Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump’s threat to the media: time to pass the Press Act

      by

      Fears of a press crackdown under Donald Trump’s second term deepened with his nomination of Kash Patel as FBI director – given his calls for retribution against journalists. Yet a rare chance to protect press freedom has emerged. The bipartisan Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (Press) Act, the strongest press freedom legislation in US history, is on the brink of a vote. While President-elect Trump has urged Republicans to block it, the Senate could still deliver it to Joe Biden before the lame-duck session ends in January.The Press Act would ban secret government demands for journalists’ communications from tech giants such as Google or Verizon and protect reporters from jail for refusing to reveal sources. For investigative reporters to do their jobs – holding government officials to account for corruption and wrongdoing – they need to be able to protect the confidentiality of their sources. With courts recently weakening already-imperilled “reporter’s privilege” protections, this bill would finally give journalists in the US federal protections comparable to those afforded to other relationships where confidentiality is paramount, such as lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, and spouses.The bill has something for both Democrats and Republicans to like. The Press Act’s broad and nonpartisan definition of “journalist” takes into account the modern media landscape: you don’t have to work full-time for a mainstream media organisation to be covered. Freelancers, independent reporters writing Substack newsletters and even journalists posting primarily to social networks such as X would be included. It protects right-leaning journalists just as much as anyone at the New York Times or the Guardian.It also has commonsense national security exceptions (like preventing a terrorist attack or an imminent threat of violence) without diluting the bill’s strong protections. It’s worth remembering that Democratic administrations have abused their powers to go after the first amendment rights of journalists just as much as Republicans. The Obama administration brought a record number of prosecutions against whistleblowers, and was implicated in several government spying scandals, including secretly targeting journalists at the Associated Press and Fox News.Even the Biden administration, before reversing course after public outrage, continued pursuing at least some of the surveillance orders against news outlets that the first Trump administration initiated. That’s why, in an age of extreme political polarisation, the Press Act is about as bipartisan as it gets. The House passed the bill early in 2024 unanimously, with several prominent Republicans publicly touting its importance. The bill also has powerful co-sponsors in the Senate, ranging from Democrats such as Ron Wyden and Dick Durbin, the judiciary committee chair, to Trump-supporting Republicans like Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham.Even the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson supports the bill, as he made clear in a recent interview he did with the former Fox News and CBS reporter Catherine Herridge, who was subpoenaed to reveal a source for a story she wrote several years ago. She was recently in front of the DC court of appeals, where her lawyers argued that forcing reporters to reveal their sources in court sends a chilling effect to countless others around the country. For the bill to pass, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, must make it a priority. The lame-duck session is only a few weeks long; if senators don’t act now, we may not have this opportunity for another decade or more.

      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

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Without proof, top Trump adviser accuses January 6 committee of destroying evidence – as it happened

      by

      Jason Miller, a top adviser to Donald Trump, went on CNN earlier today to defend the president-elect’s assertion that the bipartisan House committee tasked with investigating the January 6 insurrection destroyed evidence.Trump used that claim to then argue that the lawmakers who took part in the investigation should go to jail. The assertion appears factually wobbly, since the committee’s report and its evidence remains easily accessible online.Asked in the CNN interview if Trump would have Kash Patel, his nominee to lead the FBI, go after the committee members, Miller responded:
      I do have to take issue with saying that the select committee didn’t go and destroy records. They have wiped everything out …
      Other committees have looked through and said that those records are gone, that they don’t exist, that they’re not there. Even Republicans who are now in charge have said that those records are gone, that they’re not there. So I would completely take issue with that. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, but they got rid of it.
      But he seemed to moderate Trump’s comments slightly, arguing that the president-elect expects Patel and Pam Bondi, Trump’s pick for attorney general, “to apply the law equally”:
      He wants everyone who he puts into key positions of leadership, again, whether that’s Pam Bondi as the AG, Kash Patel, the FBI, or anybody else, to apply the law equally to everybody. Now, that means, if you’re somebody who’s committed some very serious crimes, who’s committed very serious felonies, who’s, for example, leaked confidential information, in direct violation of laws that are in place, well, then, obviously, that sets you up for different things …
      But as far as the politics aspect, if you listen to the entire interview with President Trump, he said he’s going to leave that up to the law enforcement agents in charge, including Pam Bondi and Kash Patel.
      Donald Trump this weekend made clear he would pardon rioters facing charges or convicted of involvement in January 6, while saying members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the violence “should go to jail”. That prompted a response from its vice-chair, Republican former congresswoman Liz Cheney, who rejected his criticism, saying: “Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power.” Meanwhile, the supreme court turned aside an effort by Trump’s attorneys to lift the gag order imposed on him in his hush-money case.Here’s what else happened today:

      Jason Miller, a top adviser to Trump, said the House committee that investigated January 6 destroyed evidence, but provided no proof for his claim. He also slightly walked back Trump’s quip that the lawmakers involved should be jailed.

      Markwayne Mullin, a Republican senator, said the January 6 committee members do not “have a reason to be afraid now”, but that their work is worth of investigating.

      Jim Clyburn, a veteran Democratic congressman, warned that Trump’s comments should be taken seriously, adding that they were reminiscent of the rhetoric that led to the rise of Jim Crow.

      Two senators proposed a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices, but it faces long odds.

      Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who will chair the Senate judiciary committee next year, sent the FBI director and his deputy a letter saying they should resign for not cooperating with Congress and politicizing the bureau.
      Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary is back on Capitol Hill for more meetings with Republican senators, including Joni Ernst, whose views on him are seen as vital to his chances of confirmation.Ernst, a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, has signaled hesitance with confirming Hegseth, after reports emerged of his excessive drinking and poor treatment of women, including a sexual assault allegation.Hegseth and Ernst met again today, but it wasn’t clear if the senator had made up her mind about Trump’s Pentagon pick. As he left her office, Hegseth said that it was a “very good meeting”, but little else.Chuck Grassley, the long-serving Iowa senator who will chair the chamber’s judiciary committee next year, has called for the FBI director, Christopher Wray, and his deputy to resign, saying they politicized the agency and refused to cooperate with him.Should Wray and his deputy FBI director, Paul Abbate, heed Grassley’s call, it would clear the way for Senate Republicans to confirm the former defense official Kash Patel to the job. Patel has drawn concern for calling for the imprisonment of journalists and vowing to radically downsize the FBI.In a letter sent to Wray, Grassley wrote:
      Rather than turn over a new leaf at the FBI, you’ve continued to read from the old playbook of weaponization, double standards, and a relentless game of hide-and-seek with the Congress. As your tenure as FBI director comes to an end, I want to take this opportunity to tell you where you went wrong, for the benefit of the bureau and that of your successor.
      Grassley went on to criticize Wray and Abbate for not being forthcoming enough on a range of matters, including sexual harassment claims made by female FBI employees, the vetting of evacuees from Afghanistan, and its agents’ search of Mar-a-Lago for classified materials Donald Trump was accused of hiding there.Grassley concludes:
      For the good of the country, it’s time for you and your deputy to move on to the next chapter in your lives. I’ve spent my career fighting for transparency, and I’ve always called out those in government who have fought against it. For the public record, I must do so once again now. I therefore must express my vote of no confidence in your continued leadership of the FBI. President-elect Trump has already announced his intention to nominate a candidate to replace you, and the Senate will carefully consider that choice. For my part, I’ve also seen enough, and hope your respective successors will learn from these failures.
      If they do not step down, Trump has the power to fire them.In his interview with NBC, Donald Trump also mulled putting his health secretary nominee, Robert F Kennedy Jr, in charge of researching the very vaccines he has pushed conspiracy theories against. Here’s more, from the Guardian’s Robert Tait:Donald Trump has said Robert F Kennedy Jr, his nominee for health secretary, may investigate a supposed link between vaccines and autism – despite a consensus among the medical establishment debunking any such connection.In a wide-ranging interview with NBC, the US president-elect claimed an investigation was justified by the increasing prevalence of autism diagnoses among American children over the past 25 years.“When you look at what’s going on with disease and sickness in our country, something’s wrong,” Trump said after the interviewer, Kristen Welker, asked him if he wanted to see some vaccines eliminated – a position for which Kennedy has argued.“If you take a look at autism, go back 25 years, autism was almost nonexistent. It was, you know, one out of 100,000 and now it’s close to one out of 100.”According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one out of every 36 children in the US were diagnosed with autism in 2020, compared with one in 150 in 2000.Kennedy, a noted vaccine sceptic, has repeatedly peddled discredited theories that the conditions is caused by childhood vaccinations.“I do believe that autism does come from vaccines,” he said in a 2023 Fox News interview in which he called for more vaccine testing.“We should have the same kind of testing place or control trials that we have for other every other medication. Vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing control trials, so that there’s no way that anybody can tell the risk profile of those products, or even the relative benefits of those products before they’re mandated. We should have that kind of testing.”Jason Miller, a top adviser to Donald Trump, went on CNN earlier today to defend the president-elect’s assertion that the bipartisan House committee tasked with investigating the January 6 insurrection destroyed evidence.Trump used that claim to then argue that the lawmakers who took part in the investigation should go to jail. The assertion appears factually wobbly, since the committee’s report and its evidence remains easily accessible online.Asked in the CNN interview if Trump would have Kash Patel, his nominee to lead the FBI, go after the committee members, Miller responded:
      I do have to take issue with saying that the select committee didn’t go and destroy records. They have wiped everything out …
      Other committees have looked through and said that those records are gone, that they don’t exist, that they’re not there. Even Republicans who are now in charge have said that those records are gone, that they’re not there. So I would completely take issue with that. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, but they got rid of it.
      But he seemed to moderate Trump’s comments slightly, arguing that the president-elect expects Patel and Pam Bondi, Trump’s pick for attorney general, “to apply the law equally”:
      He wants everyone who he puts into key positions of leadership, again, whether that’s Pam Bondi as the AG, Kash Patel, the FBI, or anybody else, to apply the law equally to everybody. Now, that means, if you’re somebody who’s committed some very serious crimes, who’s committed very serious felonies, who’s, for example, leaked confidential information, in direct violation of laws that are in place, well, then, obviously, that sets you up for different things …
      But as far as the politics aspect, if you listen to the entire interview with President Trump, he said he’s going to leave that up to the law enforcement agents in charge, including Pam Bondi and Kash Patel.
      The idea is not new. Similar bills, like the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2023, which was introduced in the US house of representatives and has more than 60 co-sponsors, also calls for 18-year terms for supreme court justices and the establishment of a process for the president to appoint a new justice every two years.Another bill introduced this year by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, called the Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act, also called for overhauling the supreme court. But unlike the amendment proposed by Welch and Manchin, this would not limit their terms, but rather the total number of justices, allowing for expanding the court from nine to 15.The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law says supreme court justices are getting appointed at younger ages and living longer than they used to, which means they are sitting on the court longer than usual.Donald Trump appointed more justices during his first term than Barack Obama or George W Bush did during each of their two-term presidencies respectively.About two-thirds of Americans support imposing term limits on the members of the nation’s highest court, according to the results of the the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey released in September.Although Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who co-authored the proposed amendment to limit the supreme court justice terms with Welch, is seen as an obstructionist by Democrats, this latest proposal is a popular idea within the party.The progressive House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last year said: “We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court [that] has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy.“And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”Manchin left the party in May and registered as an independent after criticism for pushing against Joe Biden’s ambitious legislative goals, like those related to tackling the climate crisis or taxing the wealthy.Senator Pete Welch of Vermont took to X to announce his amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices. He wrote:
      No other major democracy in the world gives lifetime seats to judges who sit on their highest court. It leads to divisive confirmation processes and reduced trust from the public.
      Donald Trump this weekend made clear he would pardon rioters facing charges or convicted of involvement in January 6, while saying members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the violence “should go to jail”. That prompted a response from its vice-chair, Republican former congresswoman Liz Cheney, who rejected his criticism, saying: “Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power”. Meanwhile, the supreme court turned aside an effort by Trump’s attorneys to lift the gag order imposed on him in his hush-money case.Here’s what else has happened today so far:

      Markwayne Mullin, a Republican senator, said the January 6 committee members do not “have a reason to be afraid now”, but that their work is worth of investigating.

