Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      Oklahoma high schools to teach 2020 election conspiracy theories as fact

      by

      As part of the latest Republican push in red states to promote ideologies sympathetic to Donald Trump, Oklahoma’s new social studies curriculum will ask high school students to identify “discrepancies” in the 2020 election results.The previous standard for studying the 2020 election merely said: “Examine issues related to the election of 2020 and its outcome.” The new version is more expansive: “Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends.”The revised curriculum standard comes at the behest of Ryan Walters, the state school superintendent, who has publicly voiced his support for Trump. In October, Walters lauded Trump in an interview, saying that “Trump’s won the argument on education”.Walters, who has also advocated for ending “wokeness” in public schools, went on to say: “We have education bureaucrats that are left-wing, elitist, that think they know best for families, and they have become so radicalized that our families are going: ‘What is going on here?’”Oklahoma’s new social studies standards for K-12 public school students, already infused with references to the Bible and national pride, were revised at Walters’ direction. The Republican official has spent much of his first term in office not only lauding Trump but also feuding with teachers’ unions and local school superintendents.“The left has been pushing left-wing indoctrination in the classroom,” Walters said. “We’re moving it back to actually understanding history … and I’m unapologetic about that.”As part of his revisions, Walters also proposed removing education about Black Lives Matter and George Floyd’s murder, Tulsa’s NBC affiliate KJRH reports.The outlet further reported that the revisions were expected to cost the state’s taxpayers $33m in new textbooks and related material.Other efforts by Walters includepromoting Trump-endorsed Bibles across classrooms, as well as supporting an attempt to establish the US’s first public religious charter school – a case the conservative-majority supreme court seems open to siding with.The new standard raised red flags even among Walters’ fellow Republicans, including the governor and legislative leaders. They were concerned that several last-minute changes, including the language about the 2020 election and a provision stating the source of the Covid-19 virus was a Chinese lab, were added just hours before the state school board voted on them.A group of parents and educators have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to reject the standards, arguing they were not reviewed properly and that they “represent a distorted view of social studies that intentionally favors an outdated and blatantly biased perspective”.While many Oklahoma teachers have expressed outrage at the change in the standards, others say they leave plenty of room for an effective teacher to instruct students about the results of the 2020 election without misinforming them.Aaron Baker, who has taught US government in high schools in Oklahoma City for more than a decade, said he’s most concerned about teachers in rural, conservative parts of the state who might feel encouraged to impose their own beliefs on students.“If someone is welcoming the influence of these far-right organizations in our standards and is interested in inserting more of Christianity into our practices as teachers, then they’ve become emboldened,” Baker said. “For me, that is the major concern.”Leaders in the Republican-led Oklahoma legislature introduced a resolution to reject the standards, but there wasn’t enough GOP support to pass it.Part of that hesitation likely stemmed from a flurry of last-minute opposition organized by pro-Trump conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty, which has a large presence in Oklahoma and threatened lawmakers who reject the standards with a primary opponent.“In the last few election cycles, grassroots conservative organizations have flipped seats across Oklahoma by holding weak Republicans accountable,” the group wrote in a letter signed by several other conservative groups and GOP activists. “If you choose to side with the liberal media and make backroom deals with Democrats to block conservative reform, you will be next.”After a group of parents, educators and other Oklahoma school officials worked to develop the new social studies standards, Walters assembled an executive committee consisting mostly of out-of-state pundits from conservative thinktanks to revise them. He said he wanted to focus more on American exceptionalism and incorporate the Bible as an instructional resource.Among those Walters appointed to the review committee were Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a key figure in its Project 2025 blueprint for a conservative presidential administration, and Dennis Prager, a radio talkshow host who founded Prager U, a conservative non-profit that offers “pro-American” educational materials for children that some critics say are not accurate or objective.In a statement to the Associated Press, Walters defended teaching students about “unprecedented and historically significant” elements of the 2020 presidential election.Recounts, reviews and audits in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss all confirmed Democrat Joe Biden’s victory, and Trump lost dozens of court cases challenging the results.In addition to the curriculum revisions, a proposed rule approved by the state board of education in January mandates that parents enrolling their children in the state’s public schools show proof of immigration status.Describing the rule, which has been met with widespread outrage among parents, students and immigration advocates, Walters said: “Our rule around illegal immigration accounting is simply that … It is to account for how many students of illegal immigrants are in our schools.” More

    • 163 Shares167 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to talk to Putin on Monday about Ukraine ceasefire proposal and trade

