Elections

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares16 Views

    Aware of Trump’s Desire for Retribution, Experts Appear Shy to Speak Up

    by

    A New York Times investigative reporter explains how a problem he encountered while reporting reveals something important about the second Trump era.This week, my colleague Eileen Sullivan and I reported that the Secret Service took the extraordinary step in May of surveilling the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a day after he posted a photo that President Trump’s allies claimed contained an assassination threat.The story raised questions about whether Comey was tailed not because he was a legitimate threat but as part of a retribution campaign Trump has promised to wage against those he sees as his enemies.To nail down the story, we had to do one of the most challenging tasks we face as reporters: pry loose details from the inside of a federal investigation.But there was also something unexpectedly difficult about that story, compared with similar stories I’ve reported over 20 years at The New York Times. Some of the people we’ve previously called on to provide outside expertise refused to speak with us this time.Tonight, I’m going to take you behind the scenes of our reporting, and explain why the speed bump we hit may be a sign of something more significant.A chill in WashingtonWhen we write a story like this, we reach out to experts who can put what we are writing about in context. Drawing on their work experience or academic expertise, they can help us — and our readers — understand whether and why an incident we are covering is unusual, or which laws might apply to it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares14 Views

      in Elections

      US-Brazil Tariffs: What to Know About Trump’s History With Bolsonaro

      by

      The fight is rooted in years of political history between President Trump and the last two presidents of Brazil.The Western Hemisphere’s two largest nations appear headed for a full-blown trade war — with a twist.President Trump on Wednesday pledged to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports. His rationale wasn’t entirely economic — the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil — but political. Mr. Trump said Brazil was carrying out a “witch hunt” against his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for attempting a coup.A few hours later, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil said his government would respond with its own tariffs on U.S. imports. “Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage,” he said in a statement.Brazil is weighing tariffs on specific American products or sectors, according to a senior Brazilian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed meetings. Seeking to minimize any jolt to Brazil’s economy, the government does not plan to apply broad-based tariffs on all American products, the official said.The feud is the latest in a long-running saga involving Mr. Trump, Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. Lula, and it shows how Mr. Trump is using tariffs to settle scores against his political enemies.Here’s what you need to know:What did Trump threaten, and why?What products does Brazil export to the U.S.?What is Trump’s history with Bolsonaro and Lula?What is the case against Bolsonaro?What happens next?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      French Police Raid National Rally Over Campaign Finances

      by

      The authorities said they were investigating whether the nationalist, anti-immigrant party broke France’s campaign-finance rules.The police raided the headquarters of France’s far-right National Rally party on Wednesday as part of an investigation into its campaign finances, the Paris prosecutor’s office said.No one has been charged in the investigation, which was opened in July 2024 and aims to determine whether the nationalist, anti-immigrant party ran afoul of campaign-finance rules for France’s 2022 elections and the 2024 European elections.The investigation was the latest in a series of allegations of financial impropriety against the party. It adds to the persistent uncertainty that has dogged French politics in recent months as parties gear up for a 2027 presidential race.The National Rally, which has grown more powerful in recent years, has denied any wrongdoing and on Wednesday denounced the investigation as politically motivated.“This deployment of force has only one aim: to put on a show for the news channels, to search the private correspondence of the leading opposition party, to seize all our internal documents,” Jordan Bardella, the National Rally’s president, said on X. “Nothing to do with justice, everything to do with politics.”About 20 armed officers from France’s financial brigade took part in the raid, which was led by two investigative judges, according to Mr. Bardella.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares31 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened in Trade Talks Between Japan and the U.S.

