US Politics

Donald Trump was continuing to ask fossil-fuel executives to fund his presidential campaign on Wednesday, despite scrutiny of his relationship with the industry.The former president attended a fundraising luncheon at Houston’s Post Oak hotel hosted by three big oil executives.The invitation-only meeting comes a day after the defense rested its case in Trump’s criminal hush-money trial, and a week after Houston was battered by deadly storms. The climate crisis, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, has created the conditions for more frequent and severe rainfall and flooding, including in Texas.“Houstonians are staring at Trump in disbelief as he flies in to beg big oil for funds just days after the city’s climate disaster,” said Alex Glass, communications director at the climate advocacy organization Climate Power, and a former Houston resident.It also follows a fundraising dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club last month, where the former president reportedly asked more than 20 oil executives for $1bn in campaign donations from their industry and promising, if elected, to remove barriers to drilling, scrap a pause on gas exports, and reverse new rules aimed at cutting car pollution.“Donald Trump is telling us who he is, again,” said Pete Maysmith, a senior vice-president at the environmental nonprofit the League of Conservation Voters. “He has already asked oil executives for a billion dollars for his campaign, [and] we can only assume this week’s meeting is to haggle over exactly what they will get in return.”Executives from two of the companies reportedly represented at the Mar-a-Lago meeting were among the hosts of Trump’s Wednesday’s fundraiser.Harold Hamm, the executive chairman and founder of Continental Resources and one of the Wednesday luncheon organizers, is a longtime Trump supporter and was reportedly also at the April dinner.Hamm, a multibillionaire, was a major player in the rush to extract oil from the Bakken shale formation, which stretches across the US midwest and Canada.During Trump’s first presidential campaign, Hamm was also reportedly one of the seven top donors to receive special seats at Trump’s inauguration. The oil magnate was briefly under consideration to be energy secretary during the former president’s first term but reportedly turned down the position. He turned away from Trump after his 2020 loss, choosing to donate to his opponents, but then donated to Trump’s primary campaign in August.One of Hamm’s Wednesday co-hosts was Vicki Hollub, chief executive of Occidental Petroleum, which was also represented at the Mar-a-Lago fundraiser. Hollub has been criticized by climate activists for investing in carbon-capture technology in an effort to continue extracting oil and gas, despite warnings that fossil fuels must be phased out to avoid the worst effects of climate change.Congressional Democrats launched an investigation into Occidental Petroleum on Wednesday after the Federal Trade Commission last month accused the company and six others of illegal collusion with the oil production cartel Opec+ to keep fuel prices high.The third co-host of Wednesday’s meeting, Kelcy Warren, is the executive chairman of Energy Transfer Partners – a company with whom Trump has close financial ties.Throughout the 2024 campaign cycle, Warren has donated more than $800,000 to Trump’s campaign. In the 2020 election cycle, he held at least one fundraiser for the former president in 2020 and donated $10m to a pro-Trump Super Pac.During his first presidential run in 2016, Trump invested in the company while also receiving more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Warren, the Guardian found.Warren appears to have benefited from Trump’s first term: within days of taking office in 2017, Trump approved construction of his company’s highly controversial Dakota Access pipeline, triggering outrage from climate advocates, conservationists and nearby Indigenous tribal organizations.Last year, the Texas Tribune found that Energy Transfer Partners profited to the tune of $2.4bn as gas demand soared during Texas’s deadly winter freeze and the ensuing collapse of the state’s energy grid.The fossil-fuel industry has funneled $7.3mto Trump’s 2024 campaign and associated groups, making it his fifth-largest industry donor this election cycle.The $1bn “deal” that Trump allegedly offered to oil executives last month could save the industry $110bn in tax breaks if he returns to the White House, an analysis last week found.Last week, Raskin launched a House oversight investigation into nine oil companies after Trump reportedly offered to dismantle Biden’s environmental rules for their benefit, and requested $1bn in contributions to his presidential campaign.Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has also expressed interest in formally investigating the Mar-a-Lago meeting. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, the powerful Washington watchdog, also told the Guardian it is investigating. More