      by

      Donald Trump has said that he will speak to both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to stop what he called the “bloodbath” war in Ukraine, in a barrage of new social media posts that included baseless conspiracy theories and a demand that Walmart not raise prices for customers because of tariffs he has imposed.Trump, posting on his Truth Social account on Saturday, wrote that he will speak to Putin on Monday morning. “THE SUBJECTS OF THE CALL WILL BE, STOPPING THE ‘BLOODBATH’ THAT IS KILLING, ON AVERAGE, MORE THAN 5000 RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS A WEEK, AND TRADE,” Trump wrote, in his customary all-capitalized prose.Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed to a state-run Russian news agency that preparations were under way for a call between the US and Russian presidents.Trump’s call with the Russian president will be followed by a separate conversation with Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s leader, and Nato leaders as part of the US effort to end the war that has raged since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. “HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A PRODUCTIVE DAY, A CEASEFIRE WILL TAKE PLACE, AND THIS VERY VIOLENT WAR, A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, WILL END,” Trump wrote.Russia and Ukraine have just concluded mostly fruitless talks, the first of their kind since the start of the war, in Istanbul. Ukraine said it was ready for a ceasefire but was faced by “unacceptable” demands from Russia, which attempted to fully invade its neighbor and has occupied the eastern flank of the country.It’s unclear what kind of progress Trump will be able to spur, if any, in the peace process. The US president has been heavily critical of Ukraine, freezing military aid and having an infamous argument with Zelenskyy at the White House in full view of the media, before appearing to soften after a face-to-face conversation at the funeral of Pope Francis in the Vatican.Trump had offered to travel to Turkey for the talks after his trip to the Middle East last week if Putin would also attend, and urged Zelenskyy to go, but Putin sent a team of low-level negotiators instead.Trump’s ire with Ukraine’s president does not seem to have abated, however, with the president telling Fox News on Friday he is upset with what the country has done with the aid handed to it by the US. “What bothered me, I hated to see the way it was, you know, excuse me, pissed away,” he said.“I think he’s the greatest salesman in the world. Far better than me,” Trump said of the Ukrainian president. “Where is all this money going?”In a social media post of his own, Zelenskyy mourned the death of nine civilians in “a Russian drone strike on an ordinary passenger bus”. He added: “Yesterday, as on any other day of this war, there was an opportunity to cease fire. Ukraine has long been offering this – a full and unconditional ceasefire in order to save lives. Russia retains nothing but the ability to continue killing.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMarco Rubio, the US secretary of state, reported on social media that he had spoken to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and told him that “the death and destruction must stop”. Rubio added on X, formerly Twitter, that the US “has presented a strong peace plan and we welcome the Prisoner of War exchange agreement reached in Istanbul. Let’s not miss this huge opportunity. The time for ending this war is now.”In a separate Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump complained about the impact of tariffs he has imposed, after Walmart, among other retailers, warned it will have to raise prices for Americans in response.“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump posted, adding that the company should “‘EAT THE TARIFFS,’ and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”A further post from Trump featured a video of an evidence-free conspiracy theory that not only implied that Bill and Hillary Clinton were guilty of murder but also that Seth Rich, a Democratic staffer, was the source of Clinton campaign emails released by WikiLeaks in 2016. (Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian government hackers for hacking the email accounts of people close to Clinton in 2016 and delivering the hacked emails to WikiLeaks.) Rich was murdered in 2016 and his death provoked a slew of lies and wild conspiracy theories, fueled by Trump and other sources. Rich’s family reached a confidential settlement with Fox News in 2020 over the peddling of these lies. More

    • 138 Shares167 Views

      in US Politics

      Newly released audio appears to confirm Biden’s memory lapses in 2023

      by

      A newly released recording appears to confirm that Joe Biden suffered some memory lapses while US president, struggling to recall the year his son died or when Donald Trump was first elected.While being interviewed by a special counsel over his handling of classified records, the audio shows Biden’s responses are marked by long pauses, a faint whispered voice and confusion over key dates, such as when his son Beau died (2015) or when Trump won his first presidency (2016).The audio, obtained by Axios through an undisclosed source and then released by the outlet, includes attempts by Biden’s staff to remind or correct him on details during his interviews in October 2023 with Robert Hur, a special counsel at the Department of Justice. Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified material, subsequently described the then president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory” in his final report, which recommended against charging Biden with any sort of crime.A written transcript of the five-hour interview was released last year. But the newly released audio provides some context for Biden’s struggle to recall certain facts.At the time, White House officials strongly denied that Biden was impaired in his ability to do his job as president, with allies continuing to back Biden until a disastrous debate with Trump in June 2024 resulted in mounting pressure for him to step aside as the Democratic candidate. He did so in favor of his vice-president, Kamala Harris, a month later.Polling at the time showed that many Americans considered Biden, at the time 81 years old, to be too old to run again as president. Though he had beaten Trump in 2020, Biden’s decision to try to run against him again, with Trump just three years younger than him, has come under intensifying scrutiny.At the release of Hur’s report, Biden and his allies reacted angrily to its claims. “There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died,” Biden said last year. “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”The audio also includes Biden talking about how Barack Obama – whom he served as vice-president – didn’t want him to run for the White House in 2016 due to the belief that Hillary Clinton “had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did”. There were also deviations to ponder the influence of the Gutenberg printing press and the experience of driving a Corvette with the comedian Jay Leno.Trump repeatedly mocked Biden’s age and gaffes before going on to defeat Harris in last year’s election.However, the current president has also had lapses of his own, appearing to confuse E Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual abuse and was awarded damages, with his ex-wife Marla Maples when shown a photograph during a deposition. He also claimed that the audience “went crazy” during his televised debate with Harris last year (there was no audience whatsoever in the room).Trump has also continued his habit of delivering discursive speeches littered with multiple untruths and gross exaggerations while president and has even been accused of falling asleep during events, although the White House has denied these claims.On Friday, Trump further raised eyebrows when he referenced the most notorious racial epithet when discussing the recent ceasefire between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed countries, with Fox News.“It was getting deeper and more, I mean, more missiles,” Trump said. “Everyone was stronger, stronger, to a point where the next ones are going to be you know what: the N-word.”“You know what the N-word is, right?” he asked host Brett Baier, who replied: “nuclear”. Trump said “yeah”, and both men laughed over the exchange. More