      by

      Tokyo had expected smooth tariff negotiations but is experiencing whiplash, becoming a central target of President Trump’s trade frustrations.Earlier this year, Japan’s relationship with the United States seemed to be on solid footing.Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met with President Trump at the White House in February and pledged to significantly boost investment in the United States. The two leaders talked about their “unwavering commitment” to what some U.S. diplomats have called the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.Those ties appeared to count for something when the Trump administration announced so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners on April 2. Sure, the 24 percent rate handed to Japan from the top buyer of its goods was a blow. But Japan was the first major trade partner invited to Washington to negotiate those tariffs away.Now, Japan is dealing with diplomatic whiplash.On Monday, Mr. Trump delayed until Aug. 1 tariffs that were supposed to take effect on Wednesday for dozens of countries. Japan was among a subset of countries, along with a neighbor, South Korea, that received letters directing them to change what the White House called unfair trade policies.The announcement that Japan would be targeted with a new 25 percent tariff came after a week in which Mr. Trump repeatedly lashed out at the country, an ally, for its unwillingness to buy American cars and rice. He characterized Japan as “spoiled” and indicated that a trade deal was unlikely.On Tuesday, Mr. Ishiba said Japanese government officials had engaged in “earnest and sincere discussions” with counterparts in the United States. He called the U.S. announcement “deeply regrettable.”The international cargo terminal at the port in Tokyo.Kazuhiro Nogi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      Von der Leyen Faces No-Confidence Vote in Far-Right Challenge

      by

      Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the commission, appeared before the European Parliament to defend herself against complaints about transparency.Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, is expected to face a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament this week. While the measure is likely to fail, it will be a symbolic challenge to the European Union’s top official at a time of high tension.Ms. von der Leyen appeared before Parliament on Monday for a debate to address the complaints against her ahead of the vote, which is scheduled for Thursday.The challenge originated from Europe’s far right: Gheorghe Piperea, a parliamentary newcomer from Romania who belongs to a political group that is often critical of the European Union, accused Ms. von der Leyen’s commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, of “failures to ensure transparency.”The complaint referred to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times over the commission’s denial of a request for records of text messages between Ms. von der Leyen and Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive, when she was trying to procure coronavirus vaccines.The General Court in Luxembourg sided with The Times, ruling in May that Ms. von der Leyen’s commission did not provide enough of an explanation in refusing the request for her text messages with the Pfizer executive.Mr. Piperea’s complaint also referred to the commission’s push to ramp up joint defense procurement and to carry out digital laws. He asserted in a filing that the commission’s behavior had been repeatedly opaque and “undermines trust.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Explores Using Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

      by

      Such a path could drastically raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, bringing the department and the threat of criminalization into the election system.Senior Justice Department officials are exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against state or local election officials if the Trump administration determines they have not sufficiently safeguarded their computer systems, according to people familiar with the discussions.The department’s effort, which is still in its early stages, is not based on new evidence, data or legal authority, according to the people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. Instead, it is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation, these people said.Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before.Federal voting laws place some mandates on how elections are conducted and ballots counted. But that work has historically been managed by state and local officials, with limited involvement or oversight from Washington.In recent days, senior officials have directed Justice Department lawyers to examine the ways in which a hypothetical failure by state or local officials to follow security standards for electronic voting could be charged as a crime, appearing to assume a kind of criminally negligent mismanagement of election systems. Already, the department has started to contact election officials across the country, asking for information on voting in the state.Ballots from the 2024 general election locked in a secure warehouse area of the Ada County Elections Office in Boise, Idaho, last November.Natalie Behring for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ but the G.O.P. Will Pay a Price