      Jim Clyburn, a veteran Democratic congressman, warned that Trump’s comments should be taken seriously, adding that they were reminiscent of the rhetoric that led to the rise of Jim Crow.

      Two senators proposed a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices, but it faces long odds.
      The Democratic senator Peter Welch and independent senator Joe Manchin have proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose term limits on supreme court justices, saying such a move is necessary to restore faith in the nation’s highest court.“The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land. Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate,” said Manchin, who is weeks away from concluding his 14 years of representing West Virginia.The senators cited one of many surveys that found dismal approval ratings for the court, where conservatives have a six-justice supermajority and liberals a three-justice minority. Welch, a recent arrival in the chamber who represents Vermont, said:
      Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans.
      Here’s how their proposal would work:
      The amendment would institute nonrenewable, 18-year terms for new U.S. Supreme Court Justices, with a new term starting every two years …
      The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire. During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench. Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court.
      It’s unlikely the idea will go far, particularly with Republicans in January assuming the majority in the chamber tasked with confirming the president’s appointments to the supreme court.It’s also proven difficult to win ratification of constitutional amendments. None has been approved since 1992, and the process typically requires the approval of supermajorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the legislatures in three-fourths of states.Police in Pennsylvania are reportedly questioning a man in connection with the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, in New York City last week.News of Thompson’s murder was greeted with sympathy and cheers on some corners of social media, particularly from people who are critical of the insurer’s treatment of its customers. Over the weekend, the Democratic congressman Ro Khanna reacted to that sentiment by saying it is a sign that the US healthcare system needs real reform. Here’s more:
      Progressive congressperson Ro Khanna has sympathy for the murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson – yet at the same time is not surprised that the killing reignited a national dialogue about inequities in the US healthcare system, he said in an interview on Sunday.
      ‘It was horrific,’ the California Democrat said on ABC This Week with respect to the slaying of Thompson, whose survivors include his widow and two sons ages 16 and 19. ‘I mean, this is a father we’re talking about – of two children, and … there is no justification for violence.
      ‘But the outpouring afterwards has not surprised me.’
      Khanna told the show’s host, Martha Raddatz, that he agreed with fellow liberal and US senator Bernie Sanders when he wrote recently on social media: ‘We waste hundreds of billions a year on health care administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured. Health care is a human right. We need Medicare for all.
      ‘After years, Sanders is winning this debate,’ Khanna said, referring to the Vermont senator’s support for a single-payer national health insurance system seen in other wealthy democracies. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Currying favor with Trump’: Eric Adams’ rightward drift sparks speculation as prosecution looms

