Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      What does Prop 50’s passage mean for California, Gavin Newsom and the US?

      by

      Californians overwhelmingly backed Proposition 50, the crucial redistricting measure that Democrats have said is essential to safeguarding democracy and pushing back against the Trump administration.“We stood firm in response to Donald Trump’s recklessness, and tonight, after poking the bear, this bear roared with unprecedented turnout in a special election with an extraordinary result,” Gavin Newsom said on Tuesday after the ballot measure passed.The effort was a direct attempt to counteract Texas’s partisan gerrymander, undertaken at Trump’s behest, to create several new safely Republican districts. Under Prop 50, California will halt the work of its independent redistricting commission until after 2030 and allow the legislature to redraw congressional districts to carve out five additional Democratic seats.The new map is expected to oust longtime Republican officials, and have significant effects on the 2026 midterms.How did the state vote?As of Wednesday morning, results showed that some 63.8% of voters approved the proposition with just 36.2% voting against the measure in what the Associated Press described as a “swift and decisive victory”. More than 8 million people voted in Tuesday’s election and the measure won the majority of votes along much of the coast and in southern California. It was largely unpopular in the northern and inland regions that will be most affected by redistricting.Who is at risk of losing their seat?These Republicans are at risk under California’s new congressional map: Darrell Issa, whose district covers east San Diego county; Doug LaMalfa, who has represented a large swath of rural northern California for more than a decade; Ken Calvert, a Riverside county representative who has served in the US House since 1993; David Valadao, who represents the southern San Joaquin valley; and Kevin Kiley, the representative for much of eastern California. Kiley introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide, but his proposal did not advance.After the measure passed, Republicans in California sued over Prop 50, and asked the court to block the new maps from taking effect. An attorney representing the plaintiffs – which include Republican state lawmaker David Tangipa, 18 California voters and the state’s Republican party – said that Democrats drew congressional boundaries to increase the voting power of Latinos. The new congressional districts will leave racial representation almost unchanged, according to an analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California.How will Prop 50’s passage affect the midterms?The measure is expected to have a major effect on the outcome of the 2026 midterms. Past elections have shown that the president’s party typically loses ground in midterm elections, and Democrats argued Prop 50 will help ensure Republicans do not retain full control of the federal government.“The passage of this new map – which is designed to protect a slew of vulnerable Democrats and will cost Republicans three to five seats in 2026 – is the most consequential development to date in the mid-decade redistricting wars due to the sheer number of seats that it impacts,” Erin Covey, with the Cook Political Report, said in a statement.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The outcome of these races in California could ultimately determine which party wins control of the House next November.”What does this mean for Gavin Newsom?The decisive victory of Prop 50 is a major win for the proposal’s biggest champion, Gavin Newsom. The California governor has been one of Trump’s most high-profile opponents and helped rally massive support for the proposal. Newsom is widely expected to seek the White House in 2028 and the win has further raised his profile nationally and elevated his status as a Democratic leader.Bob Shrum, a veteran Democratic consultant who leads the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California, told the Guardian this week that Newsom had gambled on Prop 50 and it appeared it would pay off.“But more than that is the fact that he fought back – that he dared to do this, that people said it was dangerous for him, and he forged ahead with it anyway.” More

    • 250 Shares153 Views

      in US Politics

      New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani challenges Donald Trump in victory speech as Democrats win key US election races – live

      by

      It’s been a busy night! Here’s a debrief of all the key moments to get you up to speed:

      Zohran Mamdani is the mayor-elect of New York City with a decisive victory over former governor Andrew Cuomo. With more than 97% of the votes counted, Mamdani received more votes – at least 1.03 million – than all the other candidates combined, including Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

      California passed Proposition 50, the measure that will temporarily redistrict the state in hopes of countering Republican efforts to do the same in Texas. The new maps could help Democrats pick up five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.

      It was a good night for Democrats, with Abigail Spanberger winning the Virginia governor’s race and Mikie Sherrill winning the governorship in New Jersey.

      President Donald Trump took to his favored platform, Truth Social, to distance himself from the losses. He also urged Republicans to pass voter reform and terminate the filibuster. As Mamdani was speaking, Trump posted a cryptic final missive of the night: “AND SO IT BEGINS!”.