      by

      And so will many voters.There will be many short- and long-term consequences if Republicans succeed in passing President Trump’s signature policy bill, as they aim to do before the July 4 holiday, David Leonhardt, the director of the Times editorial board, tells the national politics writer Michelle Cottle in this episode of “The Opinions.”Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ but the G.O.P. Will Pay a PriceAnd so will many voters.Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.Michelle Cottle: I’m Michelle Cottle and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. So with the July 4 weekend looming, I thought we’d talk about a different kind of fireworks: that is, President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” and as always, I hope the air quotes there are audible for everybody.But that bill looks like it is on track for passage. From Medicaid cuts to tax breaks for the rich, it is a lot. Thankfully with me to talk about this is David Leonhardt, the fearless director of the New York Times editorial board, who has some very pointed thoughts on the matter. So let’s just get to it. David, welcome.David Leonhardt: Thank you, Michelle. It’s great to be talking with you.Cottle: I’m so excited, but warning to all: We are recording on Monday midday and even as we speak, the Senate is brawling its way through to a final vote. So the situation is fluid and could change the details by the time you all hear this.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      The Republicans in Congress Who Are Opting to Self-Deport From Washington

      by

      Feeling out of step with President Trump’s G.O.P., Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Don Bacon are deciding to retire.Senator Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican, knows a thing or two about the power of health care at the ballot box.In 2011, he became the speaker of the State House in North Carolina after a wave of populist anger over the Affordable Care Act swept Republicans into office across the country. In 2014, he defeated the state’s incumbent Democratic senator as voters who saw the election as a referendum on government competence in the wake of the health care law’s messy rollout handed the Senate back to Republicans.So Tillis’s refusal to back President Trump’s signature domestic policy bill could be interpreted as a clanging alarm for a party that doesn’t want to hear it.“Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betraying a promise,” Tillis said on the Senate floor on Sunday, blaming “amateurs” in the White House for encouraging Trump to back a bill that Tillis said would kick some 663,000 people off Medicaid in North Carolina alone.Tillis had found himself squeezed between a key lesson of his career — don’t mess with voters’ health care — and President Trump’s biggest domestic priority. With Democrats eager to hold the measure’s deep Medicaid cuts against him, and Trump blasting him for wavering, Tillis decided there was only one option left: self-deportation from Washington (also known as retirement).And he’s not the only one, as congressional Republicans reckon with the fact that even a modicum of independence from Trump can be politically untenable in their branch of government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      Mamdani, Trump and the End of the Old Politics

      by

      Mamdani, Trump and the End of the Old PoliticsThe MSNBC anchor — and native New Yorker — Chris Hayes considers what Democrats can learn from the mayoral primary.This is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing to the show on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.The Democratic primary that just wrapped up in New York was a collision between two very different candidates on almost every level: ideologically, outsider versus insider and name recognition. But it was also a collision that I think matters, for much beyond New York City politics, of two very different theories of attention.Andrew Cuomo ran a campaign that was based on a tried-and-true strategy of buying attention. He had this gigantic super PAC with tens of millions of dollars purchasing all the advertising money can buy, absolutely dominating airwaves with negative ads about Zohran Mamdani.Archived clip: In his own words, Zohran Mamdani wants to defund the police.Archived clip: Zohran Mamdani is a 33-year-old dangerously inexperienced legislator who has passed just three bills.Archived clip: Zohran Mamdani, a risk New York can’t afford.And then you had Mamdani, who was running a campaign on a very different theory of attention, a theory of viral attention, a campaign built on these vertical videos that, if you opened Instagram, if you opened TikTok, and you were in any way connected to his ideas or to New York City, this was all you saw.Archived clip of Kareem Rahma: So what’s your take?Zohran Mamdani: That I should be the mayor.Archived clip of Mamdani: New York is suffering from a crisis, and it’s called halalflation.Archived clip of Mamdani: Did you know that Andrew Cuomo gutted the pensions for hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers?Archived clip of Mamdani: Mr. Cuomo, and furthermore, the name is Mamdani. M-A-M-D-A-N-I. You should learn how to say it.”Attention works differently now. This is one of the core political theses of this entire podcast. It is laced through so many of these episodes.You just watched these two incredibly different attentional strategies collide. Cuomo got flattened. He got flattened. It was not close.There are things you cannot learn about how to win elections in other places from an off-year June Democratic primary in New York City using rank-choice voting.But there are things you can learn about how attention works right now — and that’s in a large part the subject of this conversation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More