      by

      Eric Adams was elected New York mayor as a centrist-sounding Democrat. A Black former cop who talked tough-on-crime but fit fairly squarely in the overwhelmingly Democratic politics of the city.But Adams was also always famed for his eccentricities and foibles – scandals over the true extent of his veganism, whether or not he might actually live in New Jersey, and some of the tall tales he would recount from his past.But few New Yorkers might have expected the most recent twist in the Adams’ story: his firm drift rightward, especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory.In fact, Adams’ ever-closer relationship with Trump has sparked speculation as to exactly what the Democrat mayor of a famously liberal city – embroiled in deep legal troubles – might want from America’s soon-to-be Republican president.Recently, Adams did not dismiss switching to the Republican party, in which he had been a party member from 1995 through 2002, before turning Democrat. “I’m a part of the American party,” he said. “I love this country.”Last week alone Adams stunned observers with the depths of his rightward tilt on one of the key issues of the election: immigration. Adapting the language of extreme Republicans – who have fear-mongered over immigrant crime – Adams came out swinging for Trump, who plans a mass deportation of millions of immigrants as soon he gets back in the White House.“Well, cancel me because I’m going to protect the people of the city,” Adams said when asked if he plans to cooperate with Trump’s plan for federal deportation agents to remove migrants accused of felony crimes in the city.The comment came as Adams said he had requested a meeting with Trump’s incoming “border czar”, Tom Homan. Adams said he wanted “it clear that I’m not going to be warring with this administration”.He added: “I would love to sit down with the border czar and hear his thoughts on how we are going to address those who are harming our citizens. Find out what his plans are, where our common grounds are. We can work together.”Adams’ hard line adds a new wrinkle to how Democrat-led “sanctuary cities” such as New York, Los Angeles and Denver will adapt to the second Trump administration and raises the prospect that some top Democrat leaders may actively assist mass deportation.Adams is already looking to roll back sanctuary city laws approved by his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, that prohibit New York law enforcement – the NYPD and correction and probation departments – from cooperating with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents unless the cases involve suspected terrorists or serious public safety risks.View image in fullscreenSome moderate Democrats on the city’s usually progressive-leaning city council are supporting the move, with the councilmember Robert Holden calling in June for a repeal, saying: “Sanctuary city laws put all New Yorkers, both immigrants and longtime residents, in danger.”Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, said recently that while she supports legal immigrants, including asylum seekers, she will cooperate with the Trump administration to remove immigrants who break the law. “Someone breaks the law, I’ll be the first one to call up Ice and say: ‘Get them out of here,’” Hochul said.But some observers look at Adams’ tack towards Trump and see other factors at play, beyond playing to a segment of the electorate tired of Democrats’ traditional softer positions on immigrants.Adams is facing a multi-count federal complaint over alleged fundraising abuses involving Turkey brought by the outgoing local US district attorney Damian Williams, a Joe Biden nominee. Adams’ trial is set for the spring, just as his mayoral re-election campaign moves into high gear.Trump has nominated Jay Clayton to be Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor. Clayton is known for bringing white-collar corruption cases while serving as commissioner of the US Securities and Exchange Commission but has no experience litigating criminal law cases, raising the question as to whether Adams is cozying up to Trump in the hope that the complaint will be dropped.Adams is also now on the same page as Trump when it comes to unfounded claims of the political weaponization of the Department of Justice. In September, Adams defiantly suggested prosecutors had gone after him because he had criticized Biden’s immigration policies.“Despite our pleas, when the federal government did nothing as its broken immigration policies overloaded our shelter system with no relief, I put the people of New York before party and politics,” he said. “I always knew that if I stood my ground for all of you, that I would be a target – and a target I became.”But amid all the fresh posturing there is no doubt that immigration is a thorny political issue.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMore than 200,000 people have come to New York over the past several years after entering the United States seeking asylum. The Adams administration has projected the cost of housing and support to New York taxpayers could hit $10bn by June next year, and Trump made pronounced inroads in the city in last month’s election, particularly among Asian voters and Hispanic voters.Yet Adams has struck a notably hard line and nationalistic language that echoes Trump. Last week, he floated the idea of deporting migrants who had been accused but not convicted of felony crimes.“If you come into this country and this city and think you are going to harm innocent New Yorkers, and innocent migrants and asylum seekers, this is not the mayor you want to be under,” Adams said last week. “I’m an American. Americans have certain rights. The constitution is for Americans. I’m not a person who snuck into this country.”That brought a pushback from civil rights groups.“Everyone residing in the United States regardless of their immigration status has specific inalienable rights under the constitution, including the right to due process,” said the New York Immigration Coalition.“Immigrant communities have been key to New York’s success, both past and present. The answer to the ongoing crisis in our city is not to turn our back on our values, but it’s to ensure fair treatment,” said Andrea Gordillo, a progressive Democrat candidate for the city council.It is possible that Adams’ recent sidling up to the incoming Trump administration is both a self-serving move and a pragmatic step in keeping with a shift in New York’s political coloring and a recognition of the reality of the next four years of Trump rule.“He’s currying favor with the Trump administration, and it’s smart for any New York mayor to have friends in Washington because the city always has problems,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist.“By playing that card he’s also playing to the population of the city that have moved not insignificantly to the center and away from the left. New Yorkers are angry about the basic conditions of life here and tired of paying the cost of the nation’s problems. By doing so he’s setting himself for re-election.”There is also no doubt Adams is also dealing with a nasty criminal situation. At least seven top Adams officials have resigned or announced plans to resign as a result of the federal criminal investigation.“Making it go away would a boon to Adams’ re-election chances. Whether it is or it isn’t, everything in politics is conspiratorial by nature,” says Sheinkopf. “Any New York mayor who wants to make an enemy of the White House is nuts. New York mayors need the president no matter who they are.”By the end of last week Adams was even being asked whether he intended to stay in the Democratic party and join the Republicans. His answer was hardly a firm no.“The party that’s most important for me is the American party – I’m a part of the American party,” he said. More

    • 238 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden has been wrecking his legacy, but he still has time to do the right things | Judith Levine

      by

      President Joe Biden seems intent on demolishing his legacy.For months, the Democrats begged him to drop out of the presidential race. He defied them until the 11th hour. Kamala Harris lost.For years, capital punishment opponents pressed him to make good on his 2020 pledge to abolish the death penalty. In the past few weeks, they’ve been begging him to commute the death sentences of the 40 people on federal death row before Trump delivers them what Project 2025 icily calls “finality”. During his last term, Trump dispatched one woman and 12 men – more executions in six months than during the preceding 40 years.Biden has not responded to the pleas of the condemned. Instead, he pardoned Hunter, granting his son immunity from prosecution for any crime he “has committed or may have committed” between 2014 and 2024. The pardon, which experts call unprecedented in scope, not only breaks another vow (and “cements his legacy as liar-in-chief”, Fox News gleefully reports). It also hands Trump cover to use the Department of Justice to shower mercy on his fellow crooks and assorted sycophants and ruin his foes.And now Biden is considering preemptive pardons for the dozens of law-abiding public servants whom Trump is threatening with retaliatory criminal prosecution. Further abusing his office, tarring these people’s reputations with rumors of guilt, Biden is, in short, out-Trumping Trump.At the start, Biden called himself a human rights champion. Speaking at the state department shortly after his inauguration, he proclaimed that “upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law and treating every person with dignity” would be “the grounding wire of our global policy – our global power”. There was no asterisk indicating an exception for Palestine.Yet since 7 October 2023, while Democratic opposition to the war in Gaza has grown to a majority, the Biden administration has drawn, and trampled, one line after another in Israel-Palestine’s sand. A year and a week into the war, on 13 October 2024, the US secretaries of state and defense – though, pointedly, not the president himself – signed a letter to the then Israeli secretary of defense Yoav Gallant threatening unspecified “implications for US policy” if Israel did not implement a list of “concrete measures” to end the starvation, disease and arbitrary displacement – to “reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory” in Gaza, “starting now and within 30 days”.Thirty days passed. The conditions were not met. The Democrats lost the election, in some part due to disaffection over the war. Bernie Sanders brought a resolution to the US Senate floor to withhold military aid to Israel, citing US law prohibiting it to countries that use the weapons to commit war crimes. The White House quietly lobbied against the resolution, claiming that “disapproving arms purchases for Israel … would put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas at the worst possible moment”. With nearly 44,000 Palestinians killed and 2 million displaced, it was unclear when a better moment might be.The next day, the international criminal court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Gallant and the presumed-dead Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri (known as Mohammed Deif), alleging the same war crimes and crimes against humanity that Sanders cited in support of his resolution.And barely a week later, Biden asked Congress to approve a $680m arms package for Israel, which it did. The package included the weapons the Israel Defense Forces had been using to wipe out entire families, with no apparent military objective.What else has the president been doing since the election to burnish his memory in the world’s eyes? He recognized National Family Week, National Apprenticeship Week and National Impaired Driving Prevention Month. He pardoned two Thanksgiving turkeys. And oh, yes, he brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, leaving the IDF undistracted from pulverizing every structure and living thing in Gaza.Biden is capable of changing his mind. In 1974, for instance, he opined that he didn’t “think a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body”. In 1994, he boasted of his steadfast record – “no fewer than 50 occasions” – of voting against federal funding for abortion. He reversed that stance in 2019, and, running for president in 2020, promised to “protect women’s constitutional right to choose”. The candidate had noticed that states were “passing extreme laws” against abortion. “Circumstances have changed,” he said – again, too late.There are a few explanations for this almost petulant farewell performance. Perhaps Biden is mad at the Democrats for pushing him aside. Perhaps Mr Nice Guy is the same obnoxious misogynist who interrogated Anita Hill during Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation hearings and declined to take testimony from three other women who alleged that Thomas had sexually harassed them too. Perhaps Biden is not really “driven” by human rights, as Politico’s Nasal Toosi concluded earlier this year, though he’ll tack them on if they don’t interfere with other realpolitik or economic goals.Or perhaps he’s entered the later stages of dementia and, in the muddle, switched parties.But the hell with explanations. The question is: now what? Circumstances have changed. Biden is a lame duck, free to do what he wishes. Trump is the next president. Biden’s legacy may be shot – and what’s not shot, Trump will shoot down or take credit for. But the president still has time to do the right things. He could start by saving a few, or a few thousand, lives.