      Mamdani directly addressed Trump in his victory speech in Brooklyn, vowing to use his role in city hall to counter his politics of division. The newly minted mayor said: “Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: turn the volume up.”
      Zohran Mamdani supporters said they were “elated” and “hopeful” after the Democratic candidate was elected as the new mayor of New York City.Mamdani’s socialist campaign promising to freeze rent and make buses free seduced New Yorkers who voted for him en masse, securing victory for him with more than 50% of the vote. He will be inaugurated as the 111th mayor of the city in January.You can see New Yorkers reacting to Mamdani’s victory in this video:Today’s First Edition newsletter focuses on Zohran Mamdani being declared the winner of the New York City mayoral election with more than 50% of the vote on the biggest turnout since the 1960s. You can read Archie Bland’s summary here:Below is a snippet from the newsletter:What does his victory mean for New York?While Mamdani has been portrayed as an extremist, much of his policy platform is fairly middle-of-the-road social democratic stuff: he wants to raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour, increase taxes on the highest earners, make bus transit free, offer universal childcare and increase affordable housing provision.His boldest proposals are probably a rent freeze for two million people living in housing where rent stabilisation laws barring excessive rises are already in place, and a plan to establish city-owned grocery stores with price controls.The question now is how much of that platform he can put into practice. This Vital City piece has a useful guide to which policies he can enact on his own, and which would require cooperation from other stakeholders. And this New York Times piece sets out the costs, noting his plan to raise about $10bn in additional revenue each year.Across the borough, in what has been affectionately called by pollster Michael Lange “the commie corridor” – so called because Zohran Mamdani pulled autocrat numbers there in the primary – the line for a dance club on the edge of Bushwick and Ridgewood was equally lively.Hundreds queued up on the sidewalk outside Nowadays for another Democratic Socialists of America watch party, cheering and holding signs, and, in the case of one woman, a cardboard cutout of Mamdani. Those who made it in wore various unofficial merch – Hot Girls for Zohran, Bisexuals for Zohran, at least one pair of hot pants with “Zohran” blazed on the butt – and bummed cigarettes or sipped mixed drinks as they waited for the race to be called. They were confident, if slightly scarred from past election upsets. “He’s good. We’re all just traumatized from 2016,” a man in a black beret said to no one in particular.The crowd was a genuine mix: Black, white, brown, young folks and old folks, party gays, butch lesbians, bridge-and-tunnel kids who couldn’t even vote in the election but felt its reverberations nonetheless. Amber Pease, 25, lives in Nassau county in Long Island. Her inability to cast a vote didn’t stop her from traveling in to volunteer for Zohran’s campaign. She wants to get a job and move into the city soon. “I’ve been waiting to see a good progressive candidate, and to have one so close to home, it gives me a lot of hope.”When the election was called for Mamdani, the cheers could be heard inside and on the street, and someone started a “DSA! DSA!” chant (not to be mistaken with a “USA! USA!” chant). Soon a representative for the DSA named Kareem took the stage. He referenced Mamdani’s meteoric rise. “This didn’t just start last year,” he said. “This is the culmination of years of work.” He spoke of the progressive New Yorkers who campaigned against the Iraq war, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and those who stumped for Bernie Sanders. He also noted how Andrew Cuomo’s campaign trafficked a message of fear, with Mamdani’s “antidote” being solidarity. At Nowadays, the victory felt communal.Inside an election watch party hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America at the Brooklyn Masonic Temple in Fort Greene, under the din of pet-nat wines being cracked open, there was a sense of nervous anticipation. “I’m not sure if this is an accurate recreation of Solomon’s Temple,” said one supporter in a Zohran Mamdani T-shirt. “This is like a who’s who of everyone I’ve slept with,” said another.The suspense didn’t last long. Just after 9.30pm, someone jumped on the mic to announce that news outlets had called it: a record number of New Yorkers had cast ballots in this electric – and often ugly – race between Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, ultimately choosing the 34-year-old democratic socialist of seemingly boundless energy who had shocked party establishment in the primary by winning on a clear-eyed affordability agenda. The DJ immediately started playing I Gotta Feeling by Black Eyed Peas. And, indeed, tonight was a good, good night for those in the room, who erupted in tears, hugs and twerking.Mamdani will be the first Muslim mayor of New York and its youngest in over a century – but not its first immigrant mayor, nor its first mayor to champion socialist ideals. New Yorkers celebrated his monumental election at official and unofficial parties spread across the five boroughs.