Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House blasts Elon Musk for X post about Biden and Harris assassination

      by

      The White House lambasted Elon Musk for tweeting on Sunday, “Why they want to kill Donald Trump? And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” alongside an emoji face with a raised eyebrow.The president’s office issued a statement Monday that read: “Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about. This rhetoric is irresponsible.” The statement added that there should be “no place for political violence or for any violence ever in our country”.The Secret Service also said on Monday it was aware of a post by the billionaire on the X social network. Musk, who owns the platform, formerly known as Twitter, made the post after a man suspected of apparently planning to assassinate Donald Trump at his golf course in West Palm Beach was arrested on Sunday.Musk, himself a Trump supporter, was quickly criticized by X users from the left and right, who said they were concerned his words to his nearly 200m X followers could incite violence against Biden and Harris.The tech billionaire deleted the post but not before the Secret Service, tasked with protecting current and former presidents, vice-presidents and other notable officials, took notice.“The Secret Service is aware of the social media post made by Elon Musk and as a matter of practice, we do not comment on matters involving protective intelligence,” a spokesperson said in an email. “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees.”The spokesperson declined to specify whether the agency had reached out to Musk, who seemed to suggest in follow-up posts that he had been making a joke.“Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X,” he later wrote. “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”Harris, a Democrat running against the Republican nominee Trump in the 2024 election, and Biden both issued statements on Sunday night expressing relief that Trump had not been harmed. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Miami Heat attack ‘hateful’ speech after Trump’s lies about Haitians

      by

      The Miami Heat have issued a statement defending the Haitian community amid rumours and threats from the far right in the US.The NBA team posted a message of support on social media on Monday amid false claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio have eaten pets and wildlife.“The Miami HEAT staff, like Miami itself, is a diverse and brilliant mix of vibrant cultures, including members of our Haitian community,” the team wrote in the statement. “The false narrative around them is hurtful and offensive and has sadly made innocent people targets of hateful speech and physical threats. Our Haitian employees, fans and friends deserve better.”The Heat ended the statement by writing: “ansanm nou kanpé fò”, or “together we stand strong” in Haitian creole.Miami has a large Haitian community, many of them based in the neighbourhood of Little Haiti.The widely debunked lies around the Haitian community in Ohio were amplified when they were repeated by Donald Trump during his television debate with Kamal Harris last week.“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” said Trump. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”David Muir, one of ABC’s moderators for the debate, quickly corrected the former president.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“You bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABC News did reach out to the city manager there,” said Muir. “He told us there had been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”The city of Springfield believes the rumours may also have arisen from a case in Canton, Ohio, where an American with no known connection to Haiti was arrested in August for allegedly stomping a cat to death and eating the animal.Hospitals and government buildings in Springfield have been the subject of bomb threats linked to the rumours in recent days. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Political violence and fearmongering bigotry have become too normalized | Robert Reich