    • 188 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      US judges who rule against Trump are being barraged with abuse and threats, experts warn

      by

      US judges who have increasingly rebuked the Trump administration’s harsh deportation agenda and other Maga policies are facing intense verbal assaults from the president and his allies, which seem to be spurring other dangerous threats against judges, say legal experts and former judges.The Trump administration’s escalating fight with the courts has come as more than 200 lawsuits have challenged executive orders and policies on multiple issues including immigrant deportations, penalizing law firms with links to political foes, agency spending and workforce cuts, and other matters.The wave of litigation has resulted in more than 100 executive orders by Trump and other initiatives being halted temporarily or paused by court rulings from judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans including some by Trump.Increasingly, ex-judges and legal experts warn the verbal attacks by Trump, his attorney general, Pam Bondi, and Maga allies are creating a hostile climate that endangers the safety of judges and their families.“The constant mischaracterization by Trump and his allies of judicial rulings as political in nature, together with their false, vituperative and ad hominem attacks on individual judges who make them, skews the public’s perception of the work of the federal judiciary,” said ex-federal judge John Jones, who is now the president of Dickinson College.Jones added: “These attacks foment a climate where the safety of judges and their families is at high risk.”Those risks were underscored when the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, Richard Durbin, this month wrote to Bondi and the FBI director, Kash Patel, requesting an investigation into anonymous pizza deliveries to at least a dozen judges that seem aimed at intimidating them as they handle cases involving the administration.Durbin’s letter noted some of the pizza deliveries were made in the name of US district judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, who was fatally shot in 2020 by a lawyer who pretended to be a delivery person, according to an April missive from Salas and attorney Paul Kiesel.Elsewhere, Jones and more than two dozen other ex-judges issued a strong statement on Law Day this month announcing a new Article III Coalition linked to the non-partisan group Keep Our Republic to back judicial independence and warn of the dangers to judges posed by the Trump administration’s vitriolic attacks.On a related track more than 150 ex-federal and state judges from both parties in early May signed a letter to Bondi and Patel denouncing the administration’s rising attacks on the judiciary and the unusual arrest of a Milwaukee judge charged with impeding federal agents from arresting an allegedly undocumented migrant in Wisconsin.A federal grand jury on 13 May indicted the judge on charges of obstructing a proceeding and concealing a person from arrest.“The circumstances of the arrest of the Milwaukee judge – her arrest, the perp walk, the picture of her handcuffs, the comments of the FBI director and the attorney general – was so far out of line with accepted practice and rules,” said Nancy Gertner, a former judge who now teaches at Harvard law school.“It clearly was intended to intimidate other judges; there was no justification for it whatsoever,” added Gertner, who helped to coordinate the letter to Bondi and Patel with J Michael Luttig, a former assistant attorney general and ex-judge.Gertner’s concerns were underscored when Bondi soon after the judge’s arrest threatened other judges who may balk at their legal agenda. “They’re deranged,” Bondi told Fox News. “ I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not. We will come after you and we will prosecute you.”Gertner stressed: “I’m hearing everywhere that judges are worried about their own safety. There are people who are inflamed by the incendiary comments of our president and members of Congress about judges. Public officials have legitimized attacks on judges with whom they disagree.”Some Trump judicial appointees and other judges appointed by presidents of both parties have irked the administration with their rulings and incurred Trump’s wrath.Trump in March urged the impeachment of the DC federal judge James Boasberg and falsely branded him a “radical left lunatic” after he issued a ruling to halt the deportation to El Salvador of scores of Venezuelan immigrants with alleged gang ties.Although he didn’t mention Trump’s attack on Boasberg, Chief Justice John Roberts hours later criticized political attacks on the judiciary and warned against calls to impeach judges for their decisions.Roberts in a year-end report in December warned pointedly about threats aimed at judges, noting there had been a sizable rise in threats of violence, defiance of court rulings and disinformation.In another legal dustup, in May the US district judge Beryl Howell issued a blistering decision that an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which had represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, violated the first, fifth and sixth amendments.Howell labeled the Trump order a “blunt exercise of power” that “is not a legitimate use of the powers of the US government or an American president”.One Trump appointee, the Texas judge Fernando Rodriguez, this month echoed two other rulings to bar the Trump administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act – which had only been used three times before – to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, spurring a Trump attack on social media.