“I’ve been a DSA member for over 10 years,” said 40-year-old health department worker Will, at the Fort Greene party. “This just shows that our politics are not radical, that New Yorkers actually think what we believe is sensible, and maybe the rest of the country is ready for sensible, commonsense, Democratic socialism.”As the dancefloor was in full swing (even as the house lights remained dangerously bright), Ellie, a 28-year-old bartender from Bed-Stuy, felt “absolutely ecstatic”. “This is the first time we’ve had hope in so long. I can’t remember a – ”She cut herself short to scream along to the chorus of Kelly Clarkson’s Since U Been Gone.These are the people who fought for Mamdani when he was polling at 1%, who celebrated his socialist principles when others said they disqualified him. As his speech played, there was a sense not just of political hope but a project come to fruition, the work of a lifetime building to a moment that might change the city – and all soundtracked to the 90s Eurodance anthem Freed from Desire.Democrats have racked up election wins across the US, but they would do well not to misread the results, writes the Guardian’s Washington DC bureau chief, David Smith. You can read his full analysis here:In case you’re coming our US elections blog now, here are some graphics recapping the New York mayoral election results:Donald Trump’s approach to this government shutdown stands in marked contrast to his first term, when the government was partially closed for 35 days over his demands for funds to build the US-Mexico border wall. At that time, he met publicly and negotiated with congressional leaders, but unable to secure the funds, he relented in 2019. As the Associated Press (AP) reports, this time, it is not just Trump declining to engage in talks. The congressional leaders are at a standoff and House speaker Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home in September after they approved their own funding bill, refusing further negotiations.In the meantime, food aid, childcare funds and countless other government services are being seriously interrupted and hundreds of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed or expected to come to work without pay.Transportation secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if air traffic controllers miss another paycheck, reports the AP. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.Senate majority leader John Thune said this has been not only the longest shutdown but also “the most severe shutdown on record.”The Republican leader has urged the Democrats to accept his overtures to vote on the health care issue and keep negotiating a solution once the government reopens, arguing that no one wins politically from the standoff. “Shutdowns are stupid,” Thune said.You can view Zohran Mamdani’s historic triumph in New York City’s mayoral election in pictures via the gallery below:The Associated Press has a brief explainer on the election in the 18th congressional district:Confusion has lingered over the election in the 18th congressional district, where many residents will vote in a different district next year under a redrawn map demanded by Donald Trump in an effort to increase the number of GOP seats, reports the AP. Republicans currently hold a seven-seat majority in the House, 219-212, with four vacancies, including the Houston seat. Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva won a special election in September in a heavily Democratic district along the Mexico border, but she has not been sworn in yet. A narrower majority gives Republican leaders less room to maneuver.The current 18th district is solidly Democratic and spirals from northeast Houston through downtown, back up to northwest Houston and east again, until its two ends come close to forming a doughnut. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 23% of its voting-age citizens, though no single group has a majority. The redrawn 18th stretches from suburbs southwest of Houston diagonally through the city and past its northeast limits. A little more than 50% of voting-age citizens are Black, which critics say is not a big enough majority for them to determine who gets elected, reports the AP.Democrats Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards advanced to a runoff on Tuesday night in a special election for a US House seat that has been vacant since March and will narrow the GOP’s slim majority once a winner is sworn in, reports the Associated Press (AP). Menefee, who serves as Harris County attorney, and Edwards, a former Houston city council member, received the most votes in a crowded field of 16 candidates. Neither received more than 50% of the vote, sending the race to a runoff that is expected early next year.The winner is to serve out the remaining term of Democratic rep Sylvester Turner, who died two months after taking office representing the deep-blue 18th congressional district.After Turner’s death, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott defended not holding a special election until November by arguing that Houston election officials needed time to prepare. Democrats criticized the long wait and accused Abbott of trying to give his party’s House majority more cushion. Menefee said his message for President Donald Trump and his allies is, “We’ve got one more election left, and then you’re going to have to see me”. Menefee said:
      For months, as this seat sat vacant, I heard from voters who were ready for someone willing to take on Donald Trump and the far right – not just talk about change, but deliver real results.
      “It’s not enough to me just for us to fight back against the attacks waged by our president,” Edwards said, speaking to supporters after polls closed. “We must do that and forge a path for our future.”Menefee ousted an incumbent in 2020 to become Harris County’s first Black county attorney, representing it in civil cases, and he has joined legal challenges of Trump’s executive orders on immigration. He was endorsed by several prominent Texas Democrats including former congressman Beto O’Rourke and rep Jasmine Crockett.Edwards served four years on the council starting in 2016. She ran for US Senate in 2020 but finished fifth in a 12-person primary. She unsuccessfully challenged US rep Sheila Jackson Lee in the 2024 primary, and when Lee died that July, local Democrats narrowly nominated Turner over Edwards as Lee’s replacement. More

