Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘There’s an appetite for this brand of politics’: the independent politician making a bid for US Senate

      by

      Dan Osborn is a man who does not like to lose, and if you had asked him on election night last year whether he would run again as an independent for a US Senate seat representing the very Republican state of Nebraska, Osborn would have told you to, in his words, “pound sand”.Yet the results of his first bid for elected office were alluring, so much so that he has decided take another stab at becoming only the third current member of the US Senate who is not in either of the two parties. While he did not beat the Republican senator Deb Fischer last November, he did narrow her margin of victory to the single digits in a state that Donald Trump won by 20 points. Next year, Osborn will challenge the state’s other Republican senator, Pete Ricketts, in a contest he characterizes as a struggle between the working class and the wealthy.“I think there’s an appetite for this brand of politics,” Osborn told the Guardian by phone from Omaha. “It’s so important they see the value in having somebody like me, who knows what it’s like to put Christmas on a credit card, I suppose, versus somebody like Ricketts, who is probably just in it for himself.”Osborn’s campaign last year was a rare bright spot for many in an election that saw voters pummel candidates who were not on Trump’s team.Nebraska has only elected Republicans to the Senate since Democrat Ben Nelson’s victory in 2006, but Osborn managed to outperform Kamala Harris by more than any other non-Republican Senate candidate. In next year’s elections, Osborn may get a boost from the anti-incumbent sentiment that so often pervades midterms, but Ricketts, a former governor who is running for a full term after winning a special election last year, is one of the best-known Republicans in the state.“I do think he’s going to have a much tougher task this time around,” Dona-Gene Barton, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln who focuses on polling, said of Osborn. Compared to Fischer, Ricketts is “much more popular in the state. He has incredibly deep pockets, and he’s the sitting incumbent.”Osborn believes he has a compelling argument. As a union leader, he organized Nebraska workers during a nationwide strike at the cereal giant Kellogg’s, and now balances campaigning with his day job as an industrial mechanic. The working class may have broken for the real estate mogul Trump last year, but he believes that further down the ballot, they will vote for a candidate who is one of them.“Our government doesn’t look like me, so that’s certainly what I want to get in there and change. And I think that’s what’s on most people’s minds as well,” he said. Osborn draws a particular contrast to Ricketts, whose father founded stockbroker TD Ameritrade and whose net worth is estimated at $184m by the stock tracker Quiver Quantitative.View image in fullscreenAnother potential advantage: he’s not a Democrat. Last year, Osborn wrote in the United Auto Workers president, Shawn Fain, on the presidential ballot, and said that if he was elected, he would not caucus with either party.Independent lawmakers are rare in Congress. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine are the only two in the Senate, and both caucus with the Democrats, while the House has not had one since 2021. The last time Nebraska elected an independent federal lawmaker was in 1936.Voters, Osborn believes, are looking for a candidate who will break the two-party logjam in Washington, stand up to the rich and not clash with Trump simply on principle.“I’ll work with anybody … the problem, I think, inherently, with our government right now, is they don’t seem to want to work together,” Osborn said. Though Trump has bashed him on social media repeatedly, Osborn said: “I’m not just going to be anti just for the sake of being anti.”He criticizes how Joe Biden handled the influx of immigrants during his presidency, and repeats Trump’s aphorism that “without a border, we don’t have a country”. Yet he does not like everything he sees from the new administration, such as the way it celebrates new detention centers for deportees, or how Elon Musk pirouetted with a chainsaw at the outset of his so-called “department of government efficiency” initiative.“I just don’t understand the whole bragging about hurting people,” Osborn said.While his relationship with the state Democratic party last year was touchy at times, this year, the party has decided to support his campaign, though a Democratic candidate could also still jump into the race. Jane Kleeb, the state party chair, said in an interview that they view Osborn as an ally for their causes.“On the vast majority of issues, like the core issues that matter to working- and middle-class families, Dan is on the same side of where I think any of those votes would be,” Kleeb said.“Protecting Medicaid, Medicare – he’s not going to side with Republicans on that. Middle-class tax cuts, bringing back childcare credits, making sure that our American energy is diversified … protecting unions, name the issue.”Ricketts’s campaign responded by arguing that Osborn was essentially a Democrat. “Fake Dan Osborn can continue pretending to be an independent, but he is endorsed by the Nebraska Democratic party, funded by Democrats, and backs Democrats’ most extreme policy positions,” said spokesperson Will Coup. (Kleeb said the Nebraska Democratic party does not endorse candidates, and had not endorsed Osborn.)Now, Osborn’s candidacy has prompted the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics to change its rating of the race from “Safe Republican” to “Likely Republican”. Another prominent forecaster, the Cook Political Report, kept their rating unchanged at “Solid Republican”, but noted they may re-evaluate “if Osborn’s blue-collar messaging gets some traction”.On the campaign trail last year, Osborn said he found himself appearing before crowds at campaign events where half of those in attendance were wearing Trump gear, and the other sported shirts from the Harris campaign. He sees recapturing that spirit as key to his victory.“I would see people with both style shirts, grabbing yard signs before they left,” Osborn said. “So I made it not about red versus blue. It’s about uplifting everybody in the communities.” More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      With Trump wreaking havoc, a question for the US Democrats: when will you ever learn? | Timothy Garton Ash

