Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Bans Most Flags, Including Pride, at Schools and Government Buildings

      by

      The new law is among the most restrictive governing displays of flags, and is part of a polarizing debate focused on the Pride flag and other expressions of L.G.B.T.Q. support.The Utah State Legislature approved a measure that bans the display of all but approved flags in schools and government buildings, a divisive move that civil rights groups have said will undermine free expression for L.G.B.T.Q. people and their supporters.The measure, which became law on Thursday, allows only flags explicitly exempt from the ban — including the United States flag, the Utah state flag and military flags — to be displayed. Other flags, such as the Pride flag and those supporting political causes, will be barred from being flown at government buildings.The new law is one of the most restrictive passed by a state to govern the display of flags, in what has become a polarizing debate largely focused on the Pride flag and other expressions of L.G.B.T.Q. support.Other states, such as Idaho, have passed restrictions on the display of flags in schools, while lawmakers in Florida are considering similar proposals. Supporters of the measure have framed it as a way to make schools and government buildings less political.“Tax payer funded entities shouldn’t be promoting political agendas,” Trevor Lee, a Republican lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said on social media on Friday. “This is a massive win for Utah.”In a letter on Thursday, Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, said he had “serious concerns” about the bill. He said he had allowed it to become law without his signature because his veto would have been overridden.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Deportation Fight Reaches Supreme Court

      by

      The Trump administration asked the justices to allow it to use a wartime law to continue deportations of Venezuelans with little or no due process.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to use a rarely invoked wartime law to continue to deport Venezuelans with little to no due process.The emergency application arrived at the court after a federal appeals court kept in place a temporary block on the deportations. In its application to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the administration argued that the matter was too urgent to wait for the case to wind its way through the lower courts.In the government’s application, acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris said the case presented “fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country.”“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the president,” Ms. Harris wrote. “The Republic cannot afford a different choice.”The case will offer a major early test for how the nation’s highest court will confront President Trump’s aggressive efforts to deport of millions of migrants and his hostile posture toward the courts. Mr. Trump has called for impeaching a lower-court judge who paused his deportations.The case hinges on the legality of an executive order signed by Mr. Trump that invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The order uses the law to target people believed to be Venezuelan gang members in the United States.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

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      A Musk Lawsuit in Wisconsin Is the Backdrop to the State’s Supreme Court Race

      by

      A legal battle over Tesla sales in Wisconsin is the quiet backdrop to a big State Supreme Court race.I was driving from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis last week when I saw the sign.A Tesla sign.Soon after I crossed the St. Croix River, which divides Wisconsin and Minnesota, a brick-and-steel tower visible from Interstate 94 advertised the Tesla store and service center in Lake Elmo, Minn.The dealership’s proximity to the state line is probably no accident: Wisconsin law prohibits vehicle manufacturers from selling cars directly to customers there, the way Tesla usually does. Instead, companies need to work through local franchisees — think Hank’s Ford or Jimmy’s Subaru, that sort of thing.This means that, in Wisconsin, you can’t actually stroll into a dealership and leave with a Tesla. You can look at one — the company has showrooms in Madison and Milwaukee — but if you want one, you’ll generally have to buy it online and pick it up somewhere like Lake Elmo or Northern Illinois, or have it delivered.Tesla sued Wisconsin over this law in January. Now, Tesla’s owner, Elon Musk, is spending big money on the state’s Supreme Court race.The lawsuit has become a major focus for Democrats, who are accusing Musk of trying to buy a justice and swing the very court that might at some point consider his lawsuit. My colleagues Reid Epstein, who writes about national politics, and Neal Boudette, who covers the auto industry, teamed up to explore the relationship between the lawsuit and Musk’s $20 million investment — so far — in the judicial election, which will be held on April 1.The politics of Tesla’s fight with Wisconsin are, like so much involving Musk, kind of topsy-turvy. It pits car dealers, who tend to be Republican, against Musk supporters, who these days also tend to be Republican.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. to End Vaccine Funds for Poor Countries

      by

      A 281-page spreadsheet obtained by The Times lists the Trump administration’s plans for thousands of foreign aid programs.The Trump administration intends to terminate the United States’ financial support for Gavi, the organization that has helped purchase critical vaccines for children in developing countries, saving millions of lives over the past quarter century, and to significantly scale back support for efforts to combat malaria, one of the biggest killers globally.The administration has decided to continue some key grants for medications to treat H.I.V. and tuberculosis, and food aid to countries facing civil wars and natural disasters.Those decisions are included in a 281-page spreadsheet that the United States Agency for International Development sent to Congress Monday night, listing the foreign aid projects it plans to continue and to terminate. The New York Times obtained a copy of the spreadsheet and other documents describing the plans.The documents provide a sweeping overview of the extraordinary scale of the administration’s retreat from a half-century-long effort to present the United States to the developing world as a compassionate ally and to lead the fight against infectious diseases that kill millions of people annually.The cover letter details the skeletal remains of U.S.A.I.D. after the cuts, with most of its funding eliminated, and only 869 of more than 6,000 employees still on active duty.In all, the administration has decided to continue 898 U.S.A.I.D. awards and to end 5,341, the letter says. It says the remaining programs are worth up to $78 billion. But only $8.3 billion of that is unobligated funds — money still available to disburse. Because that amount covers awards that run several years into the future, the figure suggests a massive reduction in the $40 billion that U.S.A.I.D. used to spend annually.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Could Run Out of Cash by May, Budget Office Predicts