    • 163 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court to hear oral arguments on legality of Trump imposing tariffs

      by

      Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on the world will be scrutinized by the US supreme court today, a crucial legal test of the president’s controversial economic strategy – and his power.Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments today on the legality of using emergency powers to impose tariffs on almost every US trading partner.In a series of executive orders issued earlier this year, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1977 law which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency, as he slapped steep duties on imports into the US.The supreme court – controlled by a rightwing supermajority that was crafted by Trump – will review whether IEEPA grants the president the authority to levy a tariff, a word not mentioned in the law. Congress is granted sole authority under the constitution to levy taxes. The court has until the end of its term, in July 2026, to issue a ruling on the case.Lower courts have ruled against Trump’s tariffs, prompting appeals from the Trump administration, setting up this latest test of Trump’s presidential power. The supreme court has largely sided with the administration through its shadow docket to overrule lower courts.Should the supreme court ultimately rule against Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, it will force the White House to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how to enforce an aggressive economic policy which has strained global trade ties.Should the court side with the administration, however, it will embolden a president who has repeatedly claimed – despite warnings over the risk of higher prices – that tariffs will help make America great again, raising “trillions” of dollars for the federal government and revitalizing its industrial heartlands.Trump himself has argued the court’s decision is immensely important. The case is “one of the most important in the History of the Country”, he wrote on social media over the weekend, claiming that ruling against him would leave the US “defenseless”.“If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR,” Trump claimed. “If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status – Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”But some of his senior officials have suggested that, if the court rules against their current strategy, they will find another way to impose tariffs. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who plans to attend the oral arguments in the case, has said the administration has “lots of other authorities” to do so.According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Trump’s tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,200 in 2025 and $1,600 in 2026.A coalition of 12 states and small businesses, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, have sued the Trump administration to block the tariffs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSeveral other small businesses also filed suit against the Trump administration to block the tariffs. The cases, Learning Resources, Inc v Trump and Trump v VOS Selections, were consolidated by the court.“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, said in a statement on the lawsuit filed on behalf of small businesses against the tariffs. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”About 40 legal briefs have been filed in opposition to the tariffs, including from the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby group in the US.The US Chamber has urged Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in setting tariffs, stating in a letter on 27 October to the US Senate: “American families are facing thousands of dollars in higher prices as a result of these increased taxes. Small businesses, manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with higher costs, with additional economic pain likely in the coming months.”The US Senate voted 51 to 47 last week to nullify Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, with four Republicans joining Democrats in the vote, though the House is not expected to take similar action.But despite opposition in the Senate, the House of Representatives is unlikely to take similar action. House Republicans created a rule earlier this year that will block resolutions on the tariffs from getting a floor vote. More

    • 213 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      Economic policy is one thing Nigel Farage can’t crib from the Donald Trump playbook | Rafael Behr

      by

      Nigel Farage loves a gamble. In his 2015 memoir, The Purple Revolution, a whole chapter is dedicated to the then Ukip leader’s appetite for risk, how he indulged it in the City and how that prepared him for a career in politics.He boasts of the time he “lost a seven-figure sum of money in the course of a morning on the zinc market” before breezing off to the pub. He waxes nostalgic about the halcyon days of freewheeling finance, before “ghastly regulators” spoiled the fun; when “terrible cock-ups” could be written off because “decimal points and all those zeros can be tricky after a three-hour lunch”.Farage the commodities trader was not a details guy. Farage the politician isn’t famously punctilious either, but the stakes are higher. He’s backing himself to be prime minister and it isn’t going to happen if voters see him as the kind of gambler who might blow the nation’s budget on a boozy bet.Dispelling that notion was the purpose of a speech by the Reform UK leader on Monday. Farage disposed of his party’s 2024 election manifesto and its promise of tax cuts worth £90bn because it was a tissue of fiscal fantasy. He didn’t put it quite like that. He observed that Britain’s sluggish growth and high debt demand sober management of public finances. He hinted that Treasury savings could one day be made by unpicking the sacred “triple lock” that guarantees perpetual real-terms rises in the state pension.Liz Truss was not named, but the new, parsimonious Farageonomics has been formulated to silence comparisons between Reform’s agenda and the budget misadventure of the Tory prime minister whose unfunded tax giveaway incinerated the nation’s financial credibility.By dabbling in macroeconomics, Farage also wants to show that he has range; that the policy repertoire extends beyond complaining about migrants. He can also complain about the Bank of England (too cautious over cryptocurrencies), the Financial Conduct Authority (captured by a “diversity agenda”), public sector pensions (“a massive liability”) and net zero (a burden on energy bills).Europe can’t be the scapegoat it once was, but the old moan can be retuned to a post-Brexit key: the opportunity of deregulation from Brussels red tape has been “squandered”. Killjoy regulators tame the animal spirits of the market. The bureaucratic state lavishes welfare on work-shy malingerers and banishes enterprising wealth-creators. The remedy is to slash disability benefits and use tax breaks to entice self-exiled non-doms back from Dubai. The fiscal details of how that might all add up – the decimal points and zeros – remain shrouded in post-prandial haze.View image in fullscreenThe trademark colour and name of Farage’s party has changed since The Purple Revolution, but the argument hasn’t evolved. The biggest difference is in his delivery, which has become less hectoring, more weary. Maybe Farage was deliberately sounding leaden to emphasise his commitment to fiscal responsibility, but he came across as a man who is boring even himself with the usual shtick.This may be why he regularly asserts that the next general election will come in 2027. There is no reason why Keir Starmer would choose to go to the country two years before the constitutional deadline, but Farage needs the vote to come as soon as possible. To complete the transition from protest vehicle to plausible prime minister, the Reform leader needs to woo uncertain voters who think he could be dangerous. That reassurance has a cost in radicalism.Momentum depends on the keenest supporters staying whipped up in a state of visceral outrage, while respectability means keeping a lid on Reform MPs’ and councillors’ most luridly racist, outlandish and violent opinions. Affecting mainstream seriousness and cultivating insurrection at the same time is a chore. The strain is showing.Economic policy poses a particular challenge because the US rightwing populist model, Farage’s inspiration in most areas, resists adaptation to British financial circumstances. Not that it hasn’t been tried. Kent county council, Reform UK’s flagship local authority, promised to implement Doge-style cuts to administrative waste, inspired by Elon Musk’s maverick assault on the US federal budgets. The result was a chaotic display of unprofessional political dysfunction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDoge was no triumph in Washington either, but the US context is very different. Normal rules of fiscal rectitude don’t apply – at least, not yet – to the country that issues the planet’s reserve currency and can always find buyers for its debt.This “exorbitant privilege” extended to the world’s richest and most powerful state is what allowed Donald Trump earlier this year to implement tax cuts that will drive the US deficit up into the region of $3tn-$4tn by the end of the decade. The White House claims the budget will be self-repairing with money generated by newly stimulated growth. That’s also what Truss said. The bond market was not convinced.Trump also thinks tariffs imposed on other countries will be a substitute for domestic tax revenue. He’s wrong both conceptually and arithmetically. Tariffs are an import tax paid ultimately by US consumers, not foreigners, and the Treasury income hardly dents the deficit. But for now the absurdity of it just hangs in the air, defying economic gravity.That trick is not available to a UK prime minister. Nor is Trump’s habit of shaking down US corporate giants for equity and cash. If Reform so much as flirted with Trumponomics in an election manifesto, markets would convulse at every opinion poll putting it in the lead. Labour would correctly warn that a vote for Reform is a vote to bankrupt Britain.Farage is a gambler, not a fool. He knows he has to moderate his tone and get across some budget details. But attention to detail has never been his thing and responsibility bores him. Maybe he can win without it. He might fancy the odds on Labour continuing to flounder, the Tories failing to get their act together and that combination being enough to put him in Downing Street. And yet it is revealing how vulnerable the Reform leader obviously feels on the economy. His old script is stale, and without the Maga playbook to crib from, he really has nothing new to say – and a long time to be exposed not saying it.

      Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      A cultural revolution? Trump’s America feels oddly familiar to those watching from China

      by

      When Vickie Wang, a budding standup comedian, gets on stage in New York, she’s not just thinking about what jokes to crack. She’s also thinking about which ones to avoid. “I don’t criticise the administration directly,” she said. Or if she does, she makes sure it’s not recorded for social media. “I would never publicly publish something where I directly criticise the government … I think it’s a learned behaviour from China”.Wang, 39, lived in Shanghai for nearly a decade, leaving in 2022. In 2025 she relocated to the US. When she arrived, she went on a frenzy of “revenge bingeing on democracy”, going to talks, protests and diving into New York’s public library.But in the year since Donald Trump was elected as US president for the second time, there has been a “palpable change” in the atmosphere, she says. “In China, I knew where the line was, whereas in the US I’m standing on shifting sands.”Wang’s fears reflect a new political reality in the US which many Chinese people, or people who have lived in China, find eerily familiar. Enemies are ostracised. The president demands absolute loyalty. Journalists are targeted. Institutions are attacked.Trump has not been shy about his admiration for Xi Jinping, China’s strongman leader. He has described Xi as a “great guy”. As they agreed a temporary truce in the trade war on Thursday, the bonhomie between the two leaders of countries with diametrically opposed political systems was evident. And after decades of hope in the US that closer ties with China may help the rising power to liberalise, under Trump 2.0, it seems as if the US is being pulled in the Chinese direction, rather than the other way around.“The United States is undergoing a period of cultural revolution,” said Zhang Qianfan, a professor of constitutional law at Peking University. “The top leader, Donald Trump, is trying to mobilise the grassroots in order to sideline or undermine the elite … similar to what happened in China half a century ago”.View image in fullscreenEver since Trump unleashed the so-called Department for Government Efficiency, or Doge, on the Washington bureaucracy at the start of his term, many in China have viewed US politics through the lens of the Cultural Revolution. Whether it is the mobilisation of the youth to execute the leader’s will, or purging institutions of perceived enemies, Trump as viewed from China has delivered Mao-style chaos to the US, albeit without the same levels of violence.But since the upheaval of the early months of the new administration has calmed, a new, different kind of political atmosphere has settled in the US, which in different ways also feels familiar to many Chinese people.‘The lighthouse has become dimmer’The most profound similarity between Trump’s America and China is the crackdown on free speech.Deng Haiyan, a police officer turned Chinese Communist party (CCP) critic, found himself in the eye of a storm this year, the likes of which he’d only previously experienced in China. Deng has lived in the US since 2019, having fled China because of harassment from the authorities.In September, after the death of Charlie Kirk, Deng tweeted that Kirk was a “scumbag”. Like people across the US – many of whom lost their jobs as a result of making negative comments about Kirk – Deng faced a huge backlash. His family was doxed and he was accused of being a Chinese spy seeking to divide the US.“This incident was a real shock to me. I never imagined that something like this could happen in the United States – something that should only happen in an authoritarian country,” Deng said.Deng’s pile on came from fellow social media users, rather than the state, but that kind of social surveillance also has similarities with China.“In terms of going after those who disagree with you and starting to surveil public speech about issues that are sensitive … That’s starting to emerge here,” said Maria Repnikova, an associate professor at Georgia State University. “That’s something that you see in China today as well,” she said, adding that there were now fears in the US of students reporting on teachers, a type of surveillance that has been encouraged by the CCP.Zhang, the Peking University law professor, said that liberal Chinese intellectuals like himself used to look to the US for political inspiration, in part because openly discussing domestic politics in China is dangerous. But now, “America is no longer some kind of god for Chinese liberals. America’s image has declined across the board”.“We used to see America as the beacon of constitutional democracy, but after Trump took power, this lighthouse seems to have become dimmer”.Chinese liberals, who are often, at least in private, critical of China’s political system, are increasingly finding it less objectionable than America’s, Zhang said. “It’s sort of painful to accept this … but after the pandemic the government seems to be doing the right thing in improving the environment and developing electric cars and investing in hi-tech,” Zhang said, while “the West, as represented by the United States, seems to be declining”.The Trump administration’s acquisition of stakes in US companies has also drawn comparisons with China, where the line between government and private industry is often blurred.On Monday the US government announced it would become a shareholder in a startup specialising in rare earth processing, after taking similar stakes in other companies it considers vital to national security. The deals have left some investors nervous that the US is entering a new era of government meddling in private industry.There are still major differences between Trump’s America and China. In