      by

      The second apparent attempt on Donald Trump’s life – on Sunday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida – occurred just over two months after he was wounded during an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” the former president said after the first attempt. “I’m just standing in the way.”“They” should not be coming after anyone. There is no place in a democracy for violence, nor for threats of violence.Which brings me to Trump’s claim in last week’s debate that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the dogs … eating the cats. They’re eating – they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”It quickly became a vast internet joke, fueling thousands of hilarious memes and songs. But it’s no laughing matter. Trump’s claim has already provoked threats of violence.Last weekend, two hospitals in Springfield were locked down after bomb threats, police said. Other threats received by Springfield officials have forced government buildings to close, two elementary schools to be evacuated and the students moved to a different location, and a middle school to shut down altogether.After Republican VP nominee JD Vance first began spreading baseless rumors about Haitians in Springfield, members of the neo-Nazi group “Blood Tribe” marched into the city carrying guns, wearing body armor, and carrying Neo-Nazi flags. At a 27 August town hall meeting, one claimed that the city had been taken over by “degenerate third worlders”, blamed Jewish people for the influx, and warned “crime and savagery will only increase with every Haitian you allow in.”Springfield’s Haitian immigrants say they are afraid. Some have kept their children home from school, fearing violence. Others have reported harassment on the street, in their cars, and at stores.A Springfield family whose son died last year when a car driven by a Haitian immigrant accidentally collided with a school bus has pleaded for Trump and Vance to stop using their deceased son for political purposes.Yet Trump and Vance are doubling down. On Sunday, before the attempt on Trump’s life, Vance said on CNN that the claims about Haitians eating the pets of Springfield residents came from “firsthand accounts from my constituents”. When interviewer Dana Bash suggested that the claims had caused bomb threats, Vance called her a “Democratic propagandist”. But the connection is indisputable.Rather than offhand comments, Trump’s and Vance’s claims are calculated. Trump’s last two posts on Truth Social before the debate were AI images of cats – one depicting cats in military fatigues carrying assault rifles and wearing Maga hats, the other showing the candidate himself sitting on a plane amid a crowd of ducks and cats.Trump is now talking about holding a rally in Springfield. “We’re going to get these people out,” Trump said in a Friday news conference. Although Springfield’s Haitian immigrants are in the United States legally, he promised to stage “the largest deportation in the history of our country” if re-elected.Trump’s and Vance’s claims are completely bogus. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, told CBS News on Wednesday: “These Haitians came in here to work because there were jobs, and they filled a lot of jobs. And if you talk to employers, they’ve done a very, very good job and they work very, very hard.”Another of Trump’s bogus claims is now threatening legal immigrants in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb that Trump has repeatedly asserted is being “taken over” by Venezuelan criminals. “Simply not true”, Aurora’s Republican mayor and city council member wrote in a joint statement.As in Springfield, Trump’s baseless claims are harming innocent people in Aurora. Immigrants there say they have been told their nationality makes them ineligible for jobs or housing. Trump’s claims have led to threats and drawn armed groups to the city, claiming to offer vigilante-style protection.Trump and Vance are using the oldest of tyrannical ploys – fueling deep-seated fears by creating an “other”, depicted as subhuman, who “take over” towns and “devour” loved ones.In Springfield, the loved ones are peoples’ pets. But how far is this bogus claim from vicious Nazi claims of Jewish people devouring children? Substitute “Jew” for “Haitian” in Springfield or for “Venezuelan” in Aurora, and you’re back to the Nazis of the 1930s.In demonizing and dehumanizing migrants, Trump and Vance are not just seeking to win over a few wavering voters across the nation or making a play for control of the Senate. They are trying to scare America into becoming a more fearsome, more racist nation.“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump said of immigrants at a rally in New Hampshire eight months ago – virtually quoting Adolf Hitler, who wrote in Mein Kampf: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.”In a last-ditch effort to prevail in their campaign, Trump and Vance are encouraging the haters. On 10 September, Vance told his followers to “keep the cat memes flowing”, notwithstanding that they were endangering people in his own state.Meanwhile, members of Trump’s social media war room – including Trump confidante Laura Loomer, known for sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Muslim, and antisemitic posts – are busily spreading AI-generated images of dogs and cats being protected by Trump, along with other content promoting the claim that pets are being eaten by Haitians.Let me repeat: there no justification whatsoever for violence or threats of violence in our democracy. While utterly despicable, Sunday’s second apparent assassination attempt on Trump can be seen as a symptom of the hate-filled politics that he and Vance are peddling.This must stop.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Suspect said he knew why he was being arrested after Trump golf club incident, officials say

