roundtable] is committed to climate change, to controlling our carbon footprint,” Robbins told CNBC the day after the SEC finalized the climate disclosure rule. “But some of the requirements – first of all, we’re not sure it’s the SEC’s remit to do that. But secondly … it’s just an incredible amount of work that actually increases costs at a time when we’re talking about inflation …”Project 2025 goes even further, suggesting that Congress prohibit the SEC from requiring these types of disclosures in the first place.It also encourages repeal of other reporting rules that became law after the 2008 financial crisis, such as a requirement that public companies disclose the ratio of CEO compensation to median worker pay. The Business Roundtable spent years opposing federal efforts to require companies to disclose this measure of executive compensation.Another agency that has drawn borderline-obsessive corporate ire is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which under Biden has taken a far more aggressive approach to challenging corporate power than any administration – Republican or Democratic – for decades.Earlier this year the FTC finalized a landmark ban on non-compete clauses. The ban, as the FTC chair, Lina Khan, described it, helps make sure workers “have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business or bring a new idea to market”.“Something that I think Americans have been hungry for, for a long time” is for government “in a muscular way [to] protect them not just as consumers but also as workers and small businesses from serious abuse from big corporations”, said Elizabeth Wilkins, a former White House official who recently stepped down as the FTC’s chief of staff.“This is stuff that people want, but … it’s also stuff that big corporations have been getting away with for a long time,” said Wilkins, now a fellow at the anti-monopoly American Economic Liberties Project. “I am sure that they aren’t happy about it.”The day after the FTC finalized the ban on non-competes, the Business Roundtable filed a lawsuit to stop what it called “this unwarranted regulatory overreach”.“The Federal Trade Commission is a huge turn-off to business leaders,” said Yale’s Sonnenfeld.“Corporations recognize that there’s an alphabet soup of government agencies with the power to properly enforce longstanding laws and, when necessary, crack down [on] corporate exploitation,” said Iwayemi.They “recognize that if you pull any acronym out of the pot – take the SEC or the FTC or whichever – they have the potential to sell out public interest. And that is just much more likely under the Trump administration.”‘They are not the central heroes of the economic story’Despite their complaints about the Biden agenda, the fact remains that US corporations have thrived during Biden’s time in office, routinely reporting record profits and awarding sky-high CEO pay.In 2023, the median head of an S&P 500 company took home more than $16m, an increase of nearly 13% from the previous year, according to a recent AP and Equilar analysis. Workers’ wages grew only 4%, the report found.Meanwhile, corporations are salivating over hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax incentives created by Biden-era legislation to tackle climate change and spur domestic investment in infrastructure and semiconductor manufacturing.And far from freezing out corporate America – as some progressives had hoped – the Biden White House has aggressively solicited executives’ input. Wilkins described the administration conducting “an enormous amount of outreach to the corporate community”.“They engage, for sure,” Robbins told CNBC in March. “There’s open communication – there always is. So that’s not the issue.”Still, bosses appear increasingly fed up with Biden’s rhetoric.While the Biden administration has “been great for business” and most CEOs are not actively supporting Trump’s re-election bid, that “doesn’t mean that they’re pro-Biden,” Sonnenfeld said.“There are plenty of issues that they have [with Biden] on certain areas. They don’t like being vilified on the tax front, even though maybe some should pay some higher taxes. They smart on setting up a class warfare.”The president “puts workers at the center of the economic universe: unions and labor power and competition and higher taxes on the rich”, said Linden. Corporations “really get offended when people suggest that they are not the central heroes of the economic story. They really don’t like that.”Trump might praise wealthy CEOs, or at least refrain from saying they should pay higher taxes or suffer new consumer protections.View image in fullscreenYet one of the former president’s defining characteristics remains his fanatical pursuit of grudges against perceived enemies and those who he believes have slighted him.This track record suggests that CEOs’ silence today – perhaps a result of Trump’s coin-flip odds of ending up back in the White House – may not guarantee their protection from his vindictiveness tomorrow.That, however, is a gamble that many executives appear willing to make.For CEOs: “There may be limited downside to making nice noises about Trump,” suggested Rosanna Weaver, a consultant for the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow. “If Trump is elected you have some credit with him. If Biden is elected, he is unlikely to hold the same kind of vindictive grudge that Trump would.” More

  • in

    Rightwing media decried Trump’s trial. What about Hunter Biden’s?

    Two weeks, two big trials, two convictions. After Donald Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records at the end of last month, Hunter Biden, son of Joe, was convicted on Tuesday of buying and owning a gun while being a user of crack cocaine.The rightwing media had howled in anguish when a jury ruled that the former US president was guilty of 34 felony charges: commentators claiming that the justice system was rigged, that the conviction was political persecution, and that Joe Biden had wielded undue influence in Trump being prosecuted.Surely then, the Fox Newses and Breitbarts of the world would be similarly outraged by Hunter Biden’s conviction?Nope.“The facts were simple, the law was clear and the evidence of guilt can only be described as overwhelming,” Gregg Jarrett, an analyst and commentator for Fox News, wrote on the channel’s website, in a piece which championed the fairness and rigor of the American legal system.“As it turns out, even a privileged and coddled Biden must abide by the rule of law.”That was a far cry from Jarrett’s take on the judiciary 13 days earlier, when Trump was convicted in Manhattan.“Donald Trump did not lose on Thursday,” Jarrett wrote, incorrectly.“Our once venerated legal system did. And, by extension, all Americans lost something precious. Because the failure of justice is a failure of the people.”In a 1,000-word outpouring of woe, Jarrett repeated Trump’s – now provably false – claims that no crime was committed, adding “the ideals of a fair trial and an impartial jury faded into a figment of our Founders’ imaginations”.“The tragic coda to the Trump trial is that Americans can no longer trust our system of justice,” Jarrett wrote solemnly.Other Fox News personalities similarly revised their opinion of the US legal system.Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News host, had been outraged after Trump was found guilty, decrying “smoke and mirrors” and claiming “we have gone over a cliff in America”.“This is a new era in America, and I think it goes against the ilk of who we are as Americans and our faith in the criminal justice system,” Pirro said of Trump’s conviction on 30 May.She was of a different mind on Tuesday.“In the end this jury of ordinary people from Delaware were not intimidated by [the Biden] family, and they recognize that this was a clearcut case and that clearly no one is above the law,” Pirro said.View image in fullscreenSpeaking to rightwing channel Newsmax, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer and commentator who was part of Trump’s legal team during the then president’s first impeachment trial, did a similar flip-flop.“Trump was convicted of a made-up charge; there’s nothing to the case,” Dershowitz said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I still can’t figure out what the actual conviction is based on. On the other hand, Hunter Biden was convicted of a real crime.”Away from the doublethink, a new narrative was developing: that the Biden guilty verdict was actually evidence of some sort of cover-up.Many on the right wing claimed that the conviction on gun offenses was an attempt to distract from Republicans’ years-long, unproven conspiracy theory of corruption by both Hunter and Joe Biden.Republicans in the House began an investigation into the Biden family in January 2023, with the idea being that Biden benefited from his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. After nearly 18 months of investigation, Republicans have not found any evidence that the president was involved in any wrongdoing.Republicans have accused Biden of weaponizing the justice system against Trump – an allegation the Hunter Biden guilty verdict would seem to contradict. But that didn’t stop conservative commentators from diving into the issue.“Hunter Biden guilty. Yawn,” Charlie Kirk, the rightwing radio host and founder of Turning Point USA, wrote on X.“The true crimes of the Biden Crime Family remain untouched. This is a fake trial trying to make the Justice system appear ‘balanced.’ Don’t fall for it.”Jack Posobiec, a far-right activist who hosts a video show on X, said in a post: “They went after Hunter on his gun stuff to make you overlook all his Ukraine stuff.”Posobiec did not elaborate on the “Ukraine stuff”. But Breitbart trod a similar line, claiming that Biden’s conviction “allows the left to claim ‘no one is above the law’, while distracting from the much more serious allegations against the first son – and his father”.It has been a whirlwind few days for the rightwing media: from howling at the injustice of the justice system, to celebrating the justice system. Now the claim is that, actually, the justice system might be bad after all: and the Hunter Biden verdict is just a cover-up.Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, perhaps put it best.“The new rightwing line that Joe Biden rigged the trial to put his son in prison,” Gertz wrote, “replaces the old rightwing line that Joe Biden was rigging the trial to keep his son out of prison.” More

  • in

    US House votes to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress

    The House voted on Wednesday to hold the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview in his classified-documents case, Republicans’ latest and strongest rebuke of the justice department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign.The 216-207 vote fell along party lines, with Republicans coalescing behind the contempt effort despite reservations among some of the party’s more centrist members.“We have to defend the constitution. We have to defend the authority of Congress,” the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said at a press conference before the vote. “We can’t allow the Department of Justice and executive branch to hide information from Congress.”Garland is now the third attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress. Yet it is unlikely that the justice department – which Garland oversees – will prosecute him. The White House’s decision to exert executive privilege over the audio recording, shielding it from Congress, would make it exceedingly difficult to make a criminal case against Garland.The White House and congressional Democrats have slammed Republicans’ motives for pursuing contempt and dismissed their efforts to obtain the audio as purely political. They also pointed out that Jim Jordan, the GOP chair of the House judiciary committee, defied his own congressional subpoena last session.“This contempt resolution will do very little, other than smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today,” Jerry Nadler, a New York representative and the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, said during floor debate.Garland has defended the justice department, saying officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide information to the committees about the special counsel Robert Hur’s classified-documents investigation, including a transcript of Biden’s interview with him.“There have been a series of unprecedented and frankly unfounded attacks on the justice department,” Garland said in a press conference last month. “This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law-enforcement files, is just the most recent.”Republicans were incensed when Hur declined to prosecute Biden over his handling of classified documents and quickly opened an investigation. GOP lawmakers – led by Jordan and Representative James Comer – sent a subpoena for audio of Hur’s interviews with Biden during the spring. But the justice department only turned over some of the records, leaving out audio of the interview with the president.On the last day to comply with the Republicans’ subpoena for the audio, the White House blocked the release by invoking executive privilege. It said that Republicans in Congress only wanted the recordings “to chop them up” and use them for political purposes.Executive privilege gives presidents the right to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of decision-making, though it can be challenged in court.Administrations of both political parties have long held the position that officials who assert a president’s claim of executive privilege cannot be prosecuted for contempt of Congress, a justice department official told Republicans last month.An assistant attorney general, Carlos Felipe Uriarte, cited a committee’s decision in 2008 to back down from a contempt effort after then President George W Bush asserted executive privilege to keep Congress from getting records involving Vice-President Dick Cheney.Before Garland, the last attorney general held in contempt was Bill Barr in 2019. That was when the Democratic-controlled House voted to issue a referral against Barr after he refused to turn over documents related to a special counsel investigation into Trump.Years before that, the then attorney general, Eric Holder, was held in contempt related to the gun-running operation known as Operation Fast and Furious. In each of those instances, the justice department took no action against the attorney general.The special counsel in Biden’s case, Hur, spent a year investigating the president’s improper retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and as vice-president. The result was a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s mental competence but recommended no criminal charges for the 81-year-old. Hur said he found insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case in court.In March, Hur stood by his no-prosecution assessment in testimony before the judiciary committee, where he was grilled for more than four hours by Democratic and Republican lawmakers.His defense did not satisfy Republicans, who insist that there was a politically motivated double standard at the justice department, which is prosecuting former President Donald Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Florida club after he left the White House.But there are major differences between the two investigations. Biden’s team returned the documents after they were discovered, and the president cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily sitting for an interview and consenting to searches of his homes.Trump, by contrast, is accused of enlisting the help of aides and lawyers to conceal the documents from the government and of seeking to have potentially incriminating evidence destroyed. More