      by

      The Congressional Budget Office said that the so-called X-date could occur as early as spring if Congress does not lift or suspend the nation’s debt limit.The U.S. could run out of money to pay its bills by late May if Congress does not raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.The forecast puts added pressure on Congress and the Trump administration to address the borrowing cap, which restricts the total amount of money that the United States is authorized to borrow to fund the government and meet its financial obligations. A protracted standoff later this year could rattle markets and complicate President Trump’s plans to enact more tax cuts.The C.B.O. noted that its forecast is subject to uncertainty over how much tax revenue the federal government will collect this year. It expects that the United States will have sufficient funds to keep paying bills through August or September. However, it said that if borrowing needs exceed its projections, the U.S. could run out of cash by late May or sometime in June.“The projected exhaustion date is uncertain because the timing and amount of revenue collections and outlays over the intervening months could differ from C.B.O.’s projections,” the budget office said in a report.The so-called X-date is the moment when the United States is unable to pay its bills, including interest payments to investors who hold government debt. Failure to meet those obligations could result in the United States defaulting on its debt. The U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, which is considered one of the safest investments in the world, and brinkmanship over missed payments could be economically damaging.The national debt is now approaching $37 trillion. Lawmakers agreed in June 2023 to suspend the $31.4 trillion debt limit until Jan. 1, 2025.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

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Importance of Being SpaceX

      by

      Tesla might be suffering, but SpaceX is poised to profit off billions in new government contractsMuch attention has been paid to how Elon Musk’s high-profile role in President Trump’s White House has hurt Tesla: Sales are falling, its stock price has slipped from its peak and embarrassed liberals are turning their cars back in.Some of that attention is being supplied by Trump himself. “I know you’ve been through a lot,” Trump told Musk during today’s cabinet meeting, at which Musk perched at one end of the table wearing a red hat that said “Trump was right about everything.” Trump portrayed him as stoically weathering the backlash against his businesses.“He has never asked me for a thing,” Trump said.Perhaps not. But even as Tesla suffers, another of his companies is poised to profit off billions of dollars in new government contracts. That company is SpaceX.My colleague Eric Lipton, an investigative reporter in The Times’s Washington bureau, has laid out the myriad ways that SpaceX stands to benefit from enormous sums in federal spending even as Musk, focused on cutting costs, slices his way through the government.SpaceX is positioning itself to win billions in new federal contracts from the Pentagon, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission and NASA, Eric writes. The scale of the business is staggering, as is the potential for conflicts of interest.Conflicts could arise not just from Musk’s dual roles as the chief executive of SpaceX and an adviser to Trump. Current and recent employees of SpaceX also now hold government positions, some of which could allow them to steer work back to SpaceX.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

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      South Korea​n Court ​Reinstates Impeached Prime Minister

      by

      ​Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was serving as the country’s acting president when the National Assembly impeached him in December, suspending him from office.Prime Minister Han Duck-soo of South Korea was restored to office as acting president​ on Monday, after the country’s Constitutional Court overturned his impeachment by the National Assembly.Mr. Han had served as South Korea’s acting president after ​the Assembly impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol on Dec. 14​, suspending Mr. Yoon from office in connection with his failed attempt to place his country under martial law. Mr. Han had served as acting president for fewer than two weeks when the Assembly impeached him as well on Dec. 27, adding to the political uncertainty in South Korea, a key ally of the United States in Asia.The Constitutional Court has yet to announce when it will rule on whether to oust or reinstall Mr. Yoon — a far more consequential decision South Koreans have been awaiting for weeks with growing anxiety. If Mr. Yoon is removed, South Korea will elect a new president within 60 days. If he is reinstated, he will return to office to face a country more fractured than ever over his presidency.In South Korea, the Constitutional Court has a final say on whether officials impeached by the Assembly should be formally removed or reinstalled. Its ruling took effect immediately and cannot be appealed.Since Mr. Han’s impeachment, Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, the official next in line in the government hierarchy, has been doubling as acting president.When it impeached Mr. Han, the Assembly accused him of collaborating in Mr. Yoon’s illegal declaration of martial law. It also said that Mr. Han broke his constitutional duties when he refused to appoint three Constitutional Court justices selected by Parliament. Mr. Han denied the accusations. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      With No-Confidence Vote, Israeli Cabinet Moves to Fire Attorney General

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, contends the top lawyer sought to undermine him. His critics in Israel call it part of a purge of those he considers disloyal.The Israeli cabinet passed a no-confidence motion on Sunday against the country’s attorney general to begin the process of dismissing her. Critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the move part of his effort to curb the independence of the judiciary and purge officials he considers disloyal.Mr. Netanyahu and his allies have accused the attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, of undermining them. The no-confidence vote against her, as well as the cabinet’s approval days before of the firing of Israel’s domestic intelligence chief, has rekindled street protests reminiscent of the upheaval over government plans to overhaul the judiciary before the war with Hamas began in 2023.In a letter addressed to the cabinet on Sunday, Ms. Baharav-Miara said the no-confidence motion was not part of the formal process that would be legally required for her removal. She added that Mr. Netanyahu’s government sought to put itself “above the law, to act without checks and balances, even at the most sensitive of times,” referring among other things to the war in Gaza.Legal experts say firing Ms. Baharav-Miara is likely to be a weekslong process because of longstanding checks meant to protect her role’s independence. Her dismissal would first have to be considered by a special appointments committee that is currently lacking some members and cannot convene until the vacancies are filled.The intelligence official Mr. Netanyahu moved against, Ronen Bar, sent a stinging letter to the government calling the process to fire him illegal and saying that the prime minister’s motives were “fundamentally flawed.”The country’s Supreme Court has frozen Mr. Bar’s dismissal pending a hearing.Mr. Netanyahu says he is strengthening Israeli democracy by curbing what he describes as overreach by unelected officials and giving more power to the elected government. But his opponents see the moves as part of a concerted effort by the prime minister to remove checks on his power and to eject those he views as personally disloyal.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