      by

      Cellphone records associated with the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump at his golf course in Florida on Sunday suggest he had been lying in wait nearby for nearly 12 hours before he was fired on by a Secret Service agent protecting the former president.Then, after authorities captured him as he made his hasty retreat, he allegedly told them he knew exactly why they were arresting him.Those details surfaced in a criminal complaint that was unsealed after the man alleged to have plotted the attempt on Trump’s life appeared in front of a preliminary federal court hearing Monday.The new records alleged that the suspect in the case, 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh, had previously asked his social media followers to contact him at a specific cellphone number. Investigators later determined that particular number was located at or near a tree line along Trump International golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, from about 1.59am to 1.31pm on Sunday, an FBI agent wrote in the unsealed papers.At the end of that time frame, a Secret Service agent walking the perimeter of the course while Trump golfed there noticed “what appeared to be a rifle poking out of the tree line”, the complaint said.The agent drew a gun and fired in the direction of the rifle. A bystander then saw a man later identified as Routh emerge from the tree line and flee in a Nissan SUV.Authorities said they soon found an SKS-style rifle equipped with a scope, a digital camera and at least three bags – including one containing food – in the area from which Routh fled. The serial number on the 7.62mm rifle had been “obliterated and [was] unreadable”, the FBI agent who wrote the complaint said.Deputies from two local sheriff’s offices later stopped Routh as he speeded northbound on Interstate 95 at about 2.15pm. “Routh was asked if he knew why he was being stopped,” the complaint said. “He responded in the affirmative.”The complaint noted that the license plate on the Nissan was not meant to be on the vehicle. Rather, it was registered to a white Ford truck that had been reported stolen.Authorities did not immediately charge Routh with attempting to assassinate the president. Instead, they charged him with possessing a firearm despite having prior felony conviction prohibiting him from legally doing so – as well as with illicitly having a gun with an obliterated serial.The first of those charges stemmed from Routh’s having been convicted in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 2002 of illegally possessing what a media report referred to at the time as a “fully automatic machine gun”. According to the Greensboro News & Record, in that instance Routh barricaded himself at his roofing company during a three-hour standoff before he led police on a car chase and ultimately surrendered.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA second felony conviction mentioned in Monday’s criminal complaint was for multiple counts of possession of stolen goods.The complaint does not address what may have motivated Routh to stick the barrel of a rifle into Trump’s golf course while the Republican presidential candidate played there. Routh’s son, Oran, told the Guardian on Sunday that Ukraine’s cause in its war against Russia was dear to him.Trump, as he seeks a second presidency in November, recently declined to answer a question at a televised debate about whether he wanted Ukraine to win that war, renewing fears that he might suspend American military aid to Ukrainian troops if voters return him to the White House. The former president also successfully lobbied lawmakers who are loyal to him to delay authorizing additional military support to Ukraine for months earlier this year.Routh’s hearing on Monday lasted eight minutes and saw federal prosecutors announce the initial charges against him. He could face 15 years in prison if convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and five years in connection with the other charge.Trump survived a separate assassination attempt on 13 July at a political rally in Pennsylvania. The gunman shot one spectator dead and badly wounded two other rallygoers before he was killed by Secret Service snipers. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

      by

      John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trump ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.According to the Times, some of the conservative justices wanted to delay the decision on the presidential immunity case until after Trump finished running for a second term in the White House in November. But Roberts advocated for an early hearing and decision – and ultimately wrote the majority opinion himself.Before the opinion and ruling went public, the Times reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had praised Roberts on the ruling, calling it “extraordinary”. Their fellow conservative justice Neil Gorsuch – who, like Kavanaugh, was appointed to the supreme court during Trump’s presidency – called it “remarkable”.The decision came out on 1 July and stated that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Both conservatives and liberals saw it as a huge win for Trump, who – among a spate of legal problems – is awaiting sentencing for a criminal conviction in May of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to an adult film actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.The supreme court then returned the case to district judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case against Trump for allegedly participating in an illicit effort to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. That left her tasked with having to figure out how to apply the US supreme court’s decision.The Times also reported that in the case about whether individual states could kick Trump off the ballot based on language in the US constitution which bars insurrections from holding office, Roberts told his colleagues that he wanted the decision to be unanimous and unsigned.All nine justices initially agreed that Trump should remain on state ballots. But then, the Times reports, four conservative justices suggested additions to the ruling, including proposing that Congress would have to approve enforcement of the insurrectionist ban in the constitution.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFour justices – liberals Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett – reportedly disagreed. They said they thought that went too far and wrote concurrences in disagreement, according to the Times.Ultimately, Roberts sided with the four remaining justices – fellow conservatives Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr – in an opinion that he wrote and was issued unsigned.In the third case scrutinized by the Times, which involved the Capitol attack participants’ obstruction of justice charges, Roberts had originally assigned the writing of the majority opinion to Alito.But then in May, Roberts – in an unusual move – informed the court that he would write the opinion himself. The chief justice did that days after a scandal enveloped Alito in the wake of reports that his wife had flown an upside-down flag outside the couple’s home following the Capitol attack. Flying flags upside down, a universal sign of distress, has been associated with a movement that boosted Trump’s lies about the 2020 election being unduly stolen from him.The Times wrote that it was unclear whether there was a link between the flag scandal and Roberts’ decision to write the Capitol attack-related opinion, in which a 6-3 conservative majority found the federal government could not apply its obstruction of justice statute so broadly. The justices did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The world should breathe a sigh of relief that Donald Trump wasn’t harmed in Florida | Simon Tisdall