“Can it be so that Judges aren’t allowing the USA to Deport Criminals, including Murderers, out of our Country and back to where they came from? If this is so, our Country, as we know it, is finished!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.Despite the uptick in adverse rulings, the Trump administration is getting some court rulings backing at least part of its arguments.A federal judge in Pennsylvania on 13 May ruled for the first time that Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to accelerate deporting accused gang Venezuelan gang members, but stipulated significantly that targeted migrants have to be given at least three weeks’ notice and a chance to challenge their removals.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStill, legal scholars and ex-judges warn the Trump administration has created a hostile climate with many judges by pushing factually and legally dubious cases, and trying to smear judges who ruled against them.“Federal courts have always been ready to rebuke a justice department lawyer for concealing or misstating the facts or the law,” said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Columbia. “Now judges are increasingly presented with Trump administration emissaries who are poorly prepared to assist courts and who stand by when their leaders respond to adverse decisions by personally attacking judges. The credibility the government has with judges has long been a priceless asset. It’s disappearing fast.”The former Republican congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania said the Trump administration’s court setbacks were linked to their legally flawed cases.“It appears the president is being beaten in court on a regular basis because many of his executive orders are legally and constitutionally questionable,” Dent said. “His lawyers are trying to argue weak cases and that’s why they’re losing.”Dent added that Trump was “throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. If it doesn’t stick he blames the courts.”Gertner stressed: “Trump has pushed constitutional and statutory limits beyond recognition especially with regard to the Alien Enemies Act … Anyone on US soil has due process rights under the constitution, which means at the minimum a hearing.”Some judges who have tangled with Trump and federal prosecutors over the administration’s radical deportation policies have been ensnared in extended court battles to get straight answers and facts from government lawyers.Boasberg, who has been appointed at different times by presidents of both parties, opened a contempt hearing against the administration after it flouted an injunction to block Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport dozens of suspected Venezuelan gang members.In response, the Trump administration invoked the State Secrets Act to block his inquiry into whether it defied a Boasberg order to turn around planes deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.Another high-profile deportation ruling that angered the Trump administration and led to lengthy court battles involves a Maryland man who was wrongfully deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador which Ice has acknowledged was a mistake.Despite court orders, including from the supreme court to “facilitate” the man’s return, the administration has failed to do so while offering dubious excuses.The dangerous fallout from the administration’s flouting of court rulings and attacks on judges seems to have led to the anonymous pizza deliveries to the homes of judges.Durbin’s letter to Bondi and Patel requested a full accounting of how many anonymous or pseudonymous pizza deliveries have been made to judges or their families since the Trump administration took office, the number of judges who have been affected and the districts or circuits where these judges are based.The pizza deliveries started towards the end of February, as government lawyers sought to thwart rising legal challenges to Trump’s policies, and as Trump and Maga allies began frequent attacks against judges whose rulings they disdained.The US Marshals Service, which provides security for federal judges and courthouses, has been investigating the deliveries, but it is unclear what role, if any, the justice department headquarters and the FBI have played to date.Many of the pizzas were reportedly sent to the residences of judges presiding over cases the administration has been defending.The Durbin letter to Bondi and Patel asked them to report by 20 May whether they had identified suspects, initiated prosecutions, or found evidence that the deliveries were coordinated, and describe what steps their agencies have taken to protect judges and their families.To ex-judge Jones, the reports of pizza deliveries that seem aimed at scaring judges are “disgusting. They’re a direct result of the toxic comments about the federal judiciary by Trump and members of the executive branch and some DoJ officials including AG Pam Bondi.”More broadly, some ex-prosecutors too voice alarms over the rising political attacks on judges. Ex-prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig blasted intimidation efforts against judges as “shameful expressions of authoritarian attacks on the rule of law”. More