      by

      Nothing is more insufferable than someone saying “I told you so”; so please forgive me for being insufferable. On 29 September 2023, after a couple of months spent in the US, I published a column that was well summarised in its Guardian headline: “Unless Joe Biden stands aside, the world must prepare for President Trump 2.0”. We can never definitely say “what would have happened if …?”, but there’s a very good chance that had Biden cleared the way for a Democratic primary in autumn 2023 the strongest candidate could have defeated Trump. The entire world would have been spared the disaster now unfolding.“No use crying over spilt milk,” you may say. Yes, but it’s always worth learning lessons for the future. I’m back in the US now, and a recent poll for the Wall Street Journal found that 63% of voters hold an unfavourable view of the Democratic party. To put it mildly, the Democrats have a way to go.So what, given all that is happening and everything we now know, are the right lessons? The point of mentioning my old column is not to boast of some special insider insight into Washington high politics; the point is precisely that I had none. It was just obviously crazy to put up a visibly old and frail candidate who would be 86 years old by the end of his second term. For comparison, the leaders of the Soviet Union who we think of as the epitome of decrepit gerontocracy were, at their respective moments of unlamented demise, 75 (Leonid Brezhnev), 69 (Yuri Andropov) and 73 (Konstantin Chernenko).It required no special knowledge to see this and most Americans already did. By the time I wrote my column, an opinion poll had found that 77% of Americans thought Biden was too old to be president for another four years. It was only the political insiders, the liberal commentariat, the Democratic establishment, who went on agreeing with the president, his family and what was (you couldn’t make this up) actually known informally as the “politburo” of his closest advisers that he was the only man for the job.In their recent, much noticed book, Original Sin, two leading Washington journalists, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, argue that there was, as their subtitle suggests, a cover up. Biden’s family and the politburo tried to hide his precipitate cognitive decline, confining most of his meetings to between 10am and 4pm. Even cabinet members did not see him up close for many months and in-depth media interviews were as rare as a Pride parade in the Vatican.The authors generously apportion blame to the president, his wife, other family members and his closest advisers, but there’s one set of people they curiously spare: themselves and their fellow Washington insider journalists. Now, I haven’t gone back over all their reporting on CNN and Axios, and there are certainly some pieces that should be cited to defend their journalistic record. But there is no doubt that American political journalists in general, and the liberal commentariat in particular, were slow and late to say what most “ordinary” Americans had long since seen.Why? The New York Times writer Ezra Klein digs into this in an episode of his excellent podcast. Frankly acknowledging that his own February 2024 call for Biden to stand aside was “late”, Klein explores in conversation with Tapper why most others were even later. The answer seems to be a mix of ingredients: journalistic fear of losing access; the vindictive tribalism of the Democratic establishment; deference to an imperial presidency; fear of Donald Trump; worry about Kamala Harris as the presumptive alternative candidate.Fear of losing access is a professional disease of journalism. “You felt like you were destroying all of your relationships with the White House all at once,” says Klein, recalling his February 2024 demarche. “Yes, not just with the White House but the Democratic party,” adds Tapper. My own September 2023 notebook sums up a private conversation with a Washington-based columnist: “Yes, Biden should stand aside. He [the columnist] can’t say it.” (My note continues: “Jill Biden could, but she likes it.”)I know, also from other sources, just how threatening the Democratic establishment could be when trying to close down any questioning of Biden’s fitness to serve a second term. Even in the critical articles that did appear in US media there was a kind of residual deference to the presidency, almost as though they were asking a king to abdicate rather than just another politician to stand aside. Partly this stems from the 237-year-old US constitutional device of rolling your prime minister and monarch into one. In Britain, we confine our residual deference to the monarch while the prime minister gets roasted every Wednesday at prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons. Someone in Biden’s 2023 state of dotage wouldn’t have survived two weeks in Westminster.Then there’s the fact that people were already panicking about Trump and it was somehow thought, especially after Democratic successes in the 2022 midterm elections, that Biden was the only guy to beat him. The more so since the presumptive alternative was Harris, who was seen as a relatively weak candidate. And so, for fear of getting Harris and then Trump, they got Harris and then Trump.Some lessons, then, are clear. Tapper and Thompson open their book with a quotation from George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” But Orwell also calls on us always to say what we do see, even if – no, especially if – it’s uncomfortable for our own side. There’s the double test for journalists: see it and say it.For the Democratic establishment: don’t try to intimidate the media into self-censorship with the argument that they are giving succour to the enemy. You would have been better served by journalists just doing their job, in the spirit of Orwell. Then: change out your old guard. Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, is older than Chernenko and rapidly catching up on Brezhnev. Oh yes, and simply listen to the people you’re meant to represent.The tragedy of this whole story is that the Democrats have a profusion of talent in younger generations – from Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom to New York’s new star, Zohran Mamdani. They don’t yet have the shared platform that could win a presidential election, but thinkers such as Klein and Derek Thompson, co-authors of Abundance, the other book of the moment, are already working up some good ideas. The Democrats can probably swing the House of Representatives in the midterm elections next year with a few fresh faces – and by focusing on the already visible negative consequences of Trump for working- and middle-class Americans. But by 2027, in the run-up to the next presidential election, they will need everything they so spectacularly failed to produce in 2023.

      Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas Democrats flee state to prevent vote on redrawing congressional map

      by

      Texas Democrats are fleeing the state to prevent a vote on Monday that could see five new Republican-leaning seats created in the House of Representatives.About 30 Democrats said they planned to flee to Illinois, where they plan to stay for a week, to thwart Republican efforts by denying them a quorum, or the minimum number of members to validate the vote’s proceedings.In a statement, Texas Democrats accused their counterparts, the Texas Republicans, of a “cowardly” surrender to Donald Trump’s call for a redrawing of the congressional map to “continue pushing his disastrous policies”.“Texas Democratic lawmakers are halting Trump’s plan by denying his bootlickers a quorum,” the statement read.The scheme to flee the state is reported to have been put together by the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, who met with the Texas Democratic caucus late last month and has directed staff to provide logistical support for their stay.The Texas group has accused Texas governor Greg Abbott of withholding aid to victims of Guadalupe River flooding last month in a bid to force the redistricting vote through.“We’re leaving Texas to fight for Texans,” Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic caucus chair, said in a statement. “We will not allow disaster relief to be held hostage to a Trump gerrymander.”“We’re not walking out on our responsibilities; we’re walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent,” Wu added. “As of today, this corrupt special session is over.”Last week, Texas Republicans released a proposed new congressional map that would give the GOP a path to pick up five seats in next year’s midterm elections, typically when the governing party loses representation in congress.The areas affected by the redistricting plane would target Democratic members of Congress in and around Austin, Dallas and Houston, and two districts in south Texas that are Republican but nudging closer toward Democrat control.The plan to flee the state is not without potential consequences. Members of the Texas Democrats face a $500-a-day fine and possible arrest, a measure that was introduced in 2023, two years after Democrats left the state for three weeks to block election legislation that included several restrictions on voting access.Ultimately, that bill passed but not before Democrats were able to claim something of a moral victory after stripping the measure of some of its provisions.The latest plan to leave the leave the state came after a House committee approved new congressional maps on Saturday.“This map was politically based, and that’s totally legal, totally allowed and totally fair,” Cody Vasut, a Republican state representative and committee member, told NBC News.Vasut pointed to disparities in other states, including California, New York and Illinois, where the weighting of seats to votes is strongly in Democrats favor.“Texas is underperforming in that. And so it’s totally prudent, totally right, for Texas to be able to respond and improve the political performance of its map,” he said.The political backdrop to the Texas redistricting fight colors Pritzker into the picture of a national fight. Pritzker, a billionaire member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, is seen as looking toward a bid for the 2028 Democrat presidential nomination.In June, he addressed Democrats in Oklahoma where he met privately in a “robust” meeting to discuss about Texas redistricting, according to NBC News. He later met with Texas Democrats, where offered assurances he would find them hotels, meeting spaces and other logistical assistance.The absence of the Democrats on Monday threatens to derail other issues Abbott is tabling, including disaster relief after to the deadly central Texas floods last month.“Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately,” Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a post on X. “We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law.”Texas house speaker Dustin Burrows said that if, at 3pm on Monday, “a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table”. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The simple way Democrats should talk about Trump and Epstein | Peter Rothpletz