      by

      It’s worthwhile trying to imagine what might have happened had Donald Trump been shot and killed after playing the fifth hole at his Florida golf course at the weekend. Though many people might love to see the back of an obnoxious man who incited others to violence, this weekend’s incident has prompted calls for tighter security around the former president and weighty condemnation from his rival Kamala Harris, who says she is “deeply disturbed” by the apparent assassination attempt and tweeted: “I am glad he is safe. Violence has no place in America.”Yet, with this, the second mortal threat, speculation is inevitable. And, paradoxically, Trump dead could be even more dangerous than Trump alive.Trump’s killing would be a personal tragedy – primarily for him and his family. It would mark the end of an extraordinary, tumultuous, always polarising political career. It would add his name, undeservedly, to an honoured list of assassinated US presidents that includes John F Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln.But far more than that, Trump’s death at the hands of a lone would-be sniper (as reportedly nearly happened on Sunday) would have thrown US politics and the November presidential election into utter confusion. His sudden passing would create an unprecedented, certainly unpredictable and possibly anarchic political vacuum at home and abroad.A few foreign governments – Iran comes to mind – would welcome his elimination and seek to take advantage of the ensuing uncertainty. Yet the Russian and Chinese dictators, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, would not necessarily be among them. They regard Trump as a “useful idiot”, in the words of his former national security adviser, John Bolton – a shallow man easily flattered and manipulated. In any case, both Putin and Xi are understandably opposed to assassinating dictators. They’d miss him.A post-Trump world could look very different. The alleged would-be assassin in Florida reportedly held strong pro-Ukraine views and had lobbied and travelled to the country to express his support for its resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion. It’s no secret that Ukraine’s embattled government fears a second Trump term may mean the end of US military and financial assistance, and an enforced, unequal settlement with Moscow. A Kamala Harris presidency, in contrast, promises a continuation of Joe Biden’s policy of cautious support. Few would be so vulgar as to say so, but Trump’s abrupt departure might be a relief to Kyiv.Similarly, politicians across Europe, not least in Britain, might privately be pleased if hostile, xenophobic Trump were no longer around to hurl insults across the Atlantic, remind them of broken promises on defence and security – and disrupt western policy, from Gaza to the climate crisis.But it is at home that Trump’s sudden demise would most powerfully be felt. He would inevitably be cast as a martyr by his Make America Great Again followers and their media boosters. They would probably claim, as happened after July’s failed assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, that the Biden administration and the Democrats were somehow part of a plot to kill him. Even though Trump survived on Sunday, this is already happening again. Might violent disorder have ensued, had Trump died? It seems likely.The impact on a US election already upended by Biden’s late decision to quit the race would also be stupendous. There would be calls to postpone the vote. Constitutionally, that’s a tough, perhaps impossible, call. More probably, perhaps, the Republicans, like the Democrats in the summer, would turn, in extremis, to the number two on the ticket – their vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance. How scary that would be!At least Trump is a known quantity. Vance is equally “weird”, as Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, says, but he’s a dark horse with highly objectionable views of his own, notably about women’s roles. Vance seeking the presidency, milking the sympathy vote for his late lamented master, might be an even worse nightmare for Harris. Trump’s hopefully hyperbolic vows to penalise his enemies, should he be re-elected, might ultimately appear mild in comparison with a President Vance vengefully victimising democracy itself in order to settle scores with all who oppose his hand-me-down Trumpism.For many moral and other practical reasons, it’s just as well Trump wasn’t harmed in Florida. Far preferable, and safer for the battered cause of universal democracy and human rights, to shoot him down figuratively at the ballot box. Far better for a healthy, functional society that his arguments (such as they are), his gross prejudices and wild-eyed bigotry be publicly, firmly rejected for all to see. It’s more important to discredit and extirpate this brand of evil than to destroy its chief advocate in person.Trump belongs in jail, not in the ground, and if Harris prevails in November, it’s more possible that is where he will end up. Meanwhile, the US government, the FBI, the Secret Service and the rest of the “law enforcement community” must try to ensure the reviving US penchant for political assassination does not accelerate. There are real, justified fears now for the safety not only of Trump and Vance but also for Harris, Biden and Walz – all prominent potential copycat targets in a society sick with gun violence, schism and hate.This is the wider threat highlighted by the Florida golf course drama. Russian, Iranian and North Korean hackers can do their worst. Online social media disinformation is a huge problem. So, too, is vote suppression, as is local and state-level election interference by Trump’s misguided backers. But more worrying, more frightening than all of that, is the prospect of the US’s system of representative government, still despite everything a shining example to the world, being brought to its knees by gun-toting crazies, coup plotters and the violent use of force.Trying to kill Trump amounts to much the same as trying to kill democracy. Like a rat in a trap or a toad in a hole, it’s best to keep him alive and kicking – until he is politically put down.

      Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s foreign affairs commentator

      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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Calls mount for more Trump security after apparent assassination attempt at golf club

      by

      Demands were mounting on Sunday for Donald Trump to receive protections on a level with a sitting president after a would-be assassin was narrowly foiled from carrying out what the FBI is investigating as an attempt on the life of the Republican nominee, the second against him in as many months.Joe Biden on Monday said he believed the Secret Service – which has been plagued by staff shortages – needed more resources.The president said “thank God” Trump was OK, before adding: “One thing I want to make clear [is] the Secret Service needs more help. I think Congress should respond to their needs.“I think they need some more personnel.”Biden’s comments came as an internal report into the operational failures that preceded the earlier assassination attempt against Trump – in July – is expected to detail lapses in communication between the former president’s protective detail and local law enforcement charged with securing the perimeter around political rallies.A suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, a pro-Ukraine activist from Hawaii who is registered to vote in North Carolina, was detained after a Secret Service agent spotted the barrel of an AK-47-style rifle poking through a chain link fence on the outskirts of Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach.The former president is estimated to have been 300 to 500 yards away when a Secret Service agent saw the suspect and fired at him.The suspect fled and was later arrested speeding north from Palm Beach in his car.Republicans were the first to call for additional security, which has already been improved since Trump was targeted at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, by Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was killed by a Secret Service sniper. The 20-year-old gunman in the earlier case, whose motives appeared to be opportunistic, shot the president in the ear while killing one bystander and wounding two others.The former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Secret Service should change its policy and treat Trump like he is an incumbent with a larger protective perimeter around him.“Stop being bureaucratic,” he said on X. “Do what’s necessary.”In a statement on Sunday, Joe Biden said he had ordered the federal government to continue ensuring the “Secret Service has every resource, capability and protective measure necessary to ensure the former president’s continued safety”. But the president’s statement did little to quell demands for more protections for Trump as he runs against Kamala Harris in the 5 November election.The New York Republican congresswoman Claudia Tenney said it was inexplicable that there had apparently been a second attempted assassination, remarking: “President Trump needs the same, if not more, Secret Service protection than a sitting president.”The US House majority leader, Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, said that the Secret Service must up their level of protection of him to their full capabilities – including “expanding the perimeter”.The congressman Nick Langworthy, another New York Republican, said that recurring political violence targeting Trump “is unacceptable and deeply un-American”.“This is not who we are as a nation, and it cannot be tolerated under any circumstances,” Langworthy said.Such reactions largely came after the West Palm Beach sheriff, Ric Bradshaw – whose jurisdiction includes Trump’s golf course – said security would have been tighter if the former president was in office.But the debate over what level of security Trump should receive has clashed with protocol and demands on the Secret Service’s $3bn budget. About $1.2bn is allocated to protective services for the sitting president and his family.But where the sitting president’s detail is supported by the military, Trump is assigned a far lighter detail tasked to work with local law enforcement.Before the Butler shooting, the Secret Service repeatedly denied requests for additional resources and personnel sought by Trump’s security detail. Denials of those requests often cited staff shortages, leading to tensions between Trump advisers and the agency.Failures of communication between the Secret Service and local law enforcement about closing off lines of sight contributed to Trump’s vulnerability in Butler, an internal Secret Service investigation reportedly showed.After that assassination attempt, security around Trump was said to have increased. The homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, in July said that his agency, which includes the Secret Service, was beefing up protection for Trump.“The Secret Service enhanced former president Trump’s protection based on the evolving nature of threats to the former president,” Mayorkas said at a White House briefing.But Trump’s frequent golf games have long been viewed as challenging because golf courses are open areas and often close to roads. He owns courses in Florida, New York, New Jersey and Scotland, as well as numerous other locations.Early on Monday, Trump thanked his security detail for protecting him.“It was certainly an interesting day!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. He thanked the Secret Service and local law enforcement “for the incredible job done today at Trump International in keeping me, as the 45th President of the United States, and the Republican Nominee in the upcoming Presidential Election, SAFE”.Harris commended the Secret Service on Sunday, too, and described herself as “thankful” that her opponent in the presidential race was safe. The vice-president also condemned political violence while reiterating Biden’s pledge to “ensure the Secret Service has every resource” necessary to protect Trump. More