      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Ro Khanna: Brian Thompson killing was ‘horrific’ but people ‘aren’t getting care they need’

      by

      Progressive congressperson Ro Khanna has sympathy for murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – yet at the same time is not surprised that the killing reignited a national dialogue about inequities in the US healthcare system, he said in an interview Sunday.“It was horrific,” the California Democrat said on ABC This Week with respect to the slaying of Thompson, whose survivors include his widow and two sons ages 16 and 19. “I mean, this is a father we’re talking about – of two children, and … there is no justification for violence.“But the outpouring afterwards has not surprised me.”Khanna told the show’s host, Martha Raddatz, that he agreed with fellow liberal and US senator Bernie Sanders when he wrote recently on social media: “We waste hundreds of billions a year on health care administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured. Health care is a human right. We need Medicare for all.”“After years, Sanders is winning this debate,” Khanna said, referring to the Vermont senator’s support for a single-payer national health insurance system seen in other wealthy democracies.While police have stopped short of offering a possible motive behind Thompson’s 4 December shooting death, the apparent targeted nature of the attack – as well as shell casings found at the scene of the killing displaying the words “delay”, “deny” and possibly “depose” have suggested it was maybe linked to the largely privatized US healthcare industry’s routine denial of payments to many Americans.Healthcare debt has emerged as a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US while for-profit health insurers such as UnitedHealthcare are among the country’s richest companies. Thompson, 50, who lived near UnitedHealthcare’s headquarters in Minnesota, commanded a salary of $10m annually before a gunman wearing a mask shot him dead outside a hotel in Manhattan as he prepared to attend a meeting with investors of his company.Many greeted news of Thompson’s death not with sympathy but with mockery. A widely shared example of the sentiment was a social media post from Columbia School of Social Work’s Anthony Zenkus, which read: “Today, we mourn the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I’m sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who die needlessly each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.”Khanna on Sunday said his status as a member of the US House has not immunized him from absurd insurance battles.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThough he acknowledged it paled in comparison to people with cancer, heart disease and diabetes being denied coverage while they battle for their lives, Khanna said: “I, as a congressperson had UnitedHealthcare deny a prescription for a nasal – a $100 pump spray, and I couldn’t get them to reverse this. So imagine what ordinary people are dealing with.”Khanna said some modest steps that the US could take to begin addressing healthcare inequities in the country is to cap out-of-pocket costs while also requiring the private insurers relied on by many Americans “to cover anything” that Medicare would.Medicare is the public US health insurance program for those older than 65 and people who are disabled.“We have to understand people with cancer, with heart disease, with diabetes, with insurance aren’t getting the care that they need. They’re getting stuck with huge medical bills.” More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      On wokeness, patriotism and change, Kamala Harris’s defeat has lessons for Starmer | Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley

      by

      Given how events unfolded, it was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris. Many Democrats are ­convinced her ­campaign saved the party from an even worse result. To be fair, it achieved some real highs: she won the debate. But she never won the argument, at least not with the ­voters who mattered most.The US election triggered a scary deja vu moment for those of us who had watched the 2019 UK ­general ­election from behind our sofas, hands over our eyes. The Democrats lost votes with almost everyone, almost everywhere, but, like Labour in the “red wall”, most ­dramatically with traditional heartland ­voters: working-class, low-paid, non-­graduates. And, like Labour back in 2019, that lost connection with core voters had not happened overnight.Working with the DC-based Progressive Policy Institute, we ­conducted post-election polling and focus groups with past Democrat voters who voted for Trump on 5 November. The work laid bare an anxious nation desperate for change. Be in no doubt, this was a change election: any candidate failing to offer the change the electorate craved had become a risky choice. Asking how voters felt about the results on 6 November, “relieved” was the word we heard most often.Overwhelmingly, change focused on two issues: inflation and ­immigration. Trump enjoyed a clear lead on both. Sure, Harris had some popular policies (anti price-­gouging, tax cuts, help for first-time ­buyers and small businesses), but these seemed sidelined in an overcrowded campaign, with voters concluding that she was not on their side and was too focused on “woke” issues.Among working-class ­voters, 53% agreed the Dems had gone “too far in pushing a woke ­ideology”. They’ve “gone in a weird ­direction”, said one, “lost touch with our ­priorities”, said another. Worse still was the sense that any voter who disagreed with them was “a bad person”.American liberals were out of step with these voters’ views – most importantly, on loving their country. As many as 66% of Americans say theirs is the greatest country in the world, rising to 71% of working-class voters. Liberals were the only group who disagreed. What this patriotism means matters. Voters expressed it in terms of putting US interests ahead of others – it also meant recognising that change is needed and being prepared to act. As one voter put it: “If you’re not championing change, you’re not patriotic.”Hungry for that change, voters yearned for a shake-up in the way that both government and the economy operates. Just 2% said the system needed no change, while 70% believed the country was heading in the wrong direction. The Democrats did not seem to hear this – some even interpreted Harris’ pledge to “protect democracy” as “protecting the status quo”. By contrast, Trump’s appetite for disruption, coupled with his contempt for Capitol Hill sacred cows, seemed to promise change that for once might actually deliver for working class voters.Are there things the Harris campaign could have done ­differently? Of course. Joyful celebrities seemed tin-eared to an ­electorate feeling worried, ­pessimistic, even scared. But what should really ­trouble the Democrats now is the sense that the party – not just the candidate or the campaign – has, since 2020, parted company with the voters that its electoral success depended on: millions of Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, do the right thing and now feel they are not ­getting a fair deal. The Democrats can only win by putting those “hero voters” back at the centre of their politics. The same was true for Labour in 2024 and is true for ­centre-left parties elsewhere. That requires a course correction which needs to start now.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs Democrats absorb the result, without an immediate leadership contest to ­provide direction, local leaders must be prepared to step up, flex their muscles and challenge Trump. Change demands strong leadership – all the more so when voters feel vulnerable. Polling gave Trump a 28% lead on strength. Described as a “powerhouse”, he was likened to “neat whisky – gives it to you straight” while Harris was a “watered down cocktail”. Imagined as a car, he was a “sturdy dump truck owning the road, not to be argued with” while she was a “flimsy Kia”. The grit that took a mixed race woman tantalisingly close to the top job in world politics was just not evident to voters. Having absolute ­clarity of conviction is a must for tomorrow’s aspiring candidates – and showcasing that must start today.This is eerily familiar ground to those of us who worked hard to ­distance Labour from what led to catastrophic loss in 2019. It remains to be seen if the Democrats embrace the change their party needs as ­courageously as Keir Starmer did over the past four years.But there is food for thought for the new Labour administration, too. Labour must continue to channel its powerful change message in ­government, reflecting the anti-establishment mood that now exists both sides of the Atlantic. It must be prepared – enthusiastic even – about disrupting rather than defending old, tired institutions. It needs a strong overarching narrative and a plan to reform government and the economy so it can truly deliver back to the hero voters that delivered its electoral success in July. That work started last week with the launch of Starmer’s Plan for Change with its powerful emphasis on working people being better off, but there remains much to do.Deborah Mattinson is Keir Starmer’s former director of strategy. Claire Ainsley was Labour’s executive director of policy from 2020-2022 More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Tim Walz ‘surprised’ that he and Kamala Harris lost election to Donald Trump

      by

      In his first television interview since their defeat in the 5 November presidential election, Tim Walz said he was “a little surprised” that he and his fellow Democrat Kamala Harris lost the race to the Republican ticket headed by Donald Trump.“It felt like at the rallies, at the things I was going to, the shops I was going in, that the momentum was going our way,” the Minnesota governor told KSTP, one of his state’s news outlets, in an interview published on Thursday. “So, yeah, I was a little surprised.“I thought we had a positive message, and I thought the country was ready for that.”Walz said “history will write” whether the outgoing vice-president erred in choosing him as her running mate before Trump clinched his return to the White House.“Are there things you could have done differently? Since we lost, the answer is obviously yes,” Walz remarked. “On this one, I did the best I could.”During the conversation with KTSP, Walz also described the frantic morning after Harris called him on 6 August asking him to serve as her vice-president if she were elected. His acceptance led to him being flown to Philadelphia on a private jet to be introduced at Temple University – where he said he and Harris shared a humorous moment.“She turns to me and she says: ‘Well, let’s not screw this up,’” Walz recalled. “And we went out there.”Walz’s election debrief with KTSP came after his participation in the presidential race with Harris initially generated excitement with Democrats. His midwestern, former high school football coach persona charmed on the campaign trail at first, and his popularity surged after he perturbed Trump by labeling him and his allies “weird”.Nonetheless, Walz became less visible as the Harris campaign adopted more conventional strategies on the home stretch. Many ultimately regarded Walz as having performed less effectively than his Republican counterpart, US senator JD Vance of Ohio, by the time the two men debated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHarris ended up losing the electoral college to Trump by a 312-226 margin. The Republican candidate also captured the popular vote 49.9% to 48.4%, leaving him free to attempt to deliver on promises of mass deportations of immigrants and retribution against those who worked to hold him accountable for trying to forcibly overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.Walz told KTSP he “certainly got to see America” during his failed run for the vice-presidency but is now prepared to focus on his gubernatorial agenda in Minnesota.“It was a privilege to do that,” Walz said. “Coming back here now and having the privilege to do this work feels really good.” More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      White House says ‘Trump will inherit economy primed for growth’ in defense of Biden record – US politics live