      by

      Democrats must not let Jeffrey Epstein die.They must highlight how this saga exposes the president for who he has always been.In the decade Teflon Don has spent on the national stage, no scandal has stuck to and haunted him quite so viscerally as the Epstein affair. He’s never before appeared so flustered, forced to answer question after question about the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by his former “best friend”.The world may never know what is inside the so-called “Epstein files.” What is clear is that the contents are damaging enough for the president and his human flak jackets to call the whole affair a “hoax”, recess Congress to prevent a vote on releasing the materials and send the deputy attorney general to visit Tallahassee, Florida, to speak to the convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, who was subsequently moved to a “cushy”, celebrity-riddled minimum security prison in Bryan, Texas.As the conservative pundit Bill Kristol noted over the weekend: “[Richard Nixon] said of Watergate, ‘I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish.’ Trump may have given us a sword. We should use it.” Kristol is right, to a point. Liberals, progressives and never-Trump Republicans must not let voters forget Trump’s festering, open wound without neglecting the kitchen table, cost-of-living matters that hurt them last fall.In 2007, a far sharper and far more spry Joe Biden delivered a quip so clever and cutting that it ended another man’s entire political career. Rudy Giuliani was never able to recover after Biden observed how it seemed “there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11”. The line was funny because it was true; it was lethal because it exposed the emptiness behind the former New York City mayor’s tragedy-fueled candidacy.This is the challenge for Democrats: how do they maintain a spotlight on a scandal that reveals Trump for who he is in a way that finally resonates with his base without appearing to exploit a tragedy , à la Giuliani? They must ground the abstract conspiracy in everyday terms relatable to the average American.It goes like this: Trump protects elites.Say it in every stump speech, vent about it in vertical videos and keep it alive as a dominant narrative in the zeitgeist. Do not back away. The modern media environment rewards repetition and omnipresence, so Hakeem Jeffries should promise an Epstein select committee, Chuck Schumer should make Republicans release the Epstein files in return for votes to fund the government, and every leftwing activist in the country should be burying Pam Bondi’s justice department in a blizzard of Freedom of Information Act requests.In doing so, recognize that the response to the scandal is an encapsulation of a deeper truth that voters already feel. The president and the GOP protect the elite at the expense of ordinary Americans.Savvier Democrats get this. Some of the party’s best communicators have already been grasping for a message along these lines, as seen in the focus on Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders’s nationwide Fighting Oligarchy tour. But while those efforts have paid some political dividends, they have not come close to capturing the public imagination to the degree the Epstein files have.For at least some portion of the Maga movement, the past three weeks have finally managed to expose Trump for the hobnobbing, name-dropping, pompous ass that he’s always been. Why is this one particular story so effective – especially as most voters have known Trump to be a plutocratic wannabe for decades? Maggie Haberman’s hypothesis is noteworthy: New York high society operates in two concentric circles. The Big Apple has a glittering “elite” with status at the center of a broader ring that wields power.Trump has always tried to straddle those rings, painting himself as the renegade billionaire. The Epstein affair shatters that mythos. It casts him not as a brash, bull-in-a-china-shop outsider but as the ultimate insider, rubbing shoulders with the very aristocracy his campaign rhetoric promised to upend.Democrats must lead with Epstein. Then they need to connect it to the president’s myriad failures. Why did Trump cut taxes for the richest Americans while cutting Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? For the same reason he is protecting Epstein and his buddies. Why is Trump risking union jobs in auto manufacturing so he can have a trade spat with Mexico and Canada? For the same reason he is protecting Epstein and his buddies. Why is Donald Trump talking about firing the head of the Fed? For the same reason he is protecting Epstein and his buddies.Mallory McMorrow of Michigan, a Democratic Senate candidate, is already reading from this script. In recent weeks, she has demonstrated mastery in pairing Epstein with broader anti‑elite rhetoric. In one vertical video, she emphatically declared:
      This is exactly why there’s eroding trust in our institutions, because until we confront the rot that exists in our institutions, until we hold everyone, everyone accountable under the same set of rules and laws, we will keep living in a country where there are two systems of justice, one for the rich and powerful, and one for everybody else. We deserve better. Release the files now.
      Trump’s friendship with Epstein is a proof point for elite favoritism and all of us who oppose the orange god king must use it to condemn inequality and unaccountable power within the GOP ecosystem.The Epstein scandal has captured our attention not just because it’s a lurid horror story, but because it confirms a truth people already believe: the rich view them as objects for exploitation. And if there’s one thing Trump has successfully messaged to all Americans, it’s that he’s very, very rich.Epstein is the story. But he is also a stand-in for every closed maternity ward in a rural county, for every mom choosing between insulin and groceries and for every veteran battling the Department of Veterans Affairs while Silicon Valley billionaires buy senators. Democrats’ message is simple enough, actually: “Trump and the GOP protect the elite. They abandon you.”Think this messaging can be overdone? Look no further than Benghazi, a truly made-up scandal, which Republicans turned into a true political liability with Hillary Clinton’s emails. That story stuck because of repetition and omnipresence, but also because it struck a chord with something Americans already believed: that the Clinton family viewed themselves as above accountability.Even Trump’s own supporters are asking hard questions. Where are the files? Why is there a two-tiered system of justice? Why is Trump more interested in protecting his friends than releasing the truth? The Democratic response should be a noun, a verb and Jeffrey Epstein, and then the rot at the core of the American system. Deployed effectively, it can be as impactful and as memorable as Trump’s cruel but devastating 2024 attack line: “Kamala is for they / them, President Trump is for you.”Trump protects elites.That’s why Trump is protecting Epstein’s circle.But who’s protecting you?