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Should we take Elon Musk’s and Taylor Swift’s political endorsements seriously? | Siva Vaidhyanathan

      by

      What should we make of the fact that the richest person in the world has joined forces with Donald Trump and promises now to serve the United States as some sort of czar of government “efficiency”? And what should we make of the world’s biggest pop star endorsing Kamala Harris for president?Why should it matter that these mega-celebrities tell us what they want from politics and government?The morning after Taylor Swift endorsed Harris for president, Elon Musk defended his new buddy, Trump, in the most disturbing and bizarre fashion, referring to the Republican obsession with women who have chosen not to have children and have cats. “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk, who has impregnated at least one of his employees and has reportedly propositioned others, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.Swift, in contrast, has declared over the past four years that she cares deeply about women’s issues and has motivated her followers around the world to register to vote and get active in politics. Her engagement has been serious and sincere. Swift, more than any other celebrity, has the opportunity to assume the role of the champion of democracy in America. She writes and sings about the personal yet connects the personal to the political through the descriptions of power and mistreatment in relationships. To many, the connections between power imbalances and mistreatment in personal relationships and those in society at large are strong yet implicit. Swift has moved in recent years to make them explicit.So Swift’s endorsement is not so much about swaying undecided voters through her charisma. That’s a myth. Rather her endorsement is about harnessing all the activist energy she has been building over the years and focusing it on getting young people registered to vote and willing to volunteer for a cause. She is expanding the electorate and infusing it with optimism and purpose. That’s a blessing to anyone who cares about the fate of democracy in the United States.In stark contrast, the other billionaire in this spat has done everything he can to undermine belief in government by the people and for the people. His long hostility to safety and securities regulation makes sense, given his role as a corporate leader. His deep-seated racism and sexism have become even more vocal since he found common cause with Trump and other Republicans. Musk wants a smaller set of political actors in the world. They should be his buddies, all men, and all who assume they know what’s best for the world. It does not help that he is neither smart nor serious about policy nor politics.Yet the nominee of one of the two major American political parties has declared he wants Musk to assume a powerful role in the next government. We could approach this question by examining Musk’s record as a corporate leader, which is spotty at best. We could address Musk’s habits of exaggeration and prevarication, which are significant. We could wonder how a person who is supposed to be running five companies already might have the time to also head up a major government initiative.Or we could just conclude that neither Musk nor Trump are serious people with any idea how to execute policy, let alone devote time, energy and thought to the process. That’s not a reason to suspend concern about this partnership. Musk’s threats to the United States go far beyond any potential office he might hold in the future.Policy is not for amateurs. We learned this the hard way during the first Trump administration, when the few veteran policymakers who were willing to keep the government operating were one by one pushed out of power by Trump or his cronies.To change the way any federal government office operates, one must generate a feasible proposal and seek affirmation and criticism from stakeholders. Those stakeholders might include corporations and their lobbyists, unions and their lobbyists, and public interest groups that range from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club. They also include elements of the executive branch who might have to implement that policy. And, of course, plenty of lawyers and economists must weigh in. Often, if generated by an office of the executive branch, the public must be invited to submit comments on a draft of a policy statement.And, once all of that happens, policy changes are subject to court scrutiny if an interested party decides to sue over it. In other words, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to change even