    • 225 Shares98 Views

      in US Politics

      Yes, the media’s Biden coverage was flawed. But its reporting on Trump was far worse | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      With a new book out about Joe Biden’s failed re-election campaign, a media reckoning is in full swing.It goes something like this: mainstream journalism failed the voters. Reporters were complicit; they didn’t tell us how much the elderly president had declined. They didn’t dig beneath the surface of what Biden aides were doing as they covered up the physical and cognitive decline of the leader of the free world.And some of that is valid, no doubt. Under fire in recent days, CNN’s Jake Tapper, co-author of Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, has even nodded to his own role in downplaying Biden’s increasing frailty.There’s plenty of blame to go around for Biden’s ultimate loss – and the horrors that it brought the whole world in the election of Donald Trump to a second term. Bruce Springsteen laid it out to a concert audience last week as he opened his European tour: “My home, the America I love, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration.”As a media critic, I’m always happy to see a good reckoning for the mainstream press.But this one makes me wonder. When is the reckoning coming for the failures to cover Trump effectively?At what point will there be a general acknowledgment and some serious self-scrutiny about the way big media failed to adequately convey what would happen if Trump were elected again?“I have a hard time watching journalists high-five each other over books on [the White House] covering up for Biden,” wrote the political scientist and scholar Norman Ornstein, one of the sanest commentators about politics in recent years.It’s “a diversion from their own deep culpability in Trump’s election”.What would be the elements of this reckoning?Here’s Ornstein again on what the mainstream press wrought with their hubris and their failures.“False equivalence, normalizing the abnormal, treating Trump as no real danger were the norm, not the exception.”From 2015 – when Trump first declared his candidacy for president – right through the 2024 election, the press in general didn’t get across the reality.When the New York Times infamously set the tone in 2016 by vastly overplaying the supposedly shocking scandal of Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server, that was only the beginning. But it was a consequential beginning since, even in our fragmented and polarized media system, the Times was then, and is now, still extremely influential.I’ve long believed that Times editors were so dedicated to proving that they could be tough on Candidate Clinton – convinced she would be the president and that Trump was no real threat – that they went way overboard.Was the fault for electing Trump entirely theirs or even the fault of the mainstream media in general led by them? Of course not. But they played a destructive role, one that has never been adequately acknowledged.Then, during Trump’s first term – and especially during the 2024 campaign – the mainstream press constantly normalized the would-be autocrat.The ever-so-apt term “sanewashing” was born to describe what was going on, and the media’s role. Talk about a cover-up. Trump’s rallies were exercises in lunacy, as he spun tales about sharks and Hannibal Lecter, rambling for hours.But the coverage seldom came close to getting across the reality. Instead, we’d hear descriptions about his “freewheeling” style or “brash” approach.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs for the autocracy in waiting, there were excellent stories about the blueprint for his second term known as Project 2025, but it was far from obvious whether news leaders stopped to ask if voters really understood the stakes. Now we see the Trump administration quite literally enacting that same Project 2025 that he claimed he barely knew anything about.Horserace coverage prevailed, day after day. And then, when Biden’s decline became impossible to ignore – after that earth-shattering presidential debate last June – news organizations changed their tune.For weeks, there was nothing but “hey, Biden is old” coverage, once again failing to put the emphasis where it belonged: on the dangers of a Trump presidency.Heads of news organizations and reporters themselves are fond of distancing themselves from their real mission at times like these: to communicate the reality of an election’s actual stakes. Instead, they talk in lofty terms of merely covering the news, as if their daily decisions about the volume, choice and tone of coverage didn’t matter.It certainly mattered just before the 2016 election, when the entire top of a front page – and many an evening newscast – were given over to the reigniting of the justice department’s investigation of Clinton’s emails.It certainly mattered when influential opinion sections were ceaselessly baying about Biden’s cognitive decline last summer in order to force him out of the race.Despite wishful thinking, there’s no such thing as “just the facts” or complete neutrality, because editorial decisions and reporting choices always matter.What do you investigate? What is the precise wording of that news alert? How prominently do you display that story? Whom do you quote and to whom do you grant anonymity? What photo do you choose? Do you use terms like “straining the bounds of propriety” to describe what looks more like a bribe?So if the media were going to put their thumb on the scale – as they inevitably do – they ought to have done so in defense of democracy, the rule of law and human decency.The failure to do so is playing out in our shattered world, and at a frightening pace.That’s a reckoning we ought to have, but I doubt we ever will.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 175 Shares157 Views

      in US Politics

      Judges thwart Trump effort to deport pro-Palestinian students – but their fight isn’t over

      by

