Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Hugo Aguilar Ortiz Became Mexico’s Most Powerful Indigenous Lawyer

      by

      In the far-flung hamlet in southern Mexico where he grew up, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz’s boyhood job was to herd goats. Nearly everyone around him on the mist-shrouded slopes of Oaxaca persisted in speaking Tu’un Savi, known as the language of the rain, even centuries after the Spanish conquest.“I thought the world ended at the mountains,” said Mr. Aguilar Ortiz, now 52 and the newly elected chief justice of Mexico’s Supreme Court. “I never thought about becoming a lawyer.”Dealing a jolt to Mexico’s legal establishment, he won his seat in the country’s first judicial elections, part of a sweeping redesign of the judiciary by the leftist governing party, Morena. It rewrote the Constitution to let voters directly elect thousands of judges around Mexico, ending the previous appointment-based system.Feuding over the judicial overhaul has consumed Mexico for the past year. Critics say it erodes the last major check on the power of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s party, which already controls the executive branch, both houses of Congress and most statehouses across Mexico.But Morena’s supporters contend that the changes were needed not only to root out the judicial system’s corruption and nepotism, but also to make judgeships attainable to those traditionally excluded from positions of power. Mr. Aguilar Ortiz’s metamorphosis from goatherd to chief justice bolsters such ambitions.“Things can change now that we have Hugo there,” said Alejandro Marreros Lobato, a Nahua human rights activist, who drew on Mr. Aguilar Ortiz’s support in a legal battle against a Canadian open-pit mining project near his Nahua community. “It makes me feel that we can finally start talking about justice.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Closing Arguments of the N.Y.C. Mayoral Candidates

      by

      Ahead of the June 24 primary, The New York Times analyzed the closing campaign speeches of the four leading Democrats running for mayor.The leading candidates for New York City mayor, clockwise from top left: Former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo; Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani; Brad Lander, the city comptroller; and Adrienne Adams, the City Council speaker. Nicole Craine, Scott Heins and Dave Sanders for The New York Times; Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesWith the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City looming on Tuesday, the candidates are making their closing arguments to voters.The New York Times analyzed excerpts from recent speeches by the top four candidates in the polls — Andrew Cuomo, Zohran Mamdani, Brad Lander and Adrienne Adams — to highlight and explain their central campaign messages.Andrew M. CuomoAndrew Cuomo has won endorsements from some of the city’s most influential labor unions.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesMr. Cuomo, 67, is trying to make a comeback four years after resigning as New York’s governor amid a sexual harassment scandal. He denies wrongdoing and has run as a moderate who has the most experience and fortitude to stand up to President Trump.The setting: Union Square in Manhattan, one week before Primary Day, with labor leaders who endorsed him and hundreds of union members.The goal: Mr. Cuomo sought to portray himself as the candidate of working-class New Yorkers who are eager to reorient the Democratic Party nationally after its 2024 losses.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Andrew Cuomo’s Complicated Legacy in New York City

      by

      Mr. Cuomo, the front-runner in the mayoral race and former governor, has a long — and, his critics say, mixed — record handling important issues in the city.As Andrew M. Cuomo runs for mayor of New York City, his prevailing argument to voters has focused on his experience in government, including his nearly 11 years as governor.Mr. Cuomo has highlighted the infrastructure projects he championed as governor, like LaGuardia Airport and the Second Avenue subway, and his role in raising the minimum wage and approving gay marriage.But his tenure, which ended in 2021 after he resigned following a series of sexual harassment allegations that he denies, also included decisions that critics say hurt the city.They contend that Mr. Cuomo was vindictive toward the city as part of his bitter feud with Mayor Bill de Blasio, and that he should have done more to protect the city, especially its lower-income residents, from budget cuts and the pandemic.Here is how Mr. Cuomo handled five key issues.Many New Yorkers blamed Mr. Cuomo for policies that they believe worsened mass transit, even though he helped usher in the new Second Avenue subway line.Michelle V. Agins/The New York TimesA Beleaguered Transit SystemWhen subway delays began to soar in 2017, Mr. Cuomo remained mostly silent even though he was responsible for the system through his control of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Strike on Iran Cements Netanyahu’s Political Comeback

      by

      The United States’ overnight attack could cause further escalation. To Israelis, it is already seen as a victory for Israel, and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Twenty months ago, in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career teetered on a precipice. As Israel’s prime minister, he had overseen the deadliest military lapse in the country’s history, wrecking his security credentials and collapsing support for his government.The United States’ overnight attack on Iran on Sunday, coupled with Israel’s own recent strikes, has taken Mr. Netanyahu to the brink of political redemption. For decades, he dreamed of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, defining it as the greatest threat to Israel’s future, and its destruction as his highest military priority.Now, he is as close to reaching that goal as he may ever get. To many Israelis, it is a success that helps to revive his reputation as a guardian of their security, raises his chances of re-election and, depending on how the next weeks develop, could cement his historical legacy.“This night marks Netanyahu’s greatest achievement since he first came to power in 1996,” said Mazal Mualem, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu. “From the perspective of the public, he has achieved a victory against what is considered the greatest threat to Israel since its founding.”In Iran, the short-term consequences of the U.S. strikes have yet to play out. It is not yet clear if they completely destroyed their targets. Even if they did, Israel could continue to attack Iran, seeking to further destabilize the Iranian government.Iran fired another barrage of missiles at Israel on Sunday, and many fear it will retaliate against U.S. military bases, embassies and interests. That could prompt more American and Israeli strikes on Iran, lengthening the war.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Iranians Find Pockets of Connection Amid Internet Blackout

      by

      Iranians managed to gain some unreliable connection to the internet on Friday after a near-total blackout that lasted four days.After Iranians were cut off from the world for four days, the country’s nearly complete internet blackout was abruptly lifted late Friday for some Iranians, who managed to get access to weak connections by switching to different servers or perhaps through sheer luck.But many said they thought the connections were temporary or unsafe, with the government still imposing tight restrictions that were difficult to bypass.“It feels like we’re in a dark cave,” said Arta, an Iranian who fled Tehran on Tuesday and was able to briefly send a few messages over Instagram late Friday.Like many others who have exchanged messages with The New York Times over the last week, he asked to be identified only by his first name to avoid scrutiny by the authorities.“Even SMS texts don’t go through sometimes,” he said.Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks, or VPNs, to evade government restrictions on the internet, but many of those services have been disrupted since Israel’s attacks began. On Saturday, as some connection returned, providers urged their users to act cautiously.“For your own sake, don’t spread the link, the server will disconnect, and our work will only get harder,” one organizer wrote on a VPN provider’s Telegram channel. The organizer warned that reports of disconnection were increasing again, and asked subscribers to not share their product link because their server was overwhelmed.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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Europe’s Growing Fear: How Trump Might Use U.S. Tech Dominance Against It

      by

      To comply with a Trump executive order, Microsoft recently suspended the email account of an International Criminal Court prosecutor in the Netherlands who was investigating Israel for war crimes.When President Trump issued an executive order in February against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel for war crimes, Microsoft was suddenly thrust into the middle of a geopolitical fight.For years, Microsoft had supplied the court — which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands and investigates and prosecutes human rights breaches, genocides and other crimes of international concern — with digital services such as email. Mr. Trump’s order abruptly threw that relationship into disarray by barring U.S. companies from providing services to the prosecutor, Karim Khan.Soon after, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Wash., suspended Mr. Khan’s I.C.C. email account, freezing him out of communications with colleagues just a few months after the court had issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for his country’s actions in Gaza.Microsoft’s swift compliance with Mr. Trump’s order, reported earlier by The Associated Press, shocked policymakers across Europe. It was a wake-up call for a problem far bigger than just one email account, stoking fears that the Trump administration would leverage America’s tech dominance to penalize opponents, even in allied countries like the Netherlands.“The I.C.C. showed this can happen,” said Bart Groothuis, a former head of cybersecurity for the Dutch Ministry of Defense who is now a member of the European Parliament. “It’s not just fantasy.”Mr. Groothuis once supported U.S. tech firms but has done a “180-degree flip-flop,” he said. “We have to take steps as Europe to do more for our sovereignty.”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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Medically Assisted Dying Closer to Legalization After Vote by UK Lawmakers

      by

      British lawmakers on Friday confirmed their support for assisted suicide for some terminally ill people, after months of scrutiny that followed an initial vote last year.British lawmakers on Friday approved plans to introduce medically assisted dying for terminally ill patients in England and Wales, advancing what would be one of the biggest social changes seen in Britain in decades.After a debate that was at times emotive and fraught but remained respectful in tone, legislators supported the proposal by a vote of 314 to 291.The vote on Friday was the second time lawmakers have approved the idea of medically assisted dying, after an initial vote in November of last year that was followed by months of scrutiny and debate in parliamentary committees. The issue has provoked deep division in and beyond the British Parliament.The bill passed by just 23 votes on Friday, significantly lower than last year, when the majority was 55. That may reflect concerns recently expressed by some medical professionals and organizations about the practicality of the legislation.The bill now goes to the unelected second chamber of the Parliament, the House of Lords. While the Lords can amend legislation, the fact that the bill has the support of elected lawmakers means that it is very likely to become law.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

      As Trump Debates Iran Action, the Meaning of ‘America First’ Is on the Line

      by

      As President Trump ponders involving the United States in Israel’s attacks on Iran, the G.O.P. faces a thorny question: What does “America first” really mean?A decade ago, President Trump electrified conservatives with his promises to get the United States out of foreign entanglements and to always put — say it with me — “America first.”As he weighs involving American planes and weaponry in Israel’s attacks on Iran, a brawl has broken out in the Republican Party over what “America first” really means.I wrote today about how a swath of Trump’s base is in an uproar over the president’s increasing openness to deploying U.S. warplanes — and perhaps even 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs — against Iran in an effort to help Israel finish off its nuclear program.“Everyone is finding out who are real America First/MAGA and who were fake and just said it bc it was popular,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted on X over the weekend. She added, “Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.”The anger extends well beyond Greene’s social-media account, to cable television and the podcast feeds of the likes of Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Candace Owens. They are passionately arguing that intervening in Iran would contravene Trump’s long-held promise to steer the nation out of, not into, foreign entanglements, and threaten to fracture his whole coalition.It’s a remarkable fight, and one that raises a bigger question about who is really the keeper of Trump’s political flame. Is it the non-interventionists who have been there from the start, or the Republican hawks — the Senator Lindsey Grahams of the world — who are now sticking by the president?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