      Peter Rothpletz is a Guardian contributor More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris announces she will not run for governor of California

      by

      Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, announced on Wednesday that she will not run for governor of California – a highly anticipated decision that leaves the contest to lead the country’s largest blue state wide open.“For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,” Harris said in a statement, ending months of speculation about her political future after losing the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump.“I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,” she added.Harris, 60, who previously served as California’s attorney general and US senator, had been exploring a run for the state’s top job since leaving the White House in January. But, she said in the statement, “after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election”. The decision does not rule out a future run for public office, including a third bid for the White House, after unsuccessful campaigns in 2020 and 2024.Among the other possibilities Harris is exploring is starting a non-profit or leading a policy thinktank, said a personal familiar with her thinking. Allies said she would be a sought-after surrogate and fundraiser ahead of the 2026 midterms.“I think we can expect her to continue to invigorate the younger generation who really vibed off of her energy, her authenticity, and, you know, her willingness to talk about things that you don’t normally talk about when you’re on the campaign trail,” said the California congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, one of the Democrats Harris spoke with in recent months as she weighed a run for governor.Harris’s looming decision had in effect paralyzed the race to replace Gavin Newsom, the term-limited Democratic governor, with early polling suggesting she was Californians’ top choice. The Harris-less race to lead California will now take place in a political landscape dramatically reshaped by her loss to Trump in November, which plunged the party into a period of paralysis and soul-searching.In the months since, the Democratic base has grown increasingly furious with its old guard, demanding fresh leadership and a more combative approach to what they view as Trump’s increasingly authoritarian agenda.In a nod to the discontent roiling her party, and the country, Harris said: “We must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis. As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking – committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”While the decision was disappointing to supporters eager to see Harris square off again with Trump during the final years of his term, Harris had given few signals that she was deeply excited by the prospect of leading the state from the governor’s perch in Sacramento. The months-long slog to next year’s contest would have forced Harris to grapple with her role in Democrats’ losses in November, which has already drawn criticism from corners of the party eager for leaders to step aside and make space for a new generation of candidates.The crowded field of Democrats running for governor in California is so far made up of long-serving or well-known political leaders, including Xavier Becerra, the former attorney general of California who served with Harris in Biden’s cabinet as the secretary of health and human services; Antonio Villaraigosa, the former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles; the state’s lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, who is close friends with Harris; and the former representative Katie Porter.The most prominent Republicans in the race are Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside county, and Steve Hilton, the former Fox host and former adviser to then UK prime minister David Cameron. Ric Grenell, a longtime Trump ally, has also toyed with the idea of running.In a statement, Villaraigosa commended Harris’s leadership and said that her decision “reflects her continued commitment to serving at the highest levels of government”.Becerra described Harris’s decision as an “important turning point for her and our state” that would reshape the “race for governor, but not the stakes”.“California needs a governor who will treat the cost of living crisis like the emergency it is, and who will stand up to the chaos and corruption of the Trump White House,” he said in a statement.Meanwhile, Newsom, who came up in San Francisco politics with Harris, also praised the former vice-president. “Kamala Harris has courageously served our state and country for her entire career,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Whether it be as a prosecutor, attorney general, senator, or vice-president she has always kept a simple pledge at the heart of every decision she’s made: For the People. Grateful for her service and friendship – and looking forward to continuing the fight in whatever the future might hold for her.”Republicans – some of whom had been eager to elevate Harris as the face of the Democratic party – nevertheless touted her decision as a political victory for the president.“Kamala Harris’s political career is over thanks to President Trump,” said Kollin Crompton, a spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association, adding, perhaps prematurely: “Americans across the country can sigh in relief that they won’t have to see or hear from Kamala Harris any longer.”Harris had maintained a relatively low profile since she returned home to Los Angeles, offering few clues about her political future. She remained mostly out of view as protests erupted in response to the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles earlier this summer. In a statement issued after Trump ordered national guard troops deployed Los Angeles, she said that protest was “a powerful tool” and said she supported the “millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms”.She has been selective about when to weigh in against the Trump administration’s actions. Earlier this year, Harris delivered a sharp speech in which she warned that the US was witnessing a “wholesale abandonment of America’s highest ideals” by the US president.On Wednesday, Harris vowed to remain politically engaged.“We, the People must use our power to fight for freedom, opportunity, fairness, and the dignity of all,” she said. “I will remain in that fight.”Dani Anguiano contributed to this report More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Trump lawyer Emil Bove confirmed to federal appeals court by US Senate