October, several news organisations including the Guardian refused to sign to a Pentagon policy that demanded they only report on government-authorised news. US courts have blocked or overturned many of Trump’s actions, something that would be unthinkable in China’s CCP-controlled judiciary.Isaac Stone Fish, the founder of Strategy Risks, a China-focused advisory firm, said: “The United States could descend into the worst crisis of its history, orders of magnitudes worse than it is now, and it will still be freer, more open, and more liberal than China under Xi.”Zhang notes that while many intellectuals in China were shocked to see US universities capitulate to government demands regarding diversity and inclusion practices and free speech on campus, in China, the top universities are all state-owned by default. University leaders, which are appointed by the government, “have no liberty of saying no. They can’t afford to be disobedient”.Still, people in the US are starting to take precautions that were once confined to more authoritarian countries. One professor at a US university who was previously outspoken on US-China issues declined to be interviewed for this article. He said: “The truth is that I am scared of the censorship here: I actually feel less afraid to criticise Xi these days than say anything bad about Trump.”Additional research by Lillian Yang More

    • 150 Shares153 Views

      in US Politics

      House Democrat accuses Trump’s DoJ of ‘gigantic cover-up’ over shut Epstein inquiry

      by

      A top Democrat has demanded to know why the Trump administration “inexplicably killed” a criminal investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators as he accused the justice department of a “shameful and gigantic cover-up”.Jamie Raskin, a House judiciary committee ranking member and congressman from Maryland, claimed the decision to end the investigation in July had shielded an alleged network of “powerful individuals accused of enabling and engaging in the massive billion-dollar sex trafficking operation” while ignoring the accounts of women exploited by Epstein.In a letter to the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, on Monday, Raskin asked: “Why would the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) kill an ongoing criminal investigation into a massive and decades-long criminal sex trafficking ring that preyed on girls and young women? Who exactly are you intending to protect by this action?”Raskin demanded to know why the investigation had abruptly ended despite the fact that nearly 50 women had provided information to prosecutors and the FBI as part of the years-long investigation into Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who was jailed in 2022. He claimed the women had identified to investigators at least 20 co-conspirators.“The information provided by this huge group of women was precise and detailed: they described how Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell, and their co-conspirators orchestrated a sophisticated and clandestine sex trafficking conspiracy that trafficked them to at least 20 men,” Raskin wrote.“These survivors shared with the DOJ and FBI the specific identities of many of these co-conspirators, how this operation was structured and financed, and which individuals facilitated these crimes.”Efforts to pursue these leads appear to have been halted when Trump came into office, a press release from the committee claimed.The Epstein case has been under renewed scrutiny since the justice department and the FBI concluded in a memo in July that no secret client list of Epstein existed and no further charges were expected as investigators “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. The memo contradicted previous claims made by Trump and Bondi, as well as conspiracy theories alleging Epstein was at the center of a larger plot.Raskin said the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York had been running an investigation into the disgraced financier’s alleged co-conspirators until January 2025, when prosecutors were ordered to transfer the case files to the justice department’s headquarters in Washington DC.Since then, “the investigation into co-conspirators has inexplicably ceased, and no further investigative steps appear to have been taken”, Raskin wrote, citing information provided by lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers.He said the women had made clear to the justice department and the FBI that Epstein and Maxwell did not act alone. “Yet, the Trump Administration has inexplicably killed this investigation, declared these survivors ‘not credible,’ and falsely claimed no evidence exists to support charges against additional co-conspirators,” Raskin added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe accused the justice department of abandoning promises made under the Biden administration to coordinate with victims in its pursuit of Epstein’s co-conspirators. “Your DOJ has abandoned those promises in pursuit of a shameful and gigantic cover-up,” he wrote.Raskin has asked Bondi for details of investigative steps relating to the case undertaken by the justice department since January 2025.In an email response, justice department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre blamed Democrats and the shutdown.“The Democrats have shut down the government and Congressional correspondence during a lapse in appropriations is limited. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Committee in pursuit of transparency, as we have already provided 33,000 pages to the House Oversight Committee – more than was ever requested by the committee when the Ranking Member’s party was in the majority, once the Democrats stop playing games with taxpayer dollars and vote to re-open the government.” More

