Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats call for investigation into potential security breaches by Elon Musk

      by

      Senior Democrats are demanding an investigation into potential national security breaches created by Elon Musk’s takeover of certain federal agencies through his self-styled “department of government efficiency” (Doge).In a letter published on Thursday, the members of the House oversight committee say they are worried that Musk and his operatives have illegally accessed classified information and sensitive personal data at agencies including the office of personnel management (OPM), the US treasury and the US Agency for International Development (USAid).“There is no evidence that he, or any of his associates working under the ‘Doge team’ moniker, are entitled to access our government systems, nor is there any evidence that they have undergone the proper vetting to ensure the security of taxpayer and government data,” the letter said.It calls on deputy inspectors general at those agencies, and others including the education department, the General Services Administration and the Small Business Administration, to investigate potential national security breaches involving Musk’s team.“We are deeply concerned that unauthorized system access could be occurring across the federal government and could pose a major threat to the personal privacy of all Americans and to the national security of our nation,” the letter continued.The development comes as Democrats begin to crank up their opposition to Musk’s upending of US government systems and as a judge temporarily limited the unofficial department of government efficiency’s (Doge) ability to access the highly sensitive payment system of the US treasury that Musk’s associates reportedly attempted to use to block USAid payments.The ruling marked the first time that courts have limited Doge, which, in the last two weeks, has dug into the federal bureaucracy, pushing to shut down USAidand sowing chaos in the civil service.It came in response to unions that represent federal employees accusing the treasury of unlawfully sharing personal employee data with Doge. The ruling named two Doge associates who could be given access to the payment system – but on a read-only basis.At the same time a new poll suggests even some Republicans are becoming upset by the wrecking ball Musk is aiming at even more federal agencies, including the labor department.The number of Republicans who want Musk and Doge to have “a lot” of influence in the Trump administration has fallen significantly, to 26%, according to the Economist/YouGov poll conducted this week, reported by the Hill.The same poll taken in the days immediately after Trump’s November election win revealed that enthusiasm among Republicans for Musk’s role stood at 47%.The disquiet also appears to have spread to a number of Republican senators, who have begun voicing alarm at Musk’s tightening grip. The billionaire has moved to shutter USAid, and accessed payment systems and workers’ personal data at the US treasury, prompting a lawsuit and an agreement from justice department lawyers to back off, at least temporarily.On Wednesday, agents of Doge spread across several more government agencies seeking access to data, the Washington Post reported, including the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.On Wednesday night the Doge team, said to include inexperienced coders and engineers as young as 19, visited the US Department of Labor. Earlier in the week Doge workers entered at least two offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), making personnel changes and accessing IT systems.Musk’s next big target, meanwhile, appears to be the Department of Education, which Trump has repeatedly said he wants to shut down. Similar to actions taken at other federal agencies and departments, employees were told not to come to work or placed on leave, and dozens of workers were locked out of government email accounts and other computer systems.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Trump administration has set a Thursday night deadline for roughly 2 million employees in the federal government to surrender to buyouts or face the risk of being fired without compensation, although critics say there is no guarantee that those who accept will see any money either. On Thursday a federal judge suspended the deadline until a hearing on Monday.Democrats say Musk’s infiltration of the federal government, through an unofficial agency with no constitutional mandate or congressional oversight, amounts to a coup. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, told the chamber on Tuesday that an unelected “shadow government” was conducting a hostile takeover and usurping Trump’s authority.“Whatever Doge is doing, it is certainly not what democracy looks like, or has ever looked like in the grand history of this country, because democracy does not work in the shadows, democracy does not skirt the rule of law,” Schumer said.The White House, in an apparent effort to provide cover for Musk’s operations, said the SpaceX and Tesla founder had been designated an unsalaried “special government employee” at Trump’s direction to root out inefficiency and waste in government spending.Trump himself has told reporters Musk “can’t do and won’t do anything without our approval”.But unease has been mounting among elected officials, alongside a growing number of lawsuits. On Wednesday night, justice department attorneys agreed to an order temporarily restricting Doge staffers from accessing the treasury department’s payment system. That followed a lawsuit from union members and retirees claiming Musk’s team violated federal privacy laws.In the House on Wednesday, the Wisconsin Democratic congressman Mark Pocan filed legislation called the Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy Act, AKA the Elon Musk Act.“Elon Musk is ripping us off and like millions of Americans across the country, I’m pissed. I’m taking action [to prevent] grifters like him from getting richer while pillaging our tax dollars for himself,” Pocan said. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      What will Trump 2.0 mean for the global world order? | Stephen Wertheim

      by

      Many assumed that Donald Trump’s second term as president of the United States would turn out like his first. But this time looks to be different. In his opening weeks, the US president has taken a flurry of actions he never attempted before, wielding sweeping tariffs against the US’s neighbors, upending portions of the federal workforce, and attempting to change constitutionally enshrined citizenship laws through executive order.The early signs on foreign policy are no exception. In his inaugural address, Trump said next to nothing about the issues that have dominated US foreign policy for decades – matters of war and peace in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Instead, he spoke of expanding US territory in the western hemisphere (and going to Mars), harking back explicitly to the 19th-century tradition of manifest destiny. Astoundingly, Trump mentioned China solely for the purpose of accusing it, inaccurately, of operating the Panama canal. When he turned beyond the Americas, Trump’s most telling line signaled restraint: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”Then Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, made even more pointed and intriguing remarks. Rubio ran for president in 2016 vowing to usher in a “new American century”, the mantra of post-cold war neoconservatives. But days ago, sitting for his first lengthy interview as America’s chief diplomat, he emphasized the need for a foreign policy grounded in the US national interest and said:“So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the cold war, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.”For a US secretary of state to announce that the world is now “multipolar”, or is inevitably heading in that direction, is historically significant. Hillary Clinton also used the m-word in 2009 at the start of her tenure in the same role, but she invoked it less than affirmatively: Clinton professed a desire to move “away from a multipolar world and toward a multipartner world”. Rubio, by contrast, meant that a world of multiple poles or powers is to be accepted, not resisted. He also implied that US foreign policy had long been off course, having taken unrivaled American dominance to be a normal or necessary condition when in fact it was destined to disappear. At the end of the cold war, Rubio explained: “We were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem.”The message: no longer.Still, no longer could lead down any number of roads. Read against the Trump administration’s Americas-centric start, Rubio’s comments have provoked dread – or excitement, depending on the perspective – that the United States will radically reduce its political-military role beyond the western hemisphere even as it asserts its power within the Americas.For traditional figures in Washington, the fear is that Trump 2.0 will give China and Russia a free hand to command “spheres of influence” in their regions, so long as they permit the United States to police its own sphere. For advocates of US restraint overseas, the hope is that Trump will deliver on his promises to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, shift more responsibility for defending Europe on to the shoulders of European allies, and seek to find a stable if competitive mode of coexistence with China. If Rubio thinks the world is now multipolar, presumably it follows that the United States should abandon the approach it pursued in the bygone age of unipolarity – a grand strategy of “primacy” or “hegemony”, as scholars call it.Perhaps. Rubio, though, was not nearly so conclusive. Throughout the interview, he referred to the governments in Moscow and Beijing in adversarial terms, which hardly suggest a willingness to grant them spheres of influence. Nor is there a straight line from acknowledging the loss of unipolarity to abandoning primacy. Even in a crowded, competitive landscape, the United States could try to remain militarily stronger than every rival, retain all its globe-spanning defense commitments, and maintain a large troop presence in Asia, Europe and the Middle East simultaneously. Those are the elements of primacy. Rubio did not renounce any of them. The United States, in short, could still pursue primacy without enjoying unipolarity.Indeed, in associating multipolarity with the existence of “multi-great powers”, Rubio may have meant to affirm the outlook of the first Trump administration, which adopted “great power competition” as a watchword. For Trump 1.0, as for the Biden administration that followed, the rise of China and the assertion of Russia did not compel Washington to pare back its military commitments and presence. Quite the contrary. Over the two presidencies, Nato enlarged to four new countries, the US military presence in the Middle East (excluding Afghanistan) remained stable, and the United States deepened security cooperation with Ukraine, Taiwan and others.So far, the appearance of formidable rivals has done less to discipline US ambitions than to furnish US global primacy with a new rationale – to stand up to the aggressive and revisionist activities of America’s adversaries. As Rubio put it: “China wants to be the most powerful country in the world and they want to do so at our expense, and that’s not in our national interest, and we’re going to address it.”But Rubio did signal more restraint than a continuation of business as usual. Just after his remarks on multipolarity, he noted that the second world war ended 80 years ago and that “if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now.” Since the end of the cold war, US leaders have invoked the second world war almost exclusively to exhort the country to lead the world. Rubio, by contrast, did so to caution against the dangers of overreach. He continued:“You have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth. And so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that’s the tricky balance.”Quite so. In recent years, the risk of conflict between major powers has grown acute. The war in Ukraine – in which one major power is fighting directly on its borders and the other heavily arming its opponent – had no parallel during the cold war. A US-China military conflict over Taiwan would be ruinous. In a country unused to paying noticeable costs for foreign policy choices, and a world that no longer remembers the last general war, Rubio delivered a salutary message.The policy test, however, is still to come. If the new administration is serious about avoiding catastrophic wars, without exposing core US interests to great power predation, it will make a determined, sustained diplomatic effort to end the war in Ukraine and minimize the risks of escalation if initial talks do not succeed. It will explore politically difficult ways to reach a modus vivendi with China, including by offering assurances that the United States does not seek to keep Taiwan permanently separate from the mainland, a red line for Beijing.The new administration’s opening moves suggest some intention to find a more sustainable and less confrontational approach toward the world’s major powers. But if unipolarity is dead, the lure of primacy remains very much alive.

      Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American statecraft program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and Catholic University More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      US electors to certify Trump’s win in process targeted by fake electors in 2020

      by

      Electors will meet in all 50 states on Tuesday to ratify the second election of Donald Trump to the presidency, a process typically no more than a ceremonial step to the White House for the winner of an election.Usually, it lacks drama. But four years ago on 20 December 2020, Republican activists met in seven states won by Joe Biden – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – to sign false certificates of ascertainment proclaiming victory for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, to be sent to the National Archives and to Congress.Prosecutors have described the intent behind this act of “fake electors” as the provision of a rationale for the vice-president to either declare Trump president or to throw the election to Congress to decide on 6 January 2021. On that day, rioters breached the US Capitol intent on subverting the results of the election.The constitution states that on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday of December after a presidential election, each state’s presidential electors gather in each state’s capitol to cast their vote in the electoral college for president and vice-president. The electoral college is an artifact of the politics of slavery; created at the insistence of southern states because it initially enhanced the voting power of states with larger enslaved populations due to the apportionment value of the three-fifths compromise.The re-election of Trump in November by a decisive margin, coupled with the relative acceptance of the results by his political opponents, suggests no second wave of shenanigans on Tuesday.Nonetheless, Congress tightened up language about how the process works after the January 6 insurrection, the latest of periodic adjustments to the 248-year-old tradition of the electoral college. The Electoral Count Reform Act clarified that the legislatures of states that use an election to choose a president cannot simply appoint electors after the fact if there is some kind of election “failure”.The reforms require the executive of each state to certify an election at least six days before the electoral count, and that this certification is conclusive unless a state or federal court concludes otherwise. It limited the kind of objections members of Congress could make to the votes of electors. It also ensured that a mob with bad intentions could not change the outcome, by explicitly designating the vice-president’s role in counting votes as a ministerial, ceremonial act.The one thing the 2022 reforms didn’t do is require states to hold a presidential election.Stated in article II, section 1, clause 2 of the constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress … ”The US supreme court ruled in Bush v Gore that states do not actually have to hold an election at all, but if they do it has to conform with 14th amendment rules for equal protection.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe “manner” state legislatures have chosen in the past has included allowing voters to choose them by electoral district, or with legislators choosing themselves – as Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey and South Carolina did in the first presidential election.Electors appointed to the college are obligated to vote for the winning candidate. Some vote for someone else anyway. It’s rare – fewer than 100 out of more than 14,000 people over the life of the country. The modern record is seven, set in 2016.So-called faithless electors have never overturned an election, but dozens of electors have cast ballots for a candidate not of their party over the years. Thirty-three states and Washington DC have state laws prohibiting electors from casting ballots for someone other than the winner of the election. In 2016, four electors for Hillary Clinton in the state of Washington cast their votes for Colin Powell or Faith Spotted Eagle instead and were fined $1,000 for doing so.Five states make the act of a faithless elector a crime; California law makes it a felony punishable by up to three years in prison to break ranks. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says he supports polio vaccine despite signs of RFK Jr’s opposition – live

      by

      Last week, the New York Times reported that a lawyer who had filed petitions seeking to revoke the approval of vaccines for polio and other preventable diseases has been by Robert F Kennedy Jr’s side in interviews to hire top officials for the health and human services department.A reporter asked Donald Trump today if he supported taking the polio vaccine out of circulation.“You’re not going to lose the polio vaccine. That’s not going to happen,” Trump said. “I saw what happened with the polio, I have friends that were very much affected by that. I have friends from many years ago, and … they’re still in not such good shape because of it.”The polio vaccine has been credited with suppressing, almost entirely, a disease that can cause lifelong paralysis in people who get it. Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican who survived the disease, condemned the news that Trump’s incoming administration could be hostile to the much-used vaccine.However, Trump did signal some skepticism to the vaccine mandates enacted by some states and school districts. “I don’t like mandates. I’m not a big mandate person,” Trump said.He also said that there might be a link between vaccines and pesticides and autism. “You take a look at autism today versus 20, 25 years ago, it’s like, not even believable. So we’re going to have reports,” Trump said.But he downplayed fears that Kennedy, if confirmed to lead the nation’s health department, would make radical changes. “Nothing’s going to happen very quickly. I think you’re going to find that Bobby is much is a very rational guy,” Trump said.Democratic party aides have begun to float ideas for a Kamala Harris political comeback, reportedly eyeing another run at the US’s highest office even as the party continues to grapple with the electoral messages contained in the vice-president’s decisive defeat in November’s White House race against Donald Trump.Harris, who has reportedly not ruled out a second run for the presidency, is now reported to be considering a run for the California governorship, currently held until 2027 by Gavin Newsom. Newsom was a rumoured presidential contender during the chaotic summer that saw Joe Biden step down from a rematch with Trump – whom he defeated in the 2020 election – and then endorse Harris as his replacement.According to the Washington Post on Monday, some Democratic party aides believe Trump – who, among other things, overcame a criminal conviction and other such charges to win – has sufficiently overturned the norms of losing White House candidates’ not attempting a second bite at the proverbial apple to give Harris the opportunity of a repeat bid in 2028, this time for the full cycle.“Since Donald Trump has rewritten the rules – the norms – I don’t believe Kamala Harris or anyone should try to go with precedent, ever,” said Donna Brazile, a Harris ally, Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign manager and political commentator. “There are no rule books.”Read more:Trump’s stance on TikTok has softened since his first term in office. Initially he advocated to ban the app, but during his run for re-election he posted on his Truth Social account that he would “save TikTok in America”.Trump launched his own TikTok account in June, which now has nearly 15 million followers.On Monday, Trump said in a press conference at Mar-a-Lago that he has a “warm spot in my heart for TikTok”. He’s reportedly slated to meet with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at his estate on Monday, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.TikTok asked the supreme court to block a law that aims to ban the popular social media app in the US. Unless the court intervenes, the ban is set to go into effect on 19 January, one day before Donald Trump is sworn into office.The law to ban TikTok passed Congress last spring and was signed by Joe Biden. The US government says TikTok is a national security threat because its parent company, ByteDance, is Chinese-owned. They say China could use the app to access personal data from millions of Americans and also spread propaganda. The government has not disclosed evidence that Beijing or ByteDance has done so.TikTok argues the law is unconstitutional, unfairly singles it out and violates the right to free speech of its millions of users.“The Act will shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration,” reads the court filing. “This, in turn, will silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern,” they added.TikTok asked the supreme court to act by 6 January.Donald Trump’s allies have become increasingly emboldened to float their most audacious ideas as Trump prepares to return to office, suggesting he run for an unconstitutional third term in 2028 and accusing the news media of having engaged in a criminal conspiracy with prosecutors against him.Those suggestions, by Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, came at a self-congratulatory gala dinner for conservatives in New York on Sunday. At times the remarks seemed like the product of the euphoria that permeated attendees.The underlying message was clear: with Trump back in the White House and with Bannon renewing his influence with the president-elect, the most extreme and polarizing proposals at the very least were up for consideration.“The viceroy Mike Davis tells me, since it doesn’t actually say consecutive, that maybe we do it again in ’28?” Bannon said of Trump possibly running again in his remarks at the New York Young Republican Club gala dinner that also saw a Trump adviser keel over the lectern and fall off the stage.Riding the wave of self-congratulatory sentiment in the room, Bannon, who ignored the black-tie dress code with a wax jacket and black collared shirt, doubled down on pursuing a campaign of retribution against Trump’s perceived enemies in the news media and at the justice department.“We want retribution and we’re going to get retribution. You have to. It’s not personal, it’s not personal,” Bannon said to the raucous room. “They need to learn what populist, nationalist power is on the receiving end.“I need investigations, trials and then incarceration. And I’m just talking about the media. Should the media be included in the vast criminal conspiracy against President Trump? Should Andrew Weissmann on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and all of them?”Read more:Anti-vaccine activist Robert F Kennedy Jr is on Capitol Hill to meet Republican senators who will decide if he should be confirmed as secretary of health and human services:Kennedy has attracted much scrutiny for his embrace of various conspiracy theories, and advocacy against vaccines. But as conservative activist Charlie Kirk wrote on X, Kennedy’s appeal to Trump supporters is that he would downsize the massive federal department he is being tapped to lead:
      The annual budget for HHS is over $1.8 trillion, including $130 billion in discretionary spending. A behemoth of bloat and bureaucracy.
      That said, there’s one thing about Kennedy that might not sit well with some Republicans: his previous statements of support for abortion. We’ll see what lawmakers have to say about that.It’s a somewhat obscure issue, but one thing Trump has made very clear he plans to do is take steps to require federal employees to work from offices that they may have stopped going to when Covid-19 broke out.He repeated the promise at his Mar-a-Lago press conference today, saying:
      If people don’t come back to work, come back into the office, they’re going to be dismissed.
      In a statement, Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union of federal government employees, said the issue was not as simple as Trump makes it sound:
      Rumors of widespread federal telework and remote work are simply untrue. More than half of federal employees cannot telework at all because of the nature of their jobs, only ten percent of federal workers are remote, and those who have a hybrid arrangement spend over sixty percent of working hours in the office.
      Kelley also threatened a fight over any steps Trump may take that run afoul of union contracts, saying: “Collective bargaining agreements entered into by the federal government are binding and enforceable under the law. We trust the incoming administration will abide by their obligations to honor lawful union contracts. If they fail to do so, we will be prepared to enforce our rights.”Here’s more about Trump’s plans to return government workers to their offices:Donald Trump is considering appointing Democratic congressman Jared Moskowitz to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), CNN reports.Moskowitz, the former director of Florida’s division of emergency management, would be a rare registered Democrat to wind up in Trump’s administration. The congressman earlier this month announced he would join the congressional caucus supporting the “Department of Government Efficiency”, the quasi-governmental effort co-chaired by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to downsize the federal government.Trump has nominated some former Democrats to cabinet posts, including ex-Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, and anti-vaccine activist Robert F Kennedy Jr as health and human services secretary.Elon Musk is often by Donald Trump’s side these days, but the Guardian’s Edward Helmore reports that the government does not necessarily consider him trustworthy:Space entrepreneur Elon Musk is unlikely to receive government security clearances if he so applied, even as his SpaceX launch company blasts military and spy agency payloads into orbit, according to a report on Monday.The billionaire, a close ally of Donald Trump, who is set to join the incoming administration as an efficiency expert and recently became the first person to exceed $400bn in self-made personal wealth, is reported by the Wall Street Journal to have been advised by SpaceX lawyers to not seek highest-level security clearances owing to personal drug use and contacts with foreign nationals.Musk currently holds a “top-secret” clearance that took years to obtain after he discussed use of marijuana on a 2018 podcast with Joe Rogan, according to the outlet. But that may not be enough to have access to information about US government payloads in his rockets.Typically, candidates undergoing federal security screenings by the department of defense may not receive clearance if the agency expresses concerns about drug or alcohol use, criminal conduct, psychological conditions, sexual behavior or allegiance to the US.According to the Journal, Musk’s lawyers outlined scenarios in which he might inadvertently disclose secrets to foreign officials with whom he regularly speaks, including the Russian president Vladimir Putin, with whom he is reported to have been in regular contact since 2022.Musk’s use of another semi-legal drug, ketamine, in pursuit of what friends call “pure creativity”, along with reports of LSD, ecstasy and magic mushrooms, could also be an issue.Joe Biden has been briefed on a school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, which the local police chief says has left five people dead and several other injured.“The president has been briefed on the school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin. Senior White House officials are in touch with local counterparts in Madison to provide support as needed,” the White House said.Here’s more on this developing story:Regarding Israel’s assault on Gaza and the possibility for a ceasefire, Miller said:
      We are pushing as hard as we know how to do at this point. We believe we can get to the deal, but again it remains incumbent on Hamas and Israel agreeing to those final terms and getting it over the line. I cannot in good conscience stand here and tell you that that’s going to happen. But it should happen.
      US officials and other countries are trying to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas that would call for a ceasfire and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees.More than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel in Gaza since Hamas’s 7 October attacks on Israel, more than half of whom are women and children.The US state department is holding a briefing right now, much of it dedicated to the aftermath of the rapid toppling of Syria’s government, formerly led by authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad – and what that means for the US.Spokesperson Matthew Miller said the US’s “message to the Syrian people is this: We want them to succeed and we are prepared to help them do so.”Miller spoke to the importance of locating and finding US journalist Austin Tice, who has been missing since 2012 but is reportedly alive, to his family. Tice’s mother, Debra, went on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday and said she has met with the state department and the White House.She added: “We’re just really excited about being a reunited family.”No organization from the US government has been on the ground yet in Syria in reference to the search for Tice or other diplomatic issues since rebel forces took down the regime, the state department confirmed.Donald Trump held a wide-ranging press conference from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, weighing in on everything from pardoning New York mayor Eric Adams (he might do it) to getting rid of the polio vaccine (he’s not in favor). The president-elect also tried to tamp down concerns that his nominee to lead the health and human services department, Robert F Kennedy Jr, would make big changes, saying instead that “he’s going to be much less radical than you would think”. Finally, Trump announced that Japanese firm SoftBank would invest $100bn in America and create 100,000 jobs, though in the past, similar promises have not panned out.Here’s what else has happened today so far:

      Democrats are making a last minute-push to convince Joe Biden to put the Equal Rights Amendment into the constitution, which would protect against sex discrimination and likely spark a court fight.

      Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator who has met with Pete Hegseth, said the defense secretary nominee told him that he will allow a woman who he paid in relation to a sexual assault allegation to speak about it publicly.

      Biden defended his economic record with an essay in the progressive American Prospect magazine.
      Donald Trump has a history of announcing big investments that do not turn out as advertised, and one of the prime examples from his first term was a sprawling plant in Wisconsin that electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn was to build. It never actually materialized, but despite that unmet promise, the Badger state this year voted to send Trump back to the White House. Writing before the election, the Guardian’s Callum Jones took a look at what went wrong with the much-ballyhooed investment:Less than 30 miles south of the Fiserv Forum, the Wisconsin convention center where Republicans confirmed Donald Trump as their nominee for president for the third time, lies the site of a project Trump predicted would become “the Eighth Wonder of the World”.While still in office, the then president traveled to Mount Pleasant in Racine county to break ground on a sprawling facility that the electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn had agreed to build – in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies.Flanked by local allies and executives from the company, Trump planted a golden shovel in the ground. “America is open for business more than it has ever been open for business,” he proclaimed in June 2018, as FoxConn promised to invest $10bn and hire 13,000 local workers.Highways were built and expanded. Homes were razed. The area – a former manufacturing powerhouse – was primed for revitalization in a deal that seemed to underline the executive prowess of America’s most famous businessman, an image that has helped maintain many voters’ confidence that he could steer the US economy more competently than his rival, Kamala Harris, and could win him the White House again come November.At his just-concluded press conference in Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump was asked if he would consider pardoning New York mayor Eric Adams, who is facing corruption charges.“Yeah, I think that he was treated pretty unfairly,” Trump replied.Adams has been indicted on five federal charges related to accepting gifts in exchange for favors such as helping Turkey open a new diplomatic tower in Manhattan despite concerns about its fire safety system. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump will destroy the government agencies that most help working people | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      The Republican party has shellacked its clean-cut corporatism, in recent years, with a veneer of economic populism. See JD Vance’s pseudo-criticisms of Wall Street, so gestural they could be mistaken for an interpretive dance routine, or Donald Trump’s stint as a McDonald’s “employee”, which seemed more inspired by his contempt for Kamala Harris than his affection for fry cooks.But when it comes to how the second Trump administration actually intends to govern, there have already been plenty of signals that they intend to target and weaken – if not outright destroy – the parts of government most beneficial to working people. And right now, the agency most clearly in their crosshairs is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).While there’s new fervor behind rightwing efforts to undermine the CFPB – or, indeed, “delete” it, as Elon Musk recently tweeted – these attacks have been ongoing since the agency’s inception. In his first term, in fact, Trump slashed the CFPB’s budget, appointed a vocal critic to run it and rolled back regulations protecting consumers from predatory practices.Trump and his nearly-half-trillionaire “first buddy” feel threatened for good reason: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the few federal agencies created explicitly to help average Americans, and actually given authority to do so. Its efforts have represented some of the Biden administration’s most impactful advances for working people – and gutting it would be among the most devastating anti-consumer moves the Trump administration could make.The CFPB was born out of the 2008 financial crisis, which saw almost 400 banks fold and American households lose about $17tn in wealth (that’s 42 Elon Musks). The popular narrative rightfully blames predatory lending and securities fraud, but those lapses were only possible because of decades-long bipartisan deregulation. In response, the then Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren proposed a federal agency to centralize regulation of the consumer financial sector, work which had been spread thin across seven different agencies. Rather than being “duplicative”, as Musk has claimed, the CFPB began as a novel effort to make government more responsive, effective and – indeed – efficient.But not until the current directorship of Rohit Chopra did the CFPB begin fulfilling its true potential. Since his appointment in 2021, Chopra has cracked down on exploitative consumer practices with a fervor not seen since Upton Sinclair stepped into a meatpacking plant.In the last year, the agency has banned excessive credit card late fees, saving consumers $10bn annually. It has started regulating “buy now, pay later” lenders, which often leave buyers on the hook for expensive purchases they return. It has created a registry of businesses who have repeatedly engaged in illegal practices, finally bringing a tough-on-crime approach to “corporate recidivism”. And just last week, the CFPB announced a rule capping overdraft fees that will return another $5bn to consumers every year.Chopra has notched these wins while burnishing a dynamic persona that might best be described as swashbuckler meets bureaucrat. He has embraced public engagement in a way most regulators don’t; see his PSAs on medical debt with Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan representative. He has also embraced conflict, prompting some opponents to accuse him of antagonism, as when he sued not just a credit reporting firm but one of its executives for misleading consumers. Still, one populist’s antagonism is most Americans’ vindication, and Chopra has even drawn reluctant praise from Republicans such as the onetime speaker pro tempore Patrick McHenry.Other than consumers, arguably the biggest beneficiary of Chopra’s ferocity has been Joe Biden. The CFPB has accomplished many of his administration’s most unambiguously progressive (and practical) victories. Chopra joins a class of hugely productive Biden appointees – Lina Khan at the FTC, Marty Walsh and Julie Su at the Department of Labor, and a slate of pro-worker appointees at the National Labor Relations Board – who reaffirm the adage that “personnel is policy”.Even in the administration’s waning days, Khan’s FTC has helped unravel a merger between Kroger and Albertsons that would probably have spiked food prices, and raised alarms about “task scams” that have cheated targets out of millions. In this respect at least, Biden has taken a page from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gleefully stocked his cabinet with unabashed crusaders such as Frances Perkins, the mother of the New Deal.While many Democrats continue post-election recriminations, many will no doubt feel tempted to disavow anything and everything associated with the first one-term Democratic president since Carter. But a prevailing lesson of 2024 has been that voters respond to brash anti-corporate messaging, even when it comes from the mouths of an erstwhile venture capitalist and a real estate tycoon who stiffs workers.So even if the legacies of Chopra, Khan, Walsh and Su aren’t reflected in the next four years of governance, progressives can at least embrace them in their campaign rhetoric – especially in response to Trump’s imminent efforts to deter or even dismantle agencies such as the CFPB in favor of corporate interests.Three years ago, immediately after his swearing-in ceremony, Chopra wrote a memo describing the CFPB’s most important mission as this: “We must anticipate emerging risks so we can act before a crisis, rather than acting after it is too late.”It may be too late to avert the crisis of the last election. But it’s also the best time to act in anticipation of the next one.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editorial director and publisher of the Nation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times More