      The Trump administration suffered yet another blow this past week to its efforts to deport international students over their pro-Palestinian speech, when a third federal judge threw a wrench into a government campaign widely criticized as a political witch hunt with little historical precedent.On Wednesday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered immigration authorities to release Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri from custody. The Indian scholar’s release followed that of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student from Turkey, and Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian permanent resident and Columbia University student. The administration is seeking to deport all of them on the grounds that their presence in the US is harmful to the country’s foreign policy, part of a crackdown on political dissent that has sent shockwaves through US campuses.Only the first foreign student to be detained by the administration over his activism, Mahmoud Khalil, a US permanent resident of Palestinian descent, remains in detention more than two months after being taken from his Columbia University residential building. Yunseo Chung, another Columbia student and green card holder, went into hiding and sued the administration in March before authorities could detain her; others have left the country rather than risk detention.A federal judge in New Jersey is expected to rule soon on a request to release Khalil pending further resolution of his case – but his attorneys are hopeful the other releases are a good sign. The green card holder, who is married to a US citizen, was known on Columbia’s campus as a steady mediator between the university administration and student protesters. He was recently denied a request to attend the birth of his son.“These decisions reflect a simple truth – the constitution forbids the government from locking up anyone, including noncitizens, just because it doesn’t like what they have to say,” said Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups representing Khalil and the others. “We will not rest until Mahmoud Khalil is free, along with everyone else in detention for their political beliefs.”Diala Shamas, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is also involved in Khalil’s defense, said that “we’re seeing wins in all of these cases”, but added that “every single day that Mahmoud Khalil spends in detention is a day too long and adds to the chilling effect that his continued detention has on other people”.The arrests have prompted widespread anxiety among international students and scholars and significantly contributed to a climate of fear and repression on US campuses. Despite occasional efforts to revive it, last year’s mass campus protest movement has been significantly dampened, even as Israel’s war in Gaza – the focus of the protests – is only escalating.But while the Trump administration seems to be getting clobbered in court, the fundamental question at the heart of the cases – whether the government has the authority to detain and deport noncitizens over their political speech – is far from settled.‘Times of excess’Khan Suri, Öztürk and Mahdawi have all been released pending a resolution to federal court cases over the government’s authority to detain them. Separately, the government’s effort to deport them is moving through the immigration court system, a different process.Advocates warn of a long legal battle that is likely to end up before the US supreme court. But they are hopeful. The releases, which required clearing substantial legal thresholds, are a welcome sign, they say, that the courts are skeptical of the government’s broader case: that it has the authority to use an obscure immigration provision to deport anyone the secretary of state deems a foreign policy problem.The government hasn’t clearly defended its position. In an appeal hearing this month in Öztürk and Mahdawi’s cases, one of the judges on the panel asked the government’s lawyers whether the administration believed the students’ speech to be protected by the first amendment’s guarantees of free speech and expression“We have not taken a position on that,” one of the attorneys, Drew Ensign, responded. “I don’t have the authority to take a position on that.”Instead, the legal proceedings thus far have largely focused on jurisdictional and other technical arguments. In Khalil’s case, for example, a New Jersey judge recently issued a 108-page decision dealing exclusively with his authority to hear the case. The judge hasn’t yet signaled his position on the constitutional questions.US district court judge Geoffrey Crawford, who ordered Mahdawi’s release, compared the current political moment with the red scare and Palmer raids of the early 20th century, when US officials detained and deported hundreds of foreign nationals suspected of holding leftist views, as well as the McCarthyism of the 1950s.“The wheel of history has come around again,” Crawford wrote, “but as before these times of excess will pass.”In her ruling in Khan Suri’s case this week, US district judge Patricia Giles said that his release was “in the public interest to disrupt the chilling effect on protected speech”, and that she believed the broader challenge against the government had a substantial likelihood of success.Chip Gibbons, the policy director at Defending Rights & Dissent, a civil rights group, noted that while challenging immigration detention is often an “uphill battle” given the deference typically shown by judges to the government, the rulings might suggest otherwise.“Three separate federal judges, in three separate cases, have found that victims of the Trump-Rubio campaign of politically motivated immigration enforcement raise substantial constitutional claims challenging their detention,” he added. “Even a federal judiciary all too often deferential to executive claims of national security or foreign policy powers has clearly seen that the administration’s actions are likely retaliatory against political speech.”But even if the government ultimately loses its bid to deport students whose views it does not like, the free speech climate in the US has changed. The administration continues to pursue coercive investigations into universities under the guise of fighting antisemitism, dangling billions of dollars in funding as a threat, and universities have been surprisingly compliant in order to prevent a revival of last year’s protests.But some voices remain defiant. “We will not fear anyone because our fight is a fight for love, is a fight for democracy, is a fight for humanity,” Mahdawi said at a press conference upon his release. “This system of democracy [has] checks and balances, and discord is part of it.” More