    • 163 Shares136 Views

      in US Politics

      Liz Cheney wanted to follow her father’s legacy. Instead, Trump ended her career

      by

      Weeks before one of America’s best-known businessmen, Donald Trump, was sworn in as president on an overcast day in Washington DC, a different politician with a similarly familiar name took her oath of office elsewhere in the Capitol.Liz Cheney was then both a freshman congresswoman from Wyoming and a stalwart of the neoconservative philosophy espoused by her father Dick Cheney, the former vice-president under George W Bush who died on Monday. Trump had repudiated Bush’s invasion of Iraq in his campaign for president, but the congresswoman nonetheless went on to become an ally in bending Republican lawmakers to his will.It was only after the January 6 insurrection that Cheney broke with Trump, making what turned out to be a lonely stand against his dominance of Republicans that wound up ending her political career. The then-former president orchestrated her ouster, first from Republican leadership, then from the House of Representatives entirely. Liberals would lionize Cheney for her defiance as an emblem of the “good Republicans” they long hoped would one day expel Trump from the party, even though she never broke with her conservative Republican politics.The Cheneys’ view of American power may now seem farther from relevance than at any time since Bush left office, but signs of it linger in Trump’s new administration. Though he promised to be a peacemaker while campaigning for re-election last year, the president has ordered the first-ever US bombing raid on Iran, blown up boats he claims are carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela and ordered a formidable naval flotilla to the South American country’s coastline, while mulling airstrikes on its territory.“Many of the people who are around him actually were in favor of the Iraq war, and I think with that influence, he’s being influenced towards regime change war in Venezuela,” the Republican senator Rand Paul told reporters last week.Liz Cheney is certainly excluded from that group. Rising to chair the House Republican conference just after winning her second term in office, Cheney’s time in leadership was brief. After a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, she became the highest-ranking Republican to break with the president.“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president,” Cheney said, as she voted to impeach Trump over the violence.She would go on to serve as vice-chair, and one of two Republicans, on the House committee that investigated the attack. But her political fate was sealed. House Republicans voted to strip her from her leadership post in May 2021, and she lost her primary the following year, in both cases to lawmakers that have hewed closely to the president’s positions.Through it all, Cheney remained a conservative in the tradition of her father. As recently as 2021, she joined him in defending waterboarding, the brutal interrogation technique Bush’s CIA used against terrorism suspects, and restated her opposition to abortion and the Affordable Care Act. When Joe Biden’s priorities came up before the House, she mostly voted against them.None of that was enough to stave off Trump’s wrath. As Republicans moved to depose her from leadership, she took to the House floor to call the former president “a threat America has never seen before”.“He risks inciting further violence. Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president. They have heard only his words, but not the truth as he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all,” she said.Nor did her father hold his tongue.“He is a coward. A real man wouldn’t lie to his supporters. He lost his election, and he lost big. I know it. He knows it, and deep down, I think most Republicans know,” the former vice-president said of Trump in a television ad for his daughter’s failed bid for a fourth term in 2022.Both Cheneys would go on to endorse and, in Liz’s case, campaign with, Kamala Harris last year. Trump in turn blasted Dick Cheney as “an irrelevant RINO” or Republican in name only, and “the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars”. Biden later awarded Liz Cheney the Presidential Citizens Medal and, in his final hours as president, issued her a pre-emptive pardon after Trump threatened her prosecution.When the president this year ordered seven B-2 bombers to fly more than 14,000 miles from Missouri to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, John Bolton, a neoconservative veteran of both the Bush and Trump administrations who has since become a bitter enemy of the president, praised him for taking a course of action he had advocated for decades.“I can say unequivocally, I think President Trump made the right decision for America in attacking the Iranian nuclear program,” he told Bloomberg Surveillance. “We could have done it in the first term, too.”Cheney, by contrast, remained silent. More