On social media and in a Tuesday fundraising email, Donald Trump raised an alarming concern. The Department of Justice, he said, was ready to kill him.The wild distortion came against the backdrop of Trump’s hush-money trial in New York and amid fears of rising political violence around the coming presidential election, predominantly from the far right. The comments cement an inverted picture Trump and his allies have painted, in which a patriotic Trump is pitted against anti-democratic deep-state foes.The outlandish claims could ratchet up anger among his supporters and stoke conspiracy theories. “You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable,” read the Trump campaign fundraising email, signed with the former president’s name. “Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.”On his social media website, Truth Social, Trump echoed the claim. “Crooked Joe Biden’s DoJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE,” he alleged.Trump was apparently referencing the order for a search warrant executed in August 2022, when plainclothes agents of the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in search of classified documents Trump had allegedly refused to turn over to the government.A May court filing by Trump’s legal team, under a section titled “The Illegal Raid”, quotes from a line in the search warrant.“The Order contained a ‘Policy Statement’ regarding ‘Use Of Deadly Force,’ which stated, for example, ‘Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary,’” attorneys representing Trump wrote.The language cited in the filing was apparently taken from DoJ policy outlining the use of force in executing search warrants. The unabridged text of the policy reads: “Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”The agency executed the warrant to search Trump’s Florida home while Trump was in New York and reportedly communicated with the Secret Service agents present to ensure a smooth operation.In a statement, the FBI described the language as “a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”The Washington Post has previously reported that FBI agents picked a day for the raid when Trump would not be at Mar-a-Lago and told the Secret Service ahead of time.But Trump’s statements about the filing have unleashed a frenzy. Christina Bobb, an attorney for the former president who signed documents before the search claiming Trump had complied with the subpoena for documents, reacted with similar hyperbole.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“WTF?!! They were prepared to kill me?! A few dozen FBI agents v. me and they were ready to kill me?!!! What in the world happened to the United States of America?!” wrote Bobb, on X.“These people are sick,” wrote Paul Gosar, an Arizona congressman and staunch Trump ally, also on X. “Biden ordered the hit on Trump at Mar-A-Lago,” he added in a subsequent post.The rhetorical redirection – from the content of Trump’s legal battles, which range from alleged financial improprieties to the mishandling of classified documents to his brazen attempt to overturn the 2020 election – form part of a strategy Trump and his allies are embracing before the 2024 presidential election.The public relations strategy turns Trump’s anti-democratic tendencies back at his critics – “enemies”, in the former president’s parlance – as allegations. In communications shared widely with his followers, it is the Department of Justice, the media, the Democrats and Rinos – Republican in name only – who dare to criticize him who threaten democracy.Trump, who has warned of “death and destruction” if charged with crimes and who defended supporters calling for the assassination of former vice-president Mike Pence for refusing to join the plot to overturn the election, urges his supporters to see him as the victim.“NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE,” Trump added in his post accusing the D0J of preparing to use lethal force, “THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.” More

The chief executive of Newsmax deleted text messages and the company allowed key employees to delete emails as part of an effort to conceal evidence the outlet knew it was broadcasting falsehoods about the 2020 election, lawyers for the voting machine company Smartmatic said in an acerbic court filing last week obtained by the Guardian.The allegations were made as part of a motion for sanctions in an ongoing defamation case Smartmatic filed against Newsmax for making false and outlandish claims about the company after the last presidential election. The case is planned to go to trial in September in Delaware superior court.The motion, which contains significant redactions, says Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, deleted text messages after the company was asked to preserve documents and communications as part of a lawsuit. Smartmatic also alleges that Newsmax allowed emails from Gary Kanofsky, its news director, who tried to warn other Newsmax staffers against broadcasting false claims about Smartmatic, to be deleted.Smartmatic attorneys also claim that Newsmax allowed messages from the editorial director, David Perel, to be deleted even though he warned Ruddy about the credibility of a source and was responsible for drafting Newsmax’s journalistic practices.Newsmax, which denies publishing libelous claims, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NBC News first reported the court filing.The messages are relevant to the case because Smartmatic needs to prove that Newsmax had “actual malice” and knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard to the truth and published them anyway.