    • 125 Shares157 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Very disturbing’: Trump receipt of overseas gifts unprecedented, experts warn

      by

      Former White House lawyers, diplomatic protocol officers and foreign affairs experts have told the Guardian that Donald Trump’s receipt of overseas gifts and targeted investments are “unprecedented”, as the White House remakes US foreign policy under a pay-for-access code that eclipses past administrations with characteristic Trumpian excess.The openness to foreign largesse was on full display this week as the US president was feted in the Gulf states during his first major diplomatic trip abroad this term, inking deals he claimed were worth trillions of dollars and pumping local leaders for investments as he says he remakes US foreign policy to prioritise “America first” – putting aside concerns of human rights or international law for the bottom line of American businesses and taxpayers.But quite often, the bottom line also has benefited Trump himself. His family’s wealth has ballooned by more than $3bn, according to press estimates, and the reported benefits from cryptocurrencies and other investment deals such as plans for new Trump-branded family properties may be far larger. Deals for billions more have been inked by business associates close to Trump, meaning that their political support for the White House can translate into lucrative contracts abroad.“When we’re negotiating with other countries, the concern is that our negotiating position will change if someone does a favor or delivers a gift to the president of the United States,” Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer in the administration of George W Bush, said.“Whether it’s trying to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war, or the Middle East or anything else. You know the the impression is given that the position of the United States can be swayed and even bought.”Others argue that the message being sent by the White House is that American foreign policy is being sold to the highest bidder.View image in fullscreen“Trump has put a for-sale sign out front of the White House,” said Norm Eisen, the executive director of the legal advocacy group State Democracy Defenders Fund and a White House “ethics czar” and ambassador to the Czech Republic under Barack Obama. “Of course you’re going to see Qatar and UAE as like a bidding war. Qatar says: ‘I’ll give you a $400m plane,’ and the UAE says: ‘Hold my beer, I’ll give your crypto company $2bn.’”In a particularly eye-catching incident this week, Qatar offered to give the US Department of Defense a $400m Boeing 747-8 that Trump had suggested could be used as Air Force One and then passed on to his presidential library after he leaves office.The plane has become a lightning rod among US Democrats, and critics have argued it violates the emoluments clause of the constitution that prohibits the president from receiving gifts from foreign entities.Trump had called the plane a “great gesture” from Qatar and said that it would be “stupid” for him not to accept the gift. A Democratic lawmaker had called the plane a “flying palace”, and even diehard Maga supporters such as the commentators Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro have criticised it publicly.Painter suggested that it would be similar to King George III gifting George Washington a copy of the royal stagecoach for his use in office. “You think the founders wouldn’t have considered that a bribe?” he said.But Gulf states have offered other incentives, including a $2bn investment from a UAE-controlled funds into a Trump-linked stablecoin that could incentivise the president to shape foreign policy in favour of Abu Dhabi.An advisory sent to congressional Democrats this week and seen by the Guardian said: “President Trump and the Trump family have moved at breakneck speed to profit from a massive crypto scam on the American people.”The gifts, and in particular the potential gift of a jet, have led to a series of denunciations on Capitol Hill as they seek to build momentum for a legislative push.“This isn’t America first. This is not what he promised the American people. This is Trump first,” said Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut. “He is willing to put our nation’s security at risk, take unconstitutional bribes, just so he can fly himself and his Mar-a-Lago golf buddies around the world in gold-plated luxury planes gifted to him by foreign governments.”But is it illegal? As Qatar would give the jet to the Department of Defense, some experts have said that it may not directly violate the emoluments clause or other laws, even if Trump were to make use of the plane while in office.“Never seen it before,” said Scott Amey, the general counsel of the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit government watchdog group based in Washington. “Is it allowed? I’m still uncertain.”Past administrations would have run from the perceived conflicts of interest being welcomed by Trump. The former White House ethics advisers described crises such as when a Gulf state tried to present a Rolex to a national security adviser, or when the Boston Red Sox tried to gift the White House chief of staff a baseball bat signed by all the players (the addressee was forced to pay its estimated market value, said Painter). Eisen said that he forbade Obama from even refinancing the mortgage on his house in Chicago because of his capacities to influence the market.“The status quo has been saying no, because it’s an actual and apparent conflict of interest, and it could jeopardize our domestic and foreign policies,” said Amey. ”It certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test for a lot of Americans.”The lavish gifts and other investments come as Trump is reshaping America’s policy in the Middle East, skipping Israel and turning toward the Gulf states in a flurry of deal-making that could benefit both sides handsomely. And Trump’s family and other advisers, such as Steve Witkoff, with interests in the Gulf states are closely involved.View image in fullscreen“When the first Trump administration came in, I saw that people in the Gulf said, ‘Finally, an American administration we understand. He sends us his son-in-law to talk to us,’” said Dr F Gregory Gause III of the Middle East Institute, a former professor of international affairs at the Bush School. “It’s a startling change in American norms … the notion that Trump family private business and US government business walk hand in hand is remarkable.”While potential gifts like a jet cannot be hidden, the potential to move billions of dollars in cryptocurrency secretly has watchdogs, the political opposition and other foreign observers deeply concerned. “We’re talking about billions of dollars, almost infinite money, that can be paid by anyone,” said one senior European diplomat. One little-known China-linked firm with no revenue last year bought $300m of a Trump meme coin this week, raising further concerns of dark foreign money moving into US politics.Senate Democrats have called for rewriting the Genius Act, Trump-backed legislation that they say would provide for far-too-lax regulation of so-called stablecoins, in order to ban him from benefiting. “If Congress is going to supercharge the use of stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, it must include safeguards that make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and foreign adversaries to exploit the financial system and put our national security at risk,” said the memo.The flood of foreign money has left former officials who used to carefully track the giving of gifts and other goods from foreign government infuriated.The rules can be “annoying and sort of stupid, but it is what separates the good guys from the bad guys, as it relates to corruption and good governance”, said Rufus Gifford, a former head of protocol for the state department, which also tracks gifts to US officials from foreign governments. “And I think that Trump just has no respect for those institutions that have been set up for a very specific purpose, which is to root out corruption.“It is very, very disturbing that a president of the United States could be in a position to profit off the office in which he holds,” he continued. “And that is, again, something that is never supposed to be able to happen. And it’s really quite extraordinary.” More

    • 138 Shares167 Views

      in US Politics

      Gone in 40 days: how Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariff assault unraveled

      by

      Donald Trump hailed a new chapter in the US’s economic history on 2 April, dubbed “liberation day” by his administration, as he announced plans for an extraordinary barrage of US tariffs on the world. The chapter lasted 40 days.The page has already been turned. But the impact of those six chaotic weeks, from higher prices to slowing growth, is still unfolding – and the US president is already threatening further adjustments. The story continues.Trump had been steered away from his aggressive instincts on trade during his first term, and persuaded to walk back several tariff threats in the opening months of his second. But back in early April, he was determined to plough ahead.“April 2nd, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again,” Trump declared at an event in the White House Rose Garden, before an audience of his top officials and supporters.The measures were blunt and severe: a blanket 10% tariff on all imported goods, and higher individualized rates, of up to 50%, on dozens of markets – those of economic allies and rivals alike – deemed to have treated the US poorly on trade.‘Be cool’First came the questions. How exactly did the Trump administration come up with such an array of specific duties to impose upon goods from so many countries and territories? And why was a group of barren, uninhabited islands near Antarctica among them?Then came the panic. Global stock markets tanked, with Wall Street enduring its steepest falls since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic five years ago, as the president repeatedly insisted he was serious this time.Trump’s officials were sent out to hold the line. “The announcement today is the most significant action on global trade policy that has taken place in our lifetimes,” said Stephen Miller, his deputy chief of staff for policy. “We’re just going to have to wait and see” what happens, the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, told Bloomberg. One thing’s for sure, the commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, told CNN: “The president is not going to back off.”On day five of the new chapter, the 10% baseline tariffs came into force. On day seven, the higher, individualized rates followed. Beijing vowed to retaliate. Business leaders, including some who had backed Trump’s run for the White House, urged him to reconsider.A sell-off in treasury bonds, typically deemed a safe haven during periods of economic volatility, took hold. “BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding a few minutes later: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT”This advice seemed prescient four hours later. Seven days into the new chapter, with his individualized tariffs imposed for all of 13 hours, Trump announced a 90-day pause – in effect reducing the universal duty on all US imports from almost all countries to 10% – and markets surged higher.Almost all countries, that is, except China. Beijing’s pledge to hit back infuriated the president, who blamed its “lack of respect” as he announced a new US tariff of 125% (in effect, once other duties were included, 145%) on Chinese goods. It retaliated in kind.Getting yippyThe same officials who had been dispatched to defend Trump’s initial plan were sent out again, to explain his latest climbdown.“You have been watching the greatest economic master strategy from an American President in history,” Miller claimed on X.“Many of you in the media clearly missed The Art of the Deal,” the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, scolded reporters, referring to the president’s 1987 bestseller, in which the real estate tycoon presented himself as a consummate dealmaker.While his aides claimed that more than 75 countries had been in touch following his initial tariff announcement, even the president struggled to present the reversal as part of a carefully orchestrated negotiating strategy. Asked what had prompted it, Trump told reporters people had been “getting a little bit yippy” about his plan.But some of the US’s largest companies were still feeling pretty yippy. Apple, for example, relies on factories in China to churn out the iPhone, which is responsible for almost half its business.Late on day 10, away from the noisy press gaggles and all-caps social media posts, US Customs and Border Protection posted a list of products that would be exempt from the Chinese tariffs – including smartphones, computers and semiconductor chips.While the administration had walked back much of Trump’s initial plan, concern lingered over what remained. Trump maintained that high tariffs were the way forward, but fears of widespread shortages and dramatic price increases loomed large. Polling made clear consumers were increasingly concerned.On day 28, at the end of a cabinet meeting, the president tried to play down the risks of his assault on China. “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,” he said. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”Blame gameEarlier that morning, dismal economic figures for the first quarter had underlined how – as the last chapter drew to a close – the mere threat of Trump’s economic assault appeared to dent growth. US gross domestic product (GDP) shrank for the first time in three years, abruptly turning negative after a spell of robust growth as imports surged 41% while companies scrambled to pre-empt tariffs.Trump raced to pin the blame on his predecessor. “I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press.Many economists said the growth decline in the first quarter, as firms braced for Trump’s new chapter, raised troubling questions about the second, when the president finally launched it at his “liberation day” event.Aside from dolls, the administration started to indicate it might be willing to adjust tariffs on China that were hitting goods – like baby car seats and cribs – that the US almost entirely imports from the country. Such exemptions were “under consideration”, Bessent told Congress, potentially averting a spike in prices for young families.But as the weeks drew on, after promising his trade strategy would prompt countries around the world to trip over themselves to strike deals with the US, Trump was finding it harder to explain why none had materialized.On day 34, as questions mounted, he complained the media had become fixated. “You keep writing about deals, deals,” he said, adding that he wished journalists would stop asking. “Some deals” would be signed, the president said, but tariffs were a “much bigger” focus.On day 36, the first deal was declared done. Trump summoned back reporters to unveil what he called a “maxed-out deal that we’re going to make bigger” with the UK. In reality, there was still work to do: both he and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, conceded certain details had yet to be finalized.By the next morning, Trump’s focus had returned to China. Bessent was preparing for talks with the country’s officials in Geneva, fueling hopes that the world’s two largest economies might lower their eye-watering tariffs. “80% Tariff on China seems right! Up to Scott B,” the president wrote on social media.‘This is going to crush us’Trump was also watching the liberal MSNBC network, where the business commentator Stephanie Ruhle argued his strategy on tariffs was not working. “You’re seeing day in, day out, more business leaders – whether it’s Warren Buffett, or Jamie Dimon, or Ken Griffin, on big global stages – saying this is going to crush us economically,” she said. “And then you’ve got congressmen, senators, from every state saying to this White House: our small businesses are … dying here.“I’m not saying Donald Trump has changed what he thinks in his heart. But he’s backed into a corner, and he needs to get off this crazy tariff train, and he knows it.”Trump punched back. “Few people know Stephanie Ruhle, but I do, and she doesn’t have what it takes,” he wrote on Truth Social, accusing her of lies. “We’re going to make a fortune with Tariffs, only smart people understand that, and Stephanie was never known as a ‘High IQ’ person.”If only smart people understood the US stood to make a fortune from tariffs, they might have been surprised by what happened next.Away from TV studios, some of the most senior people in the White House, including the chief of staff, Susie Wiles, reportedly started to warn the president of risks not unlike those laid out by Ruhle. “The key argument was that this was beginning to hurt Trump’s supporters – Trump’s people,” one person briefed on internal conversations told the Washington Post. “It gave Susie a key window.”On day 40, after discussions in Geneva, Bessent confirmed that US and Chinese officials would drastically reduce the tariffs they had aggressively ratcheted up just a few weeks before. With US tariffs on Chinese goods falling to 30%, Trump hailed a “total reset” in relations between Washington and Beijing.The reversal, although far from a total reset, confined the latest “liberation day” measure to history.2 April 2025, is not yet remembered as the day American industry was reborn. Much of what was announced that afternoon has already died.The page has been turned. On Friday, Trump claimed about 150 countries would soon receive letters “essentially telling” them of new US duty rates on their exports. Many learned of similar rates last month, only for the plan to change in a matter of days.A new chapter, without pomp or ceremony, is now under way. What this one will entail – or how long it lasts – is anyone’s guess. More