      by

      The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Emil Bove, a top justice department official and former defense attorney for Donald Trump, to a lifetime seat on a federal appeals court, despite claims by whistleblowers that he advocated for ignoring court orders.The vote broke nearly along party lines, with 50 Republican senators voting for his confirmation to a seat on the third circuit court of appeals overseeing New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the US Virgin Islands.All Democrats opposed his nomination along with Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Tennessee senator Bill Hagerty missed the vote.Bove’s nomination for the lifetime position has faced strident opposition from Democrats, after Erez Reuveni, a former justice department official who was fired from his post, alleged that during his time at the justice department, Bove told lawyers that they “would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order” blocking efforts to remove immigrants to El Salvador. In testimony before the committee last month, Bove denied the accusation, and Reuveni later provided text messages that supported his claim.Last week, another former justice department lawyer provided evidence to its inspector general corroborating Reuveni’s claim, according to Whistleblower Aid, a non-profit representing the person, who opted to remain anonymous.On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that a third whistleblower alleged Bove misled Congress about his role in the dropping of corruption charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams. Seven veteran prosecutors resigned rather than follow orders to end the prosecution, which Democrats allege was done to secure Adams’s cooperation with Trump’s immigration policies.“Like other individuals President Trump has installed in the highest positions of our government during his second term, Mr Bove’s primary qualification appears to be his blind loyalty to this president,” Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said in a speech before the vote.The senator said he was trying to get a copy of the complaint made by the anonymous whistleblower who corroborates Reuveni’s allegations, and accused the GOP of pushing Bove’s nomination forward without fully investigating his conduct.“It appears my Republican colleagues fear the answers. That is the only reason I can see for their insistence on forcing this nomination through at breakneck speed before all the facts are public,” Durbin said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn addition to the whistleblower complaint, Democrats have criticized Bove for his role, while serving as acting justice department deputy attorney general, in the firings of prosecutors who worked on cases connected to the January 6 insurrection, as well as for requesting a list of FBI agents who investigated the attack.During his June confirmation hearing, Bove denied suggesting justice department lawyers defy court orders, or that political considerations played a role in dropping the charges against Adams. “I am not anybody’s henchman,” he told the committee.Democrats walked out of the committee earlier this month when its Republican majority voted to advance his nomination, despite their pleas that the whistleblower complaints be further explored. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats demand Trump cut funding for controversial Gaza aid organization

      by

      Twenty-one Senate Democrats are demanding Donald Trump immediately cut funding to a controversial Gaza aid organization they say has resulted in the killings of more than 700 civilians seeking food and violated decades of humanitarian law.The letter, led by senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Peter Welch of Vermont, comes as international criticism mounts over the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s operations, arguing that its model “shatters well-established norms that have governed distribution of humanitarian aid since the ratification of the Geneva conventions in 1949” by blurring the lines between aid delivery and military security operations.“According to reports and eyewitness accounts, civilians have been fired at by tanks, drones, and helicopters, as well as soldiers on the ground, as they attempt to get food and humanitarian supplies,” the senators wrote.The Trump administration authorized a $30m grant to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in late June, with $7m already disbursed according to documents seen by the Guardian. The organization, which is backed by both Israeli and US interests, has been given preferential access to operate in Gaza through coordination with the Israeli military and private US security contractors.However, the rollout of the new scheme has been marked by death and destruction from the outset. Jake Wood, the founding executive director and former US marine, resigned on 25 May, saying: “It is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which I will not abandon.”Boston Consulting Group, the US firm handling some of the foundation’s logistics, also withdrew shortly after.Since launching in May, the foundation’s four distribution sites have become killing fields. UN human rights officials report 766 people were killed trying to reach GHF sites specifically, with nearly 5,000 more injured in the chaos. More than 1,000 have been killed trying to go to food aid sites in general, according to UN figures, and 100 are believed to have died of starvation.The senators also highlighted concerns about the US security contractors involved in the operation. Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions have reportedly been contracted to provide security at distribution sites, with Associated Press reporting: “American contractors guarding aid distribution sites in Gaza are using live ammunition and stun grenades as hungry Palestinians scramble for food.”According to the AP report they cite, “bullets, stun grenades and pepper spray were used at nearly every distribution, even if there was no threat,” despite many contractors lacking combat experience or proper weapons training.UG Solutions, one of the North Carolina-based contractors, is reported to have recently hired the crisis communications firm Seven Letter, whose leadership includes former Biden and Obama administration spokespersons, bringing in former Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh in June, according to a press release on a now taken-down website.Anthony Aguilar, a US Army veteran and former contractor for the foundation, told BBC News over the weekend that he witnessed Israeli forces “shooting at the crowds of Palestinians” and firing “a main gun tank round from the Merkava tank into a crowd of people”. He described the operation as “amateur” and said he had “never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population”.The senators criticized the Trump administration for exempting the foundation from standard oversight procedures, including comprehensive audits usually required for first-time USAID grant recipients. They noted that USAID officials had raised “critical concerns” about the proposal, citing “operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight”.The foundation has maintained that it has distributed more than 95m meals to civilians across Gaza and denies that violence has occurred at its sites, attributing reports to Hamas misinformation.While on a presidential visit to Scotland, Trump on Sunday claimed that Hamas was stealing food aid sent to Gaza, parroting a similar allegation by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu which is being used to justify restrictions on humanitarian deliveries, despite Israel’s own military officials admitted to not having any evidence to substantiate it..In recent weeks, the organization has become increasingly aggressive in its social media responses, with posts claiming the UN “can’t successfully move their aid to Palestinians” and that “they’ve simply stopped trying.” The foundation’s executive chairperson, the Rev Johnnie Moore, also dug in, publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal proposing to take over delivery of all UN aid sitting idle in Gaza. Moore wrote that there were hundreds of UN trucks loaded with food in Gaza, and offered to “deliver all of this aid, for free, on behalf of the U.N”.However, the senators argue that the foundation’s model, with only four militarized distribution sites, cannot replace the UN-led network that previously operated more than 400 aid distribution points during temporary ceasefires.The letter also lands as two prominent Israeli human rights groups, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, declared on Monday that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Their assessment, citing “coordinated action to intentionally destroy Palestinian society”, marks the first time major Israeli rights organizations have publicly reached this conclusion.The senators gave Secretary Rubio two weeks to respond to a series of detailed questions about civilian casualties, funding mechanisms, contractor operations, and compliance with humanitarian principles.“There should be no American taxpayer dollars contributing to this scheme,” the senators wrote.Also on Monday, independent senator Angus King from Maine said he would oppose providing additional US support to Israel until the country addresses the humanitarian crisis, saying Israel’s conduct has been “an affront to human decency”.King, who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement: “I am through supporting the actions of the current Israeli government and will advocate – and vote – for an end to any United States support whatsoever until there is a demonstrable change in the direction of Israeli policy.“My litmus test will be simple: no aid of any kind as long as there are starving children in Gaza due to the action or inaction of the Israeli government.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats use new tactic to highlight Trump’s gutting of Medicaid: billboards in the rural US

      by

      The road to four struggling rural hospitals now hosts a political message: “If this hospital closes, blame Trump.”In a series of black-and-yellow billboards erected near the facilities, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seeks to tell voters in deep red states “who is responsible for gutting rural healthcare”.“UNDER TRUMP’S WATCH, STILWELL GENERAL HOSPITAL IS CLOSING ITS DOORS,” one sign screams. The billboards are outside hospitals in Silex, Missouri; Columbus, Indiana; Stilwell, Oklahoma; and Missoula, Montana.The fate of rural hospitals has become a politically contentious issue for Republicans, as historic cuts pushed through by the GOP are expected to come into effect over the next decade. Donald Trump’s enormous One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) cut more than $1tn from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans, insuring more than 71 million adults.“Where the real impact is going to be is on the people who just won’t get care,” said Dave Kendall, a senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at Third Way, a center-left advocacy organization.“That’s what used to happen before we had rural hospitals – they just don’t get the care because they can’t afford it, and they can’t get to the hospital.”In response to criticism, Republicans added a $50bn “rural health transformation fund” just before passage of the OBBBA. The fund is expected to cover about one-third of the losses rural areas will face, and about 70% of the losses for the four hospitals where Democrats now have nearby billboards. The rural health fund provides money through 2030, while the Medicaid cuts are not time-bound.That is already becoming a political football, as Democrats argued in a letter that the money is a “slush fund” already promised to key Republican Congress members.“We are alarmed by reports suggesting these taxpayer funds are already promised to Republican members of Congress in exchange for their votes in support of the Big, Ugly Betrayal,” wrote 16 Democratic senators in a letter to Dr Mehmet Oz, Trump’s head of Medicare and Medicaid.View image in fullscreen“In addition, the vague legislative language creating this fund will seemingly function as your personal fund to be distributed according to your political whims.”Rural hospitals have been under financial strain for more than a decade. Since 2010, 153 rural hospitals have closed or lost the inpatient services which partly define a hospital, according to the University of North Carolina Sheps Center for Health Services Research.“In states across the country, hospitals are either closing their doors or cutting critical services, and it’s Trump’s own voters who will suffer the most,” said the DNC chair, Ken Martin, in a statement announcing the billboards.The OBBBA is expected to further exacerbate those financial strains. A recent analysis by the Urban Institute found rural hospitals are likely to see an $87bn loss in the next 10 years.“We’re expecting rural hospitals to close as a result – we’ve already started to see some hospitals like, ‘OK, how are we going to survive?’” said Third Way’s Kendall.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA June analysis by the Sheps Center found that 338 rural hospitals, including dozens in states such as Louisiana, Kentucky and Oklahoma, could close as a result of the OBBBA. There are nearly 1,800 rural hospitals nationally, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), a healthcare research non-profit.That perspective was buttressed by the CEO of the National Rural Health Association, Alan Morgan, who in a recent newsletter said 45% of rural hospitals are already operating at a loss.“When you remove $155bn over the next 10 years, it’s going to have an impact,” he said.In the fragmented US healthcare ecosystem, Medicaid is both the largest and poorest payer of healthcare providers. Patients benefit from largely no-cost care, but hospitals complain that Medicaid rates don’t pay for the cost of service, making institutions that disproportionately rely on Medicaid less financially stable. In rural areas, benefit-rich employer health insurance is harder to come by; therefore, more hospitals depend on Medicaid.But even though Medicaid pays less than other insurance programs, some payment is still better than none. Trump’s OBBBA cut of more than $1tn from the program over the coming decade is expected to result in nearly 12 million people losing coverage.When uninsured people get sick, they are more likely to delay care, more likely to use hospital emergency rooms and more likely to struggle to pay their bills. In turn, the institutions that serve them also suffer.“This is what Donald Trump does – screw over the people who are counting on him,” said Martin, the DNC chair. “These new DNC billboards plainly state exactly what is happening to rural hospitals under Donald Trump’s watch.” More