    • 163 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      De Niro to JLaw: should celebrities be expected to speak out against Trump?

      by

      If you were hoping Jennifer Lawrence might be able to tell you who to vote for and why, you’re in for some disappointment. “I don’t really know if I should,” the actor told the New York Times recently when asked about speaking up about the second Trump administration – and she’s not the only one. “I’ve always believed that I’m not here to tell people what to think,” Sydney Sweeney recently told GQ, after a year in which she was the subject of controversy over a jeans ad and a possible Republican voter registration. This marks a shift from Donald Trump’s first term, when more celebrities seemed not just comfortable speaking out against the administration, but obligated to do so. Now voters will no longer be able to so easily consult with Notes-app-made posts on Instagram to decide who and what they care about before they head to the polls. The era of movie-star-swung elections has come to an end.Of course, this era didn’t really exist in earnest. Celebrity opinion doesn’t seem to hold much genuine sway over the public, with the possible exception of the segments of each that belong to Taylor Swift. (Call that an extremely vocal plurality, if not necessarily a majority.) If it did, the George Clooney/Jennifer Lawrence/Tom Hanks/Scarlett Johansson party would soundly thump the Dean Cain/Tim Allen/James Woods/Chuck Norris party in every contest. In her recent interview, Lawrence is speaking to precisely that point, albeit without invoking any catty status differences: “As we’ve learned, election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for,” she continues. “So then what am I doing [when speaking out against Trump]? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart.”Lawrence still isn’t actually shy about confirming her feelings (“The first Trump administration was so wild and just, ‘how can we let this stand?’” she says earlier in the interview, and she alludes to the dispiriting feeling when some voters actively chose a second term after seeing the results of the first). Sweeney, for her part, is more genuinely evasive. (“I’m just here to kind of open their eyes to different ideas. That’s why I gravitate towards characters and stories that are complicated and are maybe morally questionable, and characters that are – on the page – hard to like, but then you find the humanity underneath them.”) But the effect is similar: putting the work first and doing that shut-up-and-sing thing that has been thrown around, in some form another, for half a century or more but felt particularly amped-up around the George W Bush administration, when applied to the artists formerly known as the Dixie Chicks, among others.View image in fullscreenTo some extent, Lawrence is correct to advocate for her work as more potentially meaningful than issuing a statement that underlines her celebrity status, noting that her political views are pretty easy to read in terms of what her production company puts out into the world (including a documentary about abortion bans), and what she does as a performer: “I don’t want to start turning people off to films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world because they don’t like my political opinions,” she says elsewhere in the interview. “I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I’m doing, in what I’m showing.” In other words, it’s the artistic principle of “show, don’t tell” bleeding over into politics.More personally, who wouldn’t grow exhausted by the expectation that these opinions should be publicly expressed and available for judgment and nitpicking, and prefer instead to speak through art, if that alternate platform was available to them? Trump doesn’t consume art, but he does perform the old-media equivalent of constant name-searching, which means he is likely to name-check any celebrities with high-profile opposition to him – or even those he senses are somehow aligned with his movement, like Sweeney, whose jeans ad he nonsensically praised. Getting dragged into the Trump sphere is a real lose-lose proposition for anyone who wants a genuinely interesting career in the arts. If that sense of self-preservation spares us some cookie-cutter awards show speeches that don’t move the needle outside of the auditorium applause-o-meter, or Clooney relitigating the specifics of Democrats’ mistakes and pitfalls in the 2024 election, all the better.The other side of that strategy, though, is a form of quivery brand management that doubles as faulty market research, implying a tidy split between Trump supporters and those who oppose the president’s policies. In fact, 77 million voters pulling the metaphorical lever for Trump in 2024 out of approximately 258 million adults in the US equals a less-than-robust 30%, not 50 – a percentage his approval rating has rarely crossed. Currently, that number continues to sit below 40% by most estimates. Maybe that’s splitting hairs; 77 million voters is a hell of a lot of people, and 37% of 258 million is even more than that, even if it’s not a majority. But the gesture toward “lowering the temperature”, as so many including Lawrence allude to, feels less noble and more businesslike capitulation. Personal politics becomes a choice between allowing people to read between the lines (as Lawrence does) or an outright opacity (like Sweeney’s) that is, ironically, very politician-like. It also fits with an executive mindset that treats audiences more like shareholders than human beings.View image in fullscreenAs little as celebrity advocacy tends to move the needle on broad political decisions, and likely more effectively moved toward particular issues rather than tilting at the windmills erected by specific politicians, it’s also cathartic to see which folks aren’t backing down. It is telling, too, that some of the most outspoken figures are those closer to Trump’s advanced age. Harrison