“Newsmax destroyed the text messages and emails of key executives responsible for its defamatory campaign against Smartmatic. This was not a mistake,” Smartmatic lawyers wrote in the court papers. “Newsmax’s cover-up worked. Critical documents, including text messages and emails going directly to Newsmax’s actual malice and motive, were permanently deleted.”Among the text messages allegedly deleted was one in which Ruddy refers to Sidney Powell, Trump’s lawyer who was one of the most prominent purveyors of false allegations of voter fraud after the 2020 election. While the content is redacted in the filing, Smartmatic described the message as Ruddy’s “unvarnished view of Ms Powell’s credibility” and “direct evidence of actual malice”.Ruddy claimed that the messages on his phone were set to automatically delete every 30 days, a setting lawyers said he did not change after Smartmatic instructed him to preserve communications. Despite that claim, Ruddy turned over an additional 1,106 text messages on 2 May, which Smartmatic lawyers say is evidence that his text messages did not really auto-delete during the period he claimed.The filing also describes Kanofsky, the news director, as “the closest thing Newsmax had to a whistleblower”. Starting in November 2020, Kanofsky allegedly sent emails to other Newsmax employees with a fact-check about Smartmatic and warning them about broadcasting false claims. Newsmax allegedly did not tell Kanofsky to preserve his emails and they were deleted. Smartmatic lawyers said when they pressed Newsmax on why they weren’t turning over Kanofsky’s emails, Newsmax attorneys revealed that Kanofsky had a practice of regularly deleting all of his work emails and saving them in his personal email.David Perel, the editorial director, also was not instructed to preserve emails, even though he sent relevant messages warning against publishing false claims. Smartmatic claimed. Perel was terminated in 2021 and Smartmatic said Newsmax wiped the messages on his company laptop.Lastly, Smartmatic claims that Newsmax tried to conceal the existence of a document outlining its journalistic and ethical practices. While the content of the guidelines is redacted in the filing, Smartmatic says Newsmax violated them by broadcasting false information.“Newsmax’s misconduct goes beyond falsely accusing Smartmatic of rigging the US election; it also attempted to conceal evidence of its actions and failed to follow its own journalistic standards,” J Erik Connolly, a lawyer for Smartmatic said in a statement.Smartmatic asked the superior court judge Eric Davis, who is overseeing the case, to order the company to pay legal fees it spent obtaining the concealed messages. It also asked Davis to alert the future jury to the concealment and instruct them to make an “adverse inference” about Newsmax’s motives.The lawsuit is one of several defamation actions that have been filed against conservative media as part of an effort to hold them accountable for spreading lies. Smartmatic and the voting machine company Dominion also have ongoing defamation lawsuits against Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell.Smarmatic settled a libel suit against the far-right network OAN last month for undisclosed terms. Last year, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5m to settle a defamation suit the company filed against it for false election claims. More

Welcome back to the Stakes, our weekly US politics newsletter. I cover democracy issues, and I’m filling in for Adam Gabbatt this week as Donald Trump flirted with a third term in office (yes, that’s illegal) and posted a video promising a “unified reich” (yes, that’s Nazi-adjacent language). Weird how these anti-democratic “gaffes” keep happening! We’ll get into why that might be, after a look at what else is happening in US politics.Here’s what you need to know
Trump rests, but doesn’t get any restOn the 20th day of the hush-money trial in New York, Trump declined to take the stand and the defense rested. Trump had falsely claimed he wasn’t allowed to take the stand: he was, and he chose not to. Outside the courtroom, he said although the defense would rest quickly, he himself would not be resting. “I don’t rest. I’d like to rest sometimes, but I don’t get to rest.”
Biden’s Israel problemThe international criminal court’s prosecutor applied for arrest warrants for leaders of Israel and Hamas, and Joe Biden is not pleased. He called the warrant application “outrageous” and said: “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” His strong backing of Israel comes as the progressive left continues to pressure him to end US support for the Israel-Gaza war.
That’s not the way the flag goesAn upside-down US flag – a symbol of those who believed the 2020 election was stolen – flew outside the home of the supreme court justice Samuel Alito’s home shortly after the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Alito blamed his wife, saying she did it as part of a dispute with a neighbor, but many observers saw it as the latest example of the politicization of the high court.
Too many coincidencesView image in fullscreenAnother week, another few instances of Trump flirting with fascism.On Monday, Trump’s Truth Social account reposted a video about a second Trump term which included a fake newspaper with reference to a “unified reich”. The term means “empire” in German and is indelibly associated with Hitler’s rule, which the Nazis called the Third Reich.Biden’s campaign seized on it, saying Trump was telegraphing how he’d lead “as a dictator over a ‘unified reich’”. Trump’s campaign defended themselves by arguing it was all a mistake, saying a staffer reposted the video but didn’t see the words.But the video remained on Trump’s page for 15 hours, long after media outlets had reported on it, and stayed up even after the Trump campaign had acknowledged it in its statement.This pattern isn’t new for Trump: he will often use fascist language or nods to extremist groups, then claim it was a mistake or that the left and the media are twisting a narrative.Like claiming he would be a “dictator on day one”, but only for a day. Or promising a “bloodbath” if he lost the election, which his campaign later declared was a reference to the auto industry. Or calling his political opponents “vermin” – something Hitler also did – and saying immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the US.Most recently, just days before the Truth Social video, speaking at the National Rifle Association’s convention, Trump floated the idea of a third term. US presidents are limited to two terms by the 22nd amendment to the constitution, which was passed in 1951 a few years after Franklin D Roosevelt won his fourth term.“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” Trump asked the NRA crowd, some of whom responded “three!”He has previously said he wouldn’t try for a third term – which is good, because it’s not clear how he could unless he figures out how to suspend or override the constitution – and if that were to happen, who knows what comes next.Regardless, the prospect of “Trump forever” is clearly on voters’ minds when they’re deciding who to elect this year, a sign that his ongoing authoritarian bent is spooking at least part of the undecided electorate.“I wouldn’t put it past him, now that he owns the RNC, to say: ‘Don Jr is going to do the next term, and he’ll get two,” said one focus group attendee who was quoted by Bloomberg.“‘And then Barron will get two.’ And we’ll just have some fake monarchy.”Worst weekView image in fullscreenArizona’s fake electors. Eleven of them were arraigned on Tuesday in the state’s case against the people who falsely signed documents saying Trump won the state, and the Trump allies who drummed up the idea.Among the 11 were Christina Bobb, an attorney who is now the Republican National Committee’s senior counsel for election integrity; Rudy Giuliani (last week’s “worst week” winner); former Arizona Republican party chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael; and Anthony Kern, a sitting state senator.Giuliani, 80, is so far the only one charged who was required by the court to post a bond, for $10,000. The former New York City mayor led the attorney general’s office on a cross-country chase, which culminated at his birthday party – after taunting the AG on social media – where court officials served him the charges. He later complained that the summons was not delivered to him “stylishly”, though it’s more stylish than usual to serve charges by crashing an 80-year-old’s birthday bash.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiggest lieView image in fullscreenTrump. The former president was in my home state last Friday for a fundraiser where he again told a whopper: that he won Minnesota in the 2020 election.Obviously, he falsely claims nonstop that he won the entire election in 2020. But the Minnesota claim is a bit newer, as he tries to make the case that the state’s voters should swing to him.“I thought we won it in 2016. I thought we won it in ’20 – I know we won it in 2020,” he said, according to NBC.The 2020 election in Minnesota was not close: Trump lost by more than 233,000 votes, though he was closer in 2016, losing to Hillary Clinton by less than 45,000. Could he win the state in 2024? If he did, it would almost certainly mean Biden lost spectacularly nationwide: Minnesota is a Democratic stronghold for presidents, and the last Republican who won it was Richard Nixon in 1972.Elsewhere in US politicsView image in fullscreen The majority of Americans – nearly three in five – wrongly believe the US is in an economic recession, and many blame Biden, an exclusive new poll for the Guardian revealed. You can also take our quiz to see if you know how the US economy is faring. Two states have required schools to show an animated video in sex ed classes called Meet Baby Olivia, created by an anti-abortion group to show fetal development. Carter Sherman reports on the latest front of the anti-abortion movement. A Republican concerned about election fraud in 2020 found no fraud once he took over his county’s elections after winning office, Alice Herman reports from conservative Hillsdale county, Michigan.Words fail usView image in fullscreen“If I put my name on something, I really believe it”: Rudy Giuliani, who declared bankruptcy and owes massive legal fees and debts from various civil and criminal lawsuits, on his new coffee line, which he called “smooth, rich, chocolatey and gentle on your stomach”. More

The Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, is reeling from a sudden staff exodus as he struggles to keep his position and the GOP’s tiny majority in the run-up to November’s elections.In the latest in a spate of resignations, Johnson’s well-connected communications director, Raj Shah, a former White House deputy press secretary under Donald Trump, has confirmed he is leaving, Axios reported. He is expected to depart by the end of the summer.News of his impending departure comes a day after it was announced that three top policy staff members, Brittan Specht, Jason Yaworske and Preston Hill, had quit and would leave by the end of May.All three worked for the previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted in an internal party coup last October, but were retained by Johnson when he ascended to the speaker’s chair.The trio were reported to have committed to work for Johnson for six months and deemed valuable because they had served in top-table negotiations over budget and appropriations.Specht was McCarthy’s chief policy director, although Johnson replaced him with Dan Ziegler when he took office. Yaworske was the speaker’s key adviser on appropriations and budget issues, and had input into high-level haggling over spending bills.Hill oversaw House Republican policy on areas like artificial intelligence and on the education and the workforce committee, which has spearheaded high-profile hearings on antisemitism and free speech on university campuses.They are reported to be joining Michael Best Strategies, a lobbying group whose clients include T-Mobile and the confectionary giant Haribo, and whose senior staff include Reince Priebus, Trump’s former chief of staff.The mass departures from Johnson’s nine-member team follow the resignation last week of his office’s head of digital, Anang Mittal, who quit after superiors confronted him about colleague complaints about his work performance and allegedly “unprofessional outbursts”.Johnson’s office confirmed to Axios that a new digital director, Meredith Schellin, was expected to take over.The exit of Shah in particular is seen as a blow. With his White House experience, he was regarded as a link to Trump loyalists as Johnson has struggled to fend off attacks on his speakership from the far right.Johnson recently survived an attempt by the Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to oust him, prevailing over her motion with the help of Democrats.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTaylor Greene, an outspoken opponent of aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, accused Johnson of “passing the Democrats’ agenda” after he ushered a multibillion aid package to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through a House vote.Johnson put a brave face on Shah’s departure while paying generous tribute to his contribution.“Because of the unprecedented circumstances under which I became Speaker, I needed an experienced leader with talent and gravitas to build and drive our message,” Johnson told Axios. “I am grateful Raj agreed to step up and serve. He has become a trusted advisor and built an incredible communications team. Raj has fulfilled his commitment to us and I wish him continued success.”The praise echoed a tribute he had earlier paid to the staffers he inherited from McCarthy.“Because the 118th Congress became the first in history to vote to change Speakers midstream, these friends committed to assist us for the first six months of the transition, and through some of the most difficult policy challenges in decades,” he told Punchbowl in an emailed statement. “We are truly happy for them as they now pursue their new opportunities in the private sector, and we know they will be a great success.” More

The headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Washington DC was placed under lockdown on Wednesday morning reportedly after vials of blood were sent to the building.Eyewitnesses reported several hazmat trucks – equipped to deal with hazardous materials – outside the building, which is near the US Capitol, around 8am.NBC news reported that the substance was cleared, but the area around the building remained cordoned off, resulting in road closures on nearby streets. The Capitol South metro station was also affected, according to metro transit police.The all-clear was given shortly after 9am local time. CNN, citing a police source, reported that a suspicious package containing two vials of blood, a Korean Bible, and two ice packs, had been discovered.The lockdown notice came when House Republicans were due to meet in the building. It is unclear where any members of Congress were present when the incident was reported.According to social media, the RNC was alerted by email that the building had been put under lockdown.Early reports said it was unclear whether anyone was in police custody over the incident. More

At the start of her rallies, Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who defeated the equal rights amendment, always thanked her husband, Fred, for letting her out of the house.Ah, those were the days.Husbands have lost their control. And, it would seem, none more than the poor schlubs on the bench of the supreme court of the United States.Before January 6, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, the far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, plunged deep into the “Stop the Steal” movement, which attempted to frame Joe Biden’s fair and free election as rigged. She sent dozens of texts to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, egging him on to overturn the election. Later, she claimed Clarence had nothing to do with it.“Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America,” Ginni Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon in early 2022. “But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”Nevertheless, questioned by the congressional January 6 committee as to whether she conferred with anyone about the texts, she allowed that she’d spoken to her “best friend” – Clarence. She couldn’t remember the “specifics”, she said. But “my husband often administers spousal support to the wife that’s upset.”Meadows filed an amicus brief in Trump’s appeal to withhold documents from the investigators; the texts, including Ginni Thomas’s, were included in the subpoenaed materials. Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the supreme court’s rejection of Trump’s appeal.Jane Sullivan Roberts – Mrs Chief Justice John Roberts – earned over $10m recruiting conservative government lawyers to elite law firms precisely during the years of her husband’s tenure on the court. Although some of these firms appear before the court, the Robertses insist that her work is her own and poses no conflict of interest for him. Anyway, according to a former colleague of Jane’s, nothing exchanged was more consequential than the chitchat at any Washington cocktail party.“Friends of John were mostly friends of Jane,” the colleague told Insider. “And while it certainly did not harm her access to top people to have John as her spouse, I never saw her ‘use’ that inappropriately.”Just affectionate give-and-take, like the uber-luxurious gifts bestowed on the Thomases by the rightwing billionaires Clarence met after ascending to the supreme court.And now we learn that an inverted American flag – ensign of Maga insurrectionists, carried by many during the Capitol riot – flew in front of Justice Samuel Alito’s home in January 2021, three days before Joe Biden’s swearing-in as president.But Alito – who is about to sign the ruling on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for inciting the riot or, for that matter, anything else he ever does – says he never touched, or apparently looked at or commented on, the flag. His wife, Martha-Ann, ran her opinion up the flagpole during a neighborly tiff. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” the justice said in an email to the New York Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” She is her own woman.This is the same Samuel Alito who opined in Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1991 that requiring the husband’s consent for an abortion did not impose an undue burden on the woman, and in fact, served a compelling state interest. Different strokes for different folks.And then there’s Amy Coney Barrett, who served as a “handmaiden” for the male-supremacist Christian sect People of Praise, advising wives on submitting to the “headship” of their husbands.So here’s the ideology of the court’s conservative majority: a husband should rule over his wife except when he declares her independence because the ideologies she clearly shares with him might cause him trouble.The women on the court are not indulging in this ploy. Why not? “He does what he wants” might be more credible. It’s not that they’re good because they’re women. Two of them have scant opportunity for family-related conflicts of interest. Sonia Sotomayor is divorced. Elena Kagan never married. Neither of them has children. Meanwhile, a conservative law firm has filed an ethics complaint against Ketanji Brown Jackson for not disclosing income from her husband’s medical malpractice consulting. If the contention is true, her omission is illegal, not to mention unethical. But it would be a stretch