      by

      White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that Donald Trump will inherit a good economy, thanks to Joe Biden’s policies over the past four years.She also announced that Biden would promote his economic accomplishments in a speech on Tuesday, after government data released today showed that hiring remained strong in November.“Just today, we learned more than 220,000 jobs were created last month, making this the only presidency in 50 years to have job growth every single month,” Jean-Pierre said.“Over the last four years, the president has rejected trickle-down economics and written a new economic playbook that builds the economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down. This is a strong foundation for years to come … Trump will inherit an economy primed for growth.”Vice president-elect JD Vance backed Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director, saying he is in a “very good spot” for Senate approval.Still, Vance was unsure whether he would join Patel on Capitol Hill next week, according to CNN, where Patel is expected to meet with senators.“I don’t know what I’ll be doing next week. We’re fully behind Kash’s nomination, and I’m not even sure if— I’m not sure where I’m gonna be tomorrow, much less next week, but we’re fully supportive of Kash’s nomination. I actually think he’s in a very good spot for his nomination,” Vance said.Melania Trump called her husband’s win “incredible” during her first post-election interview with Fox & Friends.“We are very, very busy … I’m establishing my transition team. And also, working on my office, putting my office together, and also, you know, organizing the residence and packing,” Melania Trump, who is set to return to the White House as first lady in January, said during the interview.She also announced her new Christmas ornament collection during an appearance on Fox News on Friday. One of the ornaments is priced at $90, while the other ornaments are $75 each.“After I left the White House, I established my Web3 and Web2 platforms where I design and offer collectibles like ornaments each season,” she said. “This is the third season, and there are many other collectibles available now.”The 2024 collection, titled Merry Christmas, America!, has four designs: a golden star with “USA” in the center, a golden Lady Liberty, a red-white-and blue snowflake, and a golden clover. Each ornament has Melania Trump’s signature.JD Vance defended Pete Hegseth after he toured western North Carolina, which was ravaged by Hurricane Helene in September.Vance said that Donald Trump’s defense secretary pick deserved a Senate confirmation hearing rather than a “sham hearing before the American media” over allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking of alcohol.“Pete Hegseth is going to get his hearing before the Senate armed services committee, not a sham hearing before the American media. We believe that Pete Hegseth is the right guy to lead the Department of Defense,” Vance said. “We’re not abandoning this nomination.”North Carolina Democrats have filed a lawsuit in federal court to block a Republican candidate’s effort to throw out 60,000 votes in a state supreme court race that a Democrat leads by just a few hundred votes.Allison Riggs, a Democrat on the state supreme court, appears to have defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by a little more than 700 votes in the race. A recount has already confirmed Riggs’ victory once, and a second recount tallying a sampling of precincts in each county is ongoing.Democrats are closely watching the race because they need to win it to have a chance at retaking control of the court in a few years. Republicans currently have a 5-2 majority on the court.After the election, Griffin’s campaign challenged the validity of 60,000 voters. The challenged voters include those whose voter registration lacked either a driver’s license or Social Security number, those who are the adult children of North Carolinians living abroad, and overseas voters who submitted ballots without voter ID. Many of the challenges rely on legal theories that have already been rejected by the courts.Several eligible voters have already spoken out in frustration against the challenges, saying they are eligible voters and have been casting a ballot without issue for years. Riggs’ parents are among those whose votes are being challenged.“Instead of respecting the results of the election, Jefferson Griffin and Republicans are attempting to throw out over 60,000 votes. Those 60,000 voters are Republicans, Democrats, veterans, seniors, teachers, our neighbors. No North Carolinian deserves to have their vote thrown out in a callous power grab – but this is no surprise from the party of insurrectionists,” Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic party, said in a statement.Among other issues, the lawsuit says that Griffin’s mass challenges are essentially an effort to conduct a mass purge of voters after election day. Doing so would violate a federal law that prohibits purging voters within 90 days of a federal election.“North Carolina Republicans’ attempts to throw out 60,000 lawful votes to overturn Justice Allison Riggs’ victory is a brazen and callous attack on the rule of law and North Carolinians’ right to vote, but it isn’t surprising. From trying to take power away from the newly elected Democratic governor to threatening to overturn the will of the voters, Republicans will stop at nothing in their quest for power,” said Sam Cornale, executive director of the Democratic National Committee.Austin Tice, an American freelance journalist who was kidnapped in Syria early into the country’s civil war, is alive, his mother said following a meeting with Biden administration officials at the White House.“The best thing that we want to share with you is that we have from a significant source that has already been vetted all over our government, Austin Tice is alive. Austin Tice is treated well, and there is no doubt about that, and so I think that is the most important thing,” Debra Tice said at the National Press Club.The press conference was held as rebels have swept across Syria in recent days, seizing major cities from president Bashar al-Assad’s forces. It is unclear who was behind Tice’s kidnapping in August 2012, but the Biden administration believes Syria’s government is holding him. Here’s more on what we know about Tice’s captivity, and the efforts to free him.Donald Trump will head to Paris this weekend to attend the reopening of Notre Dame.Joe Biden will not be there, but first lady Jill Biden will be in attendance at the ceremony to mark the church’s return after it nearly burned down in a fire five years ago.“The president has had a scheduling conflict, which is why he was not able to attend,” Jean-Pierre said, when asked about why Joe Biden would not attend.Here’s more on Trump’s trip in the midst of political chaos in France:White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that Donald Trump will inherit a good economy, thanks to Joe Biden’s policies over the past four years.She also announced that Biden would promote his economic accomplishments in a speech on Tuesday, after government data released today showed that hiring remained strong in November.“Just today, we learned more than 220,000 jobs were created last month, making this the only presidency in 50 years to have job growth every single month,” Jean-Pierre said.“Over the last four years, the president has rejected trickle-down economics and written a new economic playbook that builds the economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down. This is a strong foundation for years to come … Trump will inherit an economy primed for growth.”Former Biden administration official Jesse Lee pointed out on X that if Donald Trump stops the US Postal Service from electrifying their fleet, it will likely cost jobs.Fox Carolina reports that a manufacturer of the new electric vehicles for the postal service planned to hire 1,000 people to make them. That hiring would presumably be in jeopardy if Trump cancels the plan.“Trump planning to kill 1,000 jobs in South Carolina right off the bat,” Lee wrote.Donald Trump is considering canceling efforts to electrify the United State Postal Service’s fleet once he takes office, Reuters reports.The president-elect campaigned on killing electric vehicle incentives enacted during Joe Biden’s term to combat the climate crisis, and Reuters says his transition team is looking for ways to cancel contracts with vehicle manufacturers for electric vehicles that will be used by the postal service to move mail.Here’s more on the potential plan, from Reuters:
      The move, which could be unveiled in the early days of Trump’s administration that begins on Jan 20, is in line with Trump’s campaign promises to roll back President Joe Biden’s efforts to decarbonize US transportation to fight climate change – an agenda Trump has said is unnecessary and potentially damaging to the economy.
      Reuters has previously reported that Trump is planning to kill a $7,500 consumer tax credit for electric-vehicle purchases, and plans to roll back Biden’s stricter fuel-efficiency standards.
      The sources told Reuters that Trump’s transition team is now reviewing how it can unwind the postal service’s multibillion-dollar contracts, including with Oshkosh Corp (OSK.N) and Ford (F.N), for tens of thousands of battery-driven delivery trucks and charging stations.
      Oshkosh shares fell by roughly 5% to 105.65 per share after the Reuters report.
      Oshkosh and Ford did not respond to requests for comment.
      In 2023, Congress gave USPS $3 billion as part of a $430 billion climate bill to buy EVs and charging infrastructure. It plans to buy some 66,000 electric vehicles to build one of the largest electric vehicle fleets in the nation by 2028.
      As part of that, Oshkosh is expected to deliver about 45,000 electric vehicles, with the remaining coming from mainstream automakers like Ford, according to the USPS. The initial batch of 14,000 chargers are being supplied by Siemens, ChargePoint and Blink, according to the USPS.
      JD Vance on Friday surveyed damage from Hurricane Helene and talked to first responders in western North Carolina in one of his first public appearances since the November election.The hurricane struck in September and caused at least $53bn in damage in North Carolina, according to government estimates.Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, visited the Fairview volunteer fire department. There, he learned that the building had flooded with 4-6ins of water and that roughly a dozen people contracted walking pneumonia as they responded to the hurricane’s destruction.“At the height of it, I imagine y’all were working nonstop,” Vance said.After the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the US economy added more jobs than forecast in November, President Joe Biden said that “America’s comeback continues.” The unemployment rate, on the other hand, ticked higher last month.“This has been a hard-fought recovery, but we are making progress for working families,” Biden said in a statement.“While there is more to do to lower costs, we’ve taken action to lower prescription drug prices, health insurance premiums, utility bills, and gas prices that will pay dividends for years to come.”New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez officially announced her bid to serve as ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, the key investigative arm of the legislature.“The responsibility of leading Democrats on the House Oversight Committee during Donald Trump’s second term in the White House is a profound and consequential one,” the progressive lawmaker said in a letter released Friday.Ocasio-Cortez seeks one of the most influential positions in the House as Democrats work to counter the incoming Trump administration and monitor the president-elect and his allies.These allies have pledged to retaliate against opponents and disregard political norms in Washington.“We must do all that we can, now, to mark a different future for the American people,” reads Ocasio-Cortez’s letter, “one that inspires us to reject the siren calls of division, corruption, and authoritarianism through a shining example of a government that works for the people, by the people – one that sees their struggles and fights for them, not just the powerful and the wealthy.”If Democrats regain control of the House in the 2026 midterms, the new Oversight chairperson would have significant authority to issue subpoenas and investigate the Trump administration.Democratic representative for South Carolina, James Clyburn, said President Joe Biden should issue preemptive pardons for some of the people who have attacked President-elect Donald Trump, although it is not how the pardon power was intended.“We have to use the pardon system, or the clemency system, to get everything in order to address the current situation that we live in,” Clyburn told CNN.These comments come as the Biden administration considers the possibility of him granting mass pardons to a broad range of public officials to protect them against the possibility of retribution and revenge from Donald Trump when he assumes power.After a federal appeals court upheld a law banning TikTok across the US unless the it was sold off by its China-based parent company, the viral video app posted the following statement on X:“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”Donald Trump and JD Vance have gone to bat for defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement that could imperil his Senate confirmation. Trump said Hegseth “is doing very well”, while Vance said he and the president-elect have “got his back”. We’ll see if those statements move any wary senators. Meanwhile, TikTok suffered a setback when an appeals court rejected its attempt to block a law that will force its Chinese parent company to cut ties with the popular social media app by mid-January or face a ban. However, the story is far from finished: TikTok is expected to appeal to the supreme court, and Trump has made an about-face on the issue, saying he supports keeping TikTok available.Here’s what else is going on today:

      Trump aides believe that Hegseth is on track for confirmation, despite several Republicans saying the stories about his personal conduct make them hesitant to support him.

      Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat, says his lawmakers will find ways to work with the “Department of Government Efficiency”, so long as what it proposes is a good idea.

      Joe Biden is reportedly considering preemptive pardons for potential targets of retaliation, once Trump takes office. At least one Democratic senator thinks such a move would be a bad idea.
      At his press conference today, Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries said his party is willing to work with the new “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), as long as what it proposes is reasonable.“It’s unclear to me what exactly the objective is related to this so-called DOGE initiative. From our perspective, we want a federal government that is effective and efficient in equilibrium. And, to the extent the other side of the aisle shares that objective, which is what is right for the American people, then we’ll see if there’s common ground as possible,” Jeffries told reporters.The GOP will remain the majority party in the House of Representatives beginning next year, but only by a mere two seats. Jeffries implied that their slim control of the chamber will make working with the Democrats essential:
      It’s clear that the incoming House Republican majority will not be able to do much without us. More