small things that the government does. It takes skill, knowledge, diligence and a whole lot of patience to enact policy.It’s not work appropriate for the flippant, unserious or easily distracted.Now, that’s how it’s done in normal times. We can assume that normal times would come to a permanent end in the United States if 78-year-old Donald Trump takes the oath of office again on 20 January 2025. He has promised radical change in the basic workings of government, down to promising to ignore or “terminate” the constitution if he does not get his way.How he would do this is unclear. We can assume that he would have some elements willing to use force to wrest control of the government away from processes and the limits of law. And we know that Trump has managed to turn the federal courts into instruments of his own interests. All of that would take work, of course. The only thing that saved the government from complete breakdown during Trump’s term in office was his inability to focus and follow through on his indignation and ambition. The friction of bureaucracy turned out to be one of the last bastions holding up the fragile republic.The best Trump can hope to accomplish is chaos and breakdown along with massive corruption that would flow as the failsafes of oversight and accountability collapse.That’s what makes the whole Musk partnership so absurd. Assume for a moment that Musk were a serious, committed, competent leader and manager. Under the Trump style of administration, what possibility would there be for him to discipline a sprawling federal agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Defense?It would not matter. Again, it’s folly to take this effort seriously as an effort to do what Trump or Musk say it would do. Musk, like Trump, is only interested in how any effort could smooth the way for his own benefit. Over the past decade or more, Musk has found his various companies, especially Tesla, entangled with regulators over issues ranging from safety to securities violations.His leadership of SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink, which provides satellite internet access to many millions of people around the world including essential elements of the military and government of Ukraine, has come under scrutiny as Musk has grown closer to the Russian view of the invasion of Ukraine. SpaceX is a major defense contractor. The United States government already depends on SpaceX way too much, and SpaceX depends on the United States government for much of its revenue.Having Musk involved at the highest levels of a government that is supposed to be curbing his excesses and protecting the public interest from the worst externalities of his companies is beyond a conflict of interest. It’s naked corruption. And that is the point. It’s positively Putinesque.Musk is, of course, unlikely to even assume such an office or hold a meeting if he did. He does not have the ability to focus these days. His incessant tweeting at all hours is increasingly unhinged from reality. His drug use, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, has reached a concerning level at which investors in Tesla are worried about his ability to protect their interests. He seems not to be putting in the time to do his current jobs well, even the one at Tesla that supplies him with most of his wealth.Musk’s closeness to Trump is itself a cause for concern. Even without Musk in office, Trump would probably order his cronies to suspend regulatory scrutiny of SpaceX and Tesla. Musk depends on the goodwill of the Xi regime in China to keep parts flowing for Tesla and to keep China open as a market for the cars. Musk needs the new extremely rightwing government of Argentina to remain friendly to the United States to maintain access to new lithium mines for Tesla batteries. And Musk infamously owes the Saudi royal family for funding his disastrous purchase of Twitter.This level of entanglement with troublesome and oppressive foreign governments makes Musk a security risk to the United States whether inside or outside government, whether Trump or Harris runs the government.The choice for America’s future could not be starker, especially when we contrast the roles, goals and personalities of the two highest-profile celebrities active this fall. Swift offers a serious and sincere opportunity for engagement. Musk offers snark and selfishness. Yet for some reason, too many people consider Musk, with his wealth, worthy of pontification on matters of public policy. Maybe it’s time we took Swift and her followers more seriously. The future is theirs.

      Siva Vaidhyanathan is a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy More