Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The ADL and the Heritage Foundation are helping to silence dissent in America | Ahmed Moor

      by

      The repression that began under the Biden administration has accelerated under Trump. Mahmoud Khalil’s detention by federal agents – reportedly Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers – despite his legal, permanent resident status will probably have its intended effect. People will speak up less; their fear of the irreversible harm meted out by a vengeful state is justified. Now we are all left to contend with the wreckage of the first amendment to the US constitution, which used to guarantee the right to speech in this country.Responsibility for the erosion of our rights is attributable – in part – to the bipartisan embrace of the non-governmental, non-profit sector. That’s because from the 1940s onward, the federal government has ceded much state authority to philanthropies and non-profits. Those groups, in turn, have acted to craft policy – everything from how to develop equitable housing or the benefits of inoculating children to ensuring that speech targeting Israel is punishable by law.The tax code ensures that we subsidize special interest groups, such as the Israel lobby, even as it skirts the ordinary mechanisms of democratic policymaking and accountability. Today, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a rightwing Israel advocacy group, has taken the lead in seeking to undermine bedrock American freedoms in support of Israel. The Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther roadmap explicitly describes its goal of having “foreign [‘Hamas Support Network’] leaders and members deported from the US”.It should be said here that “Hamas Support Network” is a made-up, strangely emotional and overwrought phrase used by the Heritage Foundation to describe college students who oppose Israel’s genocide in Palestine.In her essay How Philanthropy Made and Unmade American Liberalism, Lila Corwin Berman, a professor of American Jewish history at New York University, argues that the rise of the philanthropic apparatus in America, defined broadly as tax-exempt, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), presented special interests with the means to exercise power in an unregulated, nontransparent way.Starting in the early 20th century, when the federal income tax was codified into law, special effort was made to exempt “public-benefit associations” from taxation. The argument was that they acted in the public good while simultaneously representing the best of capitalist success, a core tenet of American liberalism.There was a practical component to the argument, too. Philanthropies could act as policy labs – in the 1930s, the Carnegie Foundation could support educational programs away from the public. If policies were successful, they could be implemented across a broader swathe of society. For their utility, NGOs and philanthropies received tax-exempt status. Yet, as Corwin Berman said, “any time there’s a tax exemption, it’s a tax expenditure, but it’s an expenditure which avoids public scrutiny”. When Nixon restructured USAid through the Foreign Assistance Act in 1973, it was in part to obscure government efforts “that doubled as global capitalist and neocolonial ventures” – all without democratic oversight or public participation.Early opposition to private policymaking for the “public good” came from anti-elite quarters and from the right. In the 1960s, Wright Patman, a populist Democratic representative from Texas, kicked off a series of investigations designed to curtail the power of what’s sometimes called the “submerged state”.But in the 80s and 90s, the right began to co-opt non-governmental frameworks. The Heritage Foundation and others learned how to leverage “philanthropy as a tool and a cudgel”, as Berman said to me. Today, non-profits work across a broad range of policy issues both domestically and abroad. Many of the groups that have engineered the bipartisan consensus on the suppression of speech that is critical of Israel are non-profits. They obtain tax-exempt status and simultaneously craft policy, and they do so on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, away from public scrutiny.The ADL, which controls total net assets of 200m tax-free dollars, in particular lobbied for policy responses to student activism in both the Biden and Trump administrations. In 2022, the ADL – which regularly conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel – commended the Biden administration for developing a “national strategy to combat antisemitism”.The statement went on to take credit for the policy: “This is one of the steps that we have long advocated for as part of a holistic approach to address the antisemitism that has been increasingly normalized in society.”After Khalil’s detention, the ADL, whose leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, was paid more than $1.2m in 2022, issued a statement on X that reads in part: “We appreciate the Trump Administration’s broad, bold set of efforts to counter campus antisemitism.”There is an irony in all this. The right is now on a mission to defund universities, a process which started with angry pro-Israel billionaires on X. It seems reasonable to expect the IRS to be weaponized to revoke the tax-exempt status of philanthropies and other elite institutions deemed to be sympathetic to the Democratic party’s agenda.Khalil’s detention – a shocking assault by the Israel lobby on American freedom – is not the first time that constitutional rights in this country have been assailed by a president. Abraham Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus during the civil war, this country’s first major constitutional crisis. But this may be the first time that a dramatic erosion in Americans’ constitutional liberties has been engineered by policymaking organizations that are subsidized by the public but are accountable to no one at all.

      Ahmed Moor is a writer and fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He is a plaintiff in a lawsuit that charges the US state department with circumventing the law to fund Israeli military units accused of human rights abuses More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Schumer says no to Republican funding bill as US shutdown risk intensifies

      by

      Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said on Wednesday that Democrats would not provide the necessary votes to pass a stopgap funding bill, dramatically raising the risk of a partial government shutdown at the end of the week.Announcing the decision in a speech on the Senate floor, Schumer urged Republicans to consider a shorter funding extension that would give congressional negotiators more time to consider a bipartisan path forward.“Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort. But Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution (CR) without any input, any input, from congressional Democrats,” Schumer said of the Republican-drafted bill, which passed the House on Tuesday.“Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass,” he continued, referring to a short-term bill that would temporarily extend federal funding. “We should vote on that.”To avert a shutdown, Congress must act to extend federal funding by midnight on Friday. Changes – or a new bill entirely – would also need to pass the House before the deadline. The House speaker adjourned the chamber after the bill passed on Tuesday, deliberately sending members home and in effect daring the Senate to reject their bill.Senate Democrats could still reverse course as the reality of a government shutdown – at a moment when Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk are working to permanently shut down parts of the government – comes into clearer focus. Several Senate Democrats have expressed an openness to voting for the measure, citing their distaste for government shutdowns. “I disagree with many points in the CR, but I will never vote to shut our government down,” John Fetterman, the Democratic senator of Pennsylvania tweeted on Tuesday.But Democrats are also under mounting pressure from their base to take a stronger stand against Trump and Republicans.Senate Republicans hold a narrow 53-seat majority, well shy of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the legislation. Senator Rand Paul, a staunch fiscal hawk, has indicated his opposition to the House bill, meaning eight Democrats would likely need to support the bill for it to overcome procedural hurdles to reach a final vote in the chamber.Democrats have raised concerns about the discretion the measure gives to the Trump administration on spending decisions as it pursues massive cuts to the federal workforce.From the annual House Democratic caucus retreat in Leesburg, Virginia, on Wednesday, caucus leaders implored their Senate counterparts to follow their lead and unite against the government funding bill.“I don’t know why anyone would support that bill,” California congressman Pete Aguilar, the House Democratic caucus chair, told reporters during a press conference earlier on Wednesday.The 99-page House-passed measure provides a $6bn boost to military budgets while carving out $13bn from non-defense spending – which Democrats say amounts to an assault on critical programs for vulnerable Americans.Republicans’ “defunding bill is going to wreak havoc on working families”, Katherine Clark, the House Democratic whip, told reporters on Wednesday, assailing cuts that she said could result in domestic violence survivors being evicted and less funding for Alzheimer’s prevention research.“Whether it’s born out of cruelty, cowardice or corruption are all three, the GOP is hell bent on making families at home unsafe,” she added.The House voted 217-213 to approve a bill that would keep federal agencies funded through 30 September. All Democrats with the exception of Jared Golden, a conservative from Maine, voted for it.Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a committed deficit hawk who often bucks his party on fiscal matters, voted no, defying Trump’s demand that all House Republicans support the bill. After the vote, Trump derided Massie as a “GRANDSTANDER” and threatened to oust the seven-term lawmaker from office.In a joint statement, the House Democratic leaders backed Schumer’s call for a short-term funding extension and urged Republicans to return to Washington to consider it. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The rise of pronatalism: why Musk, Vance and the right want women to have more babies

      by

      In his first address to the United States after becoming vice-president, JD Vance stood on stage and proclaimed: “I want more babies in the United States of America.” Weeks later, Donald Trump signed an executive order pledging support for in vitro fertilization, recognizing “the importance of family formation and that our nation’s public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children”.In late January, a Department of Transportation memo directed the agency to prioritize projects that “give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average”. And last week, it was reported that Elon Musk, the unelected head of the government-demolishing “department of governmental efficiency” and a man who has said that the “collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far”, had become a father of 14.Republicans have long heralded the importance of “family values”. But in these developments, many see mounting signs of a controversial ideology at work: pronatalism.Pronatalism is so contentious that people often struggle to agree on a definition. Pronatalism could be defined as the belief that having children is good. It could also be defined as the belief that having children is important to the greater good and that people should have babies on behalf of the state, because declining birth rates are a threat to its future. Perhaps most importantly, pronatalism could be defined as the belief that government policy should incentivize people to give birth.While people on the left might agree with some pronatalist priorities, pronatalism in the US is today ascendant on the right. It has become a key ideological plank in the bridge between tech bro rightwingers like Musk and more traditional, religious conservatives, like the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson – who once said in a House hearing that abortions were harming the economy by eliminating would-be workers.But there are plenty of widening cracks in that bridge and, by extension, Trump’s incoherent coalition.‘Hipster eugenicists’In the US, interest in pronatalism has historically coincided with growing anxiety over changing gender norms and demographics, according to Laura Lovett, a University of Pittsburgh history professor and the author of the book Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1930. In the 1920s, pronatalism’s prominence grew after women gained the right to vote, as people worried about women working and wielding power outside the home.“When Theodore Roosevelt uses the term ‘race suicide’, he actually blames women who are going to college for the first time for that eventual suicide of the right, white race. There’s this linkage between women’s educational and aspirational futures and the declining birth rate,” Lovett said. “There was this anxiety that white, native-born, middle-class women were having smaller families.”Historically, US pronatalism was also tied to an interest in eugenics – and some of the more tech-minded, modern-day pronatalists do want to use breeding to fashion a better human race. Malcolm and Simone Collins, parents of four who have become standard-bearers for the burgeoning popularity of pronatalism among Silicon Valley venture capitalists, have championed “no-holds-barred” medical research to engineer the “mass production of genetically selected humans”. They have joked to Business Insider about making business cards declaring themselves “hipster eugenicists” – although they have also rejected the idea that they are performing eugenics, stressing that they think racism is “so dumb” and that the only bloodlines they are altering are their own.The Collinses, who support Trump, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screening their embryos for IQ, risk of depression and other markers. (Scientists aren’t convinced that it is possible to screen embryos for IQ.) These kinds of practices – which the Collins have called “polygenics” – draw a wedge between the Silicon Valley pronatalists who back Trump and his more traditional pronatalist supporters. The anti-abortion movement, which was critical to getting Trump elected in 2016, has long opposed IVF, largely because it can lead to unused or discarded embryos.In signing his pro-IVF executive order, Trump appears to be siding with the “tech right” (and the broader electorate, among which IVF remains extremely popular). When Musk recently brought his son X Æ A-Xii to the Oval Office, Trump called the four-year-old a “high-IQ individual”.View image in fullscreen‘Restructuring society’While the Collinses are avatars for the emerging pronatalist tech right, Lyman Stone is one of the highest-profile pronatalists from a more traditionally conservative background.“Pronatalism has to be disciplined by a commitment to human liberty and human flourishing – and this is coming out of work on reproductive justice, basically. People have a right to have the families they want to have, and for some people, that means no family,” said Stone, a demographer who in 2024 established the Pronatalism Initiative at the right-leaning Institute for Family Studies. “The focus of pronatalism, in my view, generally is not and certainly should not be on family gigantism, and instead should be on helping young people overcome the barriers and obstacles to romantic and family success in their life.”In practice, Stone said, pronatalists should help people get married earlier in life so that they can start having children younger. That could mean, he said, everything from improving mental health services to creating better childcare programs. Stone’s frequent collaborator, Brad Wilcox – a University of Virginia sociology professor and author of the book Get Married: Why Americans Should Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families and Save Civilization – pointed to several policies that he thinks would help strengthen “family formation”, such as expanding the child tax credit and converting federal land into affordable housing.“Pronatalism is not just a fiscal program. It’s a program of restructuring society in a way that treats family goals as worthy, worth supporting and socially important,” Stone said.Asked if he supports abortion rights, Stone clarified: “No, I would draw the line at destruction of human life.”Many of these policy proposals could comfortably fit into a left-leaning political platform – in fact, they may be more at home on such a platform than within today’s Republican party. Although Vance said on the campaign trail that he would like to expand the child tax credit, a move that could cost trillions of dollars in federal spending, Republicans have instead committed to slashing the government budget by at least $1.5tn.Instead, elected Republicans have tended to invoke pronatalist rhetoric in support of their top culture-war causes.They have repeatedly condemned gender-affirming healthcare for allegedly “sterilizing” people; in 2022, as Idaho weighed whether to ban kids from accessing the care, one Republican state legislator said: “We are not talking about the life of the child, but we are talking about the potential to give life to another generation.” When a Republican lawmaker from Michigan introduced a resolution to condemn same-sex marriage, he told reporters: “This is a biological necessity to preserve and grow our human race.” And last year, in a lawsuit to cut access to a common abortion pill, the Republican attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri argued that access to the pill had “lowered birth rates for teen mothers”, leading to a falling state populations, “diminishment of political representation and loss of federal funds”.In practice, pronatalism – especially when paired with anti-abortion policy – often overlooks the disproportionate effect that having more babies has on women, according to Elizabeth Gregory, director of women’s gender and sexuality studies at the University of Houston. Childbearing can reshape a woman’s entire future.“This idea that the child is the only person in the dyad loses a real understanding of how embedded and dependent children are on their mothers,” Gregory said. “Fertility affects many, many parts of culture and talking about it can’t be reduced to just a few soundbites.”Falling birth ratesBirth rates are, indeed, on the decline. To remain stable, populations must reproduce at a “replacement rate” of 2.1; in other words, each mother must have 2.1 babies. The US currently averages closer to 1.6. (South Korea, which maintains the world’s lowest fertility rate, had a rate of just 0.75 in 2024.)Experts are split over how to address this problem. The world’s population is at a record high, and immigration to rich countries could offset declines in fertility – but, as the medical journal the Lancet warned in a 2024 issue, “this approach will only work if there is a shift in current public and political attitudes towards immigration in many lower-fertility countries”. If countries remain hostile to immigration while their birth rates fall, they will probably end up with a shrunken labor force that is unable to support an ageing population.There is evidence that Americans would like to have more children. A 2023 Gallup poll found that 47% of Americans think an ideal family has one or two children, while only 2% said families should have zero. At the same time, a Pew poll that same year found that 47% of American adults under 50 say they are unlikely to ever have children. Of those, nearly 60% say they just don’t want kids. Nearly 40% said they couldn’t afford to have kids or that the “state of the world” had convinced them not to.“We’re living in a moment where – I would say, unfortunately – marriage and parenthood have become ideologically polarized,” Wilcox said. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      State department official reportedly deleted abusive tweets about Rubio

      by

      A top official in the US state department deleted abusive tweets in which he said the then Florida senator Marco Rubio – who is now secretary of state – had a “low IQ” and spread unsubstantiated rumors about his sexuality, CNN reported.In tweets from 7 January 2021, Darren Beattie referred to scurrilous online rumors and added: “Forget the war promotion and the neocon sugar daddies, forget the low IQ, forget the 2016 primary, Rubio is TOUGH ON CHINA (and good for military industrial complex) So be a good DOG and vote for him!!!”The day before, Donald Trump had incited supporters to storm Congress in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, an attack Rubio condemned.On 7 January, after repeating baseless innuendo about Rubio, Beattie posted: “Does Marco Rubio have a future in politics?”Rubio served another four years in the Senate before becoming secretary of state under Trump, despite having run against Trump in 2016 and amid widespread criticism of his embrace of policy positions, particularly regarding rapprochement with Russia, that contradict views long held in the Senate.Beattie was a speechwriter in the first Trump administration, until CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski, a specialist in unearthing old online content, reported that Beattie attended a white nationalist conference in 2016.After leaving the White House, Beattie founded Revolver News, a far-right website which spread January 6 conspiracy theories. Last month, Beattie was made acting under-secretary of state for public diplomacy, an appointment that stoked protests from Democrats and progressive commentators.Responding to remarks such as “competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work”, the commentator Van Jones called Beattie’s appointment “shameless and despicable” and said the Trump administration was “bring[ing] in people out of the trash can … horrible people who you wouldn’t hire to run a bodega”.On Monday, Kaczynski and fellow CNN reporter Em Steck reported that while Beattie had left most of his offensive comments online, he appeared to have “purged” criticism of Rubio from X, the social media platform owned by the Trump ally Elon Musk.In other now-deleted posts, Beattie called Rubio “fake” and questioned his bona fides as a pro-Trump Republican.Beattie told CNN: “Secretary Rubio is 100% America First and it’s a tremendous honor to work for him in advancing President Trump’s world historical agenda.”Rubio has declined to comment on Beattie’s appointment.On 5 February, the former senator told reporters Beattie would focus on “not wanting this Department of State to be involved in censorship”, then dodged a question about criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, which campaigns against antisemitism.Asked if he had seen Beattie’s X account, Rubio said, “OK, thank you guys,” and ended the briefing. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      As Wyoming slides further to the right, legislators double down on trans bills

      by

      When Wyoming legislators in 2022 passed a law banning trans girls from competing in middle and high school girls’ sports, the Cowboy State, by its governor’s own estimate, had a grand total of four transgender student athletes competing within its boundaries.Still, in this year’s legislative session, which wrapped up on Friday, trans athletes were again a focus of lawmakers. They introduced bills to extend the ban on trans women in athletics to intercollegiate sports and ban universities from competing against teams with trans women.Lawmakers also proposed legislation requiring public facilities from restrooms to sleeping quarters to correspond with assigned sex at birth, restrooms in public schools to have exclusive use designations by assigned sex at birth, prohibiting the state from requiring the use of preferred pronouns, and establishing legal definitions for “biological sex”, “man” and “woman”.Five of the seven bills made it through the legislature. The volume of proposals spotlights the new conservative vision of the role of government emerging in the state, as well as the Republican divisions on the issue.Debate on trans-focused bills isn’t new to this legislative session. In 2022, Mark Gordon, Wyoming’s governor, described the state’s trans sports bill as “draconian” but still let it pass into law. Last year, 10 bills were introduced on the topic, and the legislature enacted a ban on gender affirming care for minors.Wyoming politicians pushed controversy over the inclusion of a trans woman in a Wyoming sorority in 2022, and in 2024 over the University of Wyoming’s scheduled volleyball game against San Jose State University, whose team has a trans woman. Wyoming ultimately forfeited the game.But the intense focus on the issue comes as Wyoming, never exactly a liberal state, has slid further to the right in recent years, a trend evidenced by an escalation of social issue bills that wouldn’t be out of place in Washington DC or other red-state legislatures.For Santi Murillo, the first trans athlete at the University of Wyoming, the influx of bills has been dehumanizing.“I consider myself to be a good person who contributes back to my community. But because I’m trans, I’m being attacked,” Murillo, who is also the communications director for LGBTQ+ non-profit Wyoming Equality, said. “That’s what a lot of that fear comes from, is being labeled as Santi the trans person, not Santi the cheer coach, not Santi my neighbor.”Several Republican lawmakers who’ve introduced or sponsored trans bills this year said their proposals were aimed at protecting women and girls. “To protect safe spaces and to create level playing fields for women, biological women, that’s the sole intent of these types of bills,” said Republican representative Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, the chair of the state’s newly empowered Freedom caucus and the primary sponsor of “Biological Males in Women’s Sports”.It’s a topic legislators say they have found high on the minds of their constituents. “I have a very conservative rural district, and they just want to see these things addressed and some policies put out,” said Martha Lawley, a Republican representative who sponsored two related bills this session. She said that she heard more about the topic than any other from her constituents in the past year.That concern is new, said Murillo, now 27. Murillo said she didn’t see this level of fear in the Wyoming she grew up in. She transitioned while a cheerleader at the University of Wyoming, which put her squarely in the public eye.“I had a really positive transition experience for the most part. Especially doing so very publicly,” Murillo said. “UW games are huge, especially football games. There’s no hiding there.”Murillo views the current debate as driven by politicians, not people.So does Sara Burlingame, the director at Wyoming Equality. She believes that some see the spotlight on trans issues as an effective wedge issue to both motivate hardline voters to the polls, and split conservatives, much like efforts to ban gay marriage used to.“Far-right Republicans recognized that they used to be able to fundraise and campaign off of gay panic,” Burlingame said. “They’re looking at what hits that sweet spot of lighting up people’s amygdala and getting them all fired up. And they feel like, hey, if someone you know was carrying this message, I would go and vote for them. I would drive myself to the polls.”The focus on trans issues detracts from conversations about other major challenges ahead in the state, Burlingame said, like declining revenues in the gas and oil market that are leaving a gap in public funding. “I think they don’t have a solution for that,” Burlingame said of some Republican legislators. “So their solution is to attack trans kids.”Burlingame sees the hyper-focus on gender as a departure from decades of Wyoming politics that erred toward libertarianism and small government, a departure that sped up this year as Wyoming’s Freedom Caucus became the first chapter of the nationally-based Freedom Caucus to take control of a state house.“In the past, we had old, white, rancher Republican men who had no fondness for different gender identities or sexual orientation,” she said. “But they had a very specific belief in the role of government, and they wouldn’t vote to take anybody’s rights away because they just didn’t believe that was the role of government.”Senator Cale Case is one of those Republicans outspoken in his opposition to the trans bills. Case, in the legislature since 1993, questions what problem they aim to solve, and said their sponsors are driven by fear.“They don’t like to hear the word tolerance. They talk about freedom, and they have lots of bills with freedom in the title, but their bills restrict freedoms,” Case said.Within supporters of the bills, there are divisions, too.Jayme Lien, the representative who brought the What is a Woman Act, said she has not spoken with LGBTQ+ Wyomingites about the bill. Lien pointed towards testimony from the national group Gays Against Groomers, designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a far-right extremist group of self-identified LGBTQ+ people engaged in anti-trans organizing, in support of her legislation and argued that the safety concerns of LGBTQ residents were misplaced.“I just want them to know that this is to protect them as well. And I think in the long run, once it’s implemented into law, they will see that this also protects them and their culture and community,” Lien argued.Republican senator Wendy Schuler brought the state’s 2022 bill limiting trans girls’ access to certain sports team, and she introduced “Fairness in Sports – Intercollegiate Athletics” in this year’s legislative session.Schuler, who competed in five varsity athletics at the University of Wyoming said that she “doesn’t know what the answer is” for transgender athletes in Wyoming, but that her priority is “making sure our biological girls were all taken care of in terms of their access to athletics”.“I understand the trans athletes here, she said. “I totally get where they’re coming from, because I had to sit on the sidelines while I was playing baseball with my brothers.”Schuler said that she consulted with teenagers and some transgender Wyomingites in writing her bills, which lead to exemptions for non-contact sports.While standing firm behind sports bills, Schuler derided the bills focused on bathroom usage and the legal definitions as an ineffective use of legislative time, and indicative of national theatrics meeting Wyoming politics.“In terms of the bathroom stuff, and you know what is a woman and some of these other bills that have come through the pipe this year, I just think we had lots more important things we should have been focusing on,” Schuler said. “But that’s what the social issues of the day seem to be.”In what she owned as a “contradiction”, Schuler voted yes on all three bills that came before her.Schuler said she “thinks the world” of Murillo, and Murillo and Burlingame also spoke kindly of Schuler.For Murillo, having friendships with people she views as infringing on her rights is complicated, but is a sort of necessity when advocating for LGBTQ+ rights in deep-red states.“It’s a totally different kind of ball game,” Murillo said. “Doing this work in a red state, you have to be willing to have those conversations. You have to be willing to set aside those things, find that common ground.”If current political trends continue, Burlingame and Murillo fear that there will be less legislators willing to work out compromises. Wyoming’s 2024 summer primary saw complete Republican upheaval and a glut of mailers, often accusing politicians of a “radical gender agenda”. Case said that there is pressure on elected officials in Wyoming to toe the line, or else.“Some of my colleagues who still have a longer career ahead of them, and also have aspirations, are in agony on every one of these votes. These are good people, friends of mine,” Case said. “I’m not doing that. I’m gonna get pounded for this. It might cost an election. But honestly, I don’t think it’s right and I feel so much better inside.”Murillo said in light of rhetoric surrounding the flood of legislation, she no longer considers Wyoming a safe place to be transgender.“I definitely used to feel safe here, but no, not any more. I feel like the air has just shifted here,” Murillo said. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kristi Noem names new Ice leadership and vows to punish media ‘leakers’

      by

      Homeland security secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday announced new leadership at the agency tasked with immigration enforcement as she also pledged to step up lie detector tests on employees to identify those who may be leaking information about operations to the media.Noem confirmed, in addition, that the government will expand immigration detention operations further into the military sphere, following reports of the intention to use the huge Fort Bliss army base close to the US-Mexico border in Texas for that purpose.“There is, yes, a plan to use the facility at Fort Bliss for detention,” she said.The secretary also warned that her department has “just weeks” before running out of money for its mass deportation mission unless Congress ups funding.“The authorities that I have under the Department of Homeland Security are broad and extensive, and I plan to use every single one of them to make sure that we’re following the law, that we are following the procedures in place to keep people safe and that we’re making sure we’re following through on what President Trump has promised,” Noem told Face the Nation on CBS.While these polygraph exams are typically not admissible in court, they are frequently used by federal law enforcement agencies and for national security clearances.White House officials have previously expressed frustration with the pace of deportations, blaming it in part on recent leaks revealing cities where authorities planned raids.This despite the department’s publicity blitz about raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), invitations to journalists to accompany agents and also witness deportation flights and questions about the facts Ice is issuing and the justifications they are using for arresting, detaining and deporting some of those affected.Todd Lyons, the former assistant director of field operations for the agency’s enforcement arm, will serve as acting Ice director. Madison Sheahan, secretary of the Louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries and Noem’s former aide when she was governor of South Dakota, has been tapped to be the agency’s deputy director.The leadership changes come after Ice’s acting director Caleb Vitello was reassigned on February 21 for failing to meet anti-immigration expectations, Reuters reported. Two other top immigration enforcement officials were reassigned February 11.The Trump administration deported 37,660 people during the president’s first month back in office, DHS data first reported by Reuters last month show, far less than the monthly average of 57,000 people removed from the US in the last full year of Joe Biden’s administration.Arrest rates were higher than usual in the first few weeks of the Trump administration, a Guardian analysis showed, but arrests and detentions do not always translate into removals and, at the same time, the numbers of people crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization has dropped dramatically since last summer, first under new Biden restrictions and now further under Trump.Noem said on Friday that the agency planned to prosecute two “leakers of information”.On Sunday, she said these two people “were leaking our enforcement operations that we had planned and were going to conduct in several cities and exposed vulnerabilities”. She said they could face up to 10 years in federal prison. A DHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats are reeling. Is Stephen A Smith the way back to the White House?

      by

      The View, one of the US’s most popular daytime television programmes, was a vital campaign stop last year for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. This week, it played host to a cable sports channel personality who might be nurturing political ambitions of his own.Stephen A Smith was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what he makes of hypothetical polls that show him among the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.“I make of it that citizens, particularly on the left, are desperate,” Smith said in characteristically forthright style. “And I mean it when I say it: I think I can beat them all.”Despite – or because of – his lack of political experience, Smith is emerging as an unlikely force in a Democratic party badly in need of critical friends, fresh ideas and blunt truth-telling. The idea of him running for the White House remains wildly speculative – but speaks volumes about a shift in the US media ecosystem and a blurring of the lines between culture, entertainment and politics.The 57-year-old, born Stephen Anthony Smith in the Bronx in New York, began his career in print journalism, writing for newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, then made his name as a broadcaster, especially on ESPN. Smith is now the co-host of First Take, where he shares provocative opinions on basketball and other topics.His fans include Kurt Bardella, a media relations consultant and Democratic strategist who watches First Take “religiously”. Bardella said: “He is out there with passion and charisma and he provokes emotion and conversation and debate. He has become the singular most influential person in all of sports.“We live in a time where our politics is shaped and informed by culture more than at any time in our history. There’s that old adage that politics is just culture downstream, and Stephen A is a good embodiment of that.”Smith’s star continues to rise. It emerged this week that he had agreed to a new ESPN contract worth at least $100m for five years. He will continue on First Take but reduce other sports-related obligations, increasing his opportunities for political commentary: in recent months he has appeared on Fox News, NewsNation and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.The Stephen A Smith Show, which streams on YouTube and iHeart, has featured interviews with Hakeem Jeffries, the House of Representatives Democratic minority leader; rightwing personality Candace Owens; and Andrew Cuomo, in his first interview since announcing his candidacy for New York mayorThe political chatter around Smith is also a symptom of the demoralisation in the leaderless Democratic party following last November’s defeat in elections for the White House, House and Senate. This week, for example, Democrats struggled to find a coherent response to Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.After nominating Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in past elections, some in the party hunger for a fighter in the mould of Trump, an outsider not beholden to the traditional political establishment. And witnessing the rise of podcasters such as Joe Rogan and an entire “Maga” media ecosystem, they crave a liberal alternative.In Smith, they see a bracing energy. He voted for Harris but has been outspoken in criticising Democrats for failing to connect with voters and for prioritising niche issues – which in his view includes the transgender community – and failing to address the concerns of a broader electorate.In January, appearing alongside the Democratic representative Ro Khanna on Real Time with Bill Maher, he offered a blistering diagnosis of why Democrats lost to Trump: “The man was impeached twice, he was convicted on 34 felony counts and the American people still said: ‘He’s closer to normal than what we see on the left.’”Smith added: “What voter can look at the Democrat party and say: ‘There’s a voice for us, somebody who speaks for us, that goes up on Capitol Hill and fights the fights that we want them fighting on our behalf’?”His gift for storytelling and communicating impresses Bardella, a former spokesperson and senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight committee. Bardella said: “His style of speaking, the directness, the boldness, the bombastic at times kind of PT Barnum-esque quality that he brings to the conversation is exactly what Democrats are lacking and exactly what made Donald Trump the showman such an appealing character to begin with when he arrived on the stage.“Rather than just dismiss it or make fun of it or ignore it, Democrats would be wise to study what makes him so successful because there is nobody in the Democratic party that is as relevant a voice on a day-to-day basis as Stephen A Smith.”It was striking that a January poll by McLaughlin & Associates for the 2028 Democratic nomination decided to include him in a survey that put Kamala Harris at 33%, Pete Buttigieg at 9%, Gavin Newsom at 7%, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 6%, Josh Shapiro at 3%, Tim Walz at 3% and Smith at 2%.Still, many Democrats would think twice before gambling on an outsider such as Smith or the billionaire businessman Mark Cuban. Lack of experience could be a liability in the eyes of some voters. Smith’s controversial statements and “yelling” style could alienate certain segments of the electorate. The perception of Smith as a celebrity candidate could undermine his credibility.Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for politicians including the former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Smith’s eloquence and in-your-face style could be appealing to voters in this political moment: “But the question is, what does Stephen A Smith believe in at the end of the day? He’s been very vocal criticising the Democratic party. What positions does he hold? What does he believe in?“The fact is, if you’re going to run for a party’s nomination in America, there are about a half a dozen or so issues in which you need to be on the right side. Otherwise, you’re not going to go very far. Where is Stephen A Smith on abortion? Where is he on DEI? Where is he on quotas and affirmative action? Where is he on crime? Where is he on spending?“The list goes on. You just don’t know, so my advice to any Democrat looking at this is: before you become a Stephen A Smith supporter, give him a questionnaire and have him fill it out and see what the answers are.”Whether Smith, who has a recurring guest-acting role on the ABC soap opera General Hospital, would want to take on a gruelling election campaign is far from certain.He has expressed ambivalence on the topic but told the Daily Mail last month that “if the American people came to me and looked at me and said ‘Yo, man, we want you to run for office’, and I had a legitimate shot to win the presidency of the United States, I’m not gonna lie. I’ll think about that.”But on Friday, Smith’s agent, Mark Shapiro, sought to quell the rumours, insisting at a conference in Boston: “He will not run for president. He’s going to continue to entertain those conversations, but he will not run for president.”Still, the buzz reveals a bigger picture about Democratic soul-searching in the aftermath of election defeat. Trump proved effective at exploiting the new media ecology of podcasts, TikTok and other platforms in portraying the party as elitist, out of touch and obsessed with “woke” issues. Some Democrats are now recalibrating – for example, by removing gender pronouns from their social media accounts.David Litt, an author and former speechwriter for Barack Obama, said: “Democrats, for most of my lifetime, which is 38 years at this point, sort of assumed we are dominant in the culture, whether or not we’re dominant politically. One of the things we learned from this most recent election is, that may not be the case and either things are more even than we thought or, I would even argue, the right, at least during the election season, took an advantage in the culture.“It’s important that Democrats are saying our ‘political voices’ may not come from the world of politics, particularly at a moment when people are deeply sceptical of politicians. Who are some people who have ways of thinking and communicating that don’t sound like every politician out there? That search and that openness is going to end up being pretty useful and pretty important one way or the other.” More