to call it political. And Brown hasn’t blamed her husband.Jennifer Weiner recently argued in the New York Times that “Blame my wife,” an excuse employed by Republicans and Democrats alike, might indicate “the faintest glimmer of progress” – feminist progress. “When a Supreme Court justice blames his wife, he is also acknowledging that his wife has the ability to act on her own ideas, has a mind confoundingly of her own,” Weiner wrote.Nah. The men who stripped half the US population of a 50-year-old right of bodily autonomy have not osmosed feminism despite themselves. Rather, they are exploiting feminism: impersonating pro-feminist men when it serves them and screwing women (and the less powerful in general) when it doesn’t. Mr Nice Guy; no more Mr Nice Guy. That’s patriarchal privilege.The male justices are also implicitly invoking a right that feminists, along with Black and LGBTQ+ civil rights activists, conceived and won: the right to relational privacy. By contending that their professional thoughts and actions are unaffected by their wives’, the justices communicate that no one else knows what goes on inside their marriages and no one has the prerogative to eavesdrop on their breakfast table conversations or evaluate the meanings and effects of what is said there.The sanctity of privacy in intimate behavior, including the rights of married couples to use contraception, of queer people to have sex and marry each other and of pregnant people to end their pregnancies, did not spring from the heads of supreme court justices. But supreme court justices can take them away. In fact, these are the rights, and the cases involving them, that Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, urged the court to “reconsider” – presumably to overturn, as it overturned Roe. Thomas did not mention whether Loving v Virginia, the 1967 case securing the right to interracial marriage, like his own, should be reconsidered. Maybe he needs to talk it over with Ginni.In March 1776 the first lady, Abigail Adams, wrote to her husband, President John Adams, exercising her influence as a highly placed political wife. She implored him to “Remember the Ladies” when he and the other founding fathers were declaring independence and writing the laws that would follow.But that’s just the famous part of the letter. “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” Mrs Adams continued, playing on the language of freedom from colonial rule. “Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”American feminists have rekindled that Rebelion. Some chose to make noise in front of Alito’s home to express their rage at his majority opinion in Dobbs. They wanted “to bring the protest to [the Alitos’] personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives”, said one demonstrator. The personal is political, as much for the men in black robes as it is for the rest of us.
Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept, and the author of five books More

Forget polls or statistical modelling – if you want to know what is going to happen in the US elections, may I suggest consulting the Ivank-a-Meter™? Much complex analysis has gone into the development of my proprietary prediction tool, but the premise is this: the closer Ivanka Trump is to her father, the closer Donald Trump is to the White House.Both Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, always seem to know which way the wind is blowing: the pair made out like bandits when they were unelected members of the Trump administration. Then, when it felt like the grift may be up, the Saudis gave Kushner billions to invest. Over the last couple of years, Jared has been managing those billions while Ivanka has been walking her extremely white dog, Winter, on the beach and going surfing. Both of them seem to have made sure that there are frequent quotes in the press from “people familiar with their thinking”, insisting that the pair don’t want anything to do with politics ever again.While “Javanka” kept their distance from the former president during Trump’s lows, there are signs Ivanka might be thinking of coming out of political retirement. Last summer, just as Trump started doing well in the polls, Ivanka started being spotted with Dad again. Now that a second Trump term is a serious possibility, an Ivanka comeback is being more prominently teased. A few weeks ago, the media outlet Puck reported that Ivanka is “warming to the idea of trying to be helpful again … She’s not like ‘Hell no’ any more.” Last week, an anonymous “friend of Ivanka” told Business Insider that the former first daughter has softened her stance on avoiding politics for ever. While a spokesperson for the couple told Puck these rumours were nonsense, it does feel as though Ivanka is testing the political waters.And while it’s certainly not a done deal that the US will see a President Trump again, if we do then you can expect the reign to be long. Trump recently floated the idea of a third term if he wins in November, and it is rumoured that Ivanka has harboured dreams of being the first female president. All of which to say: the Ivank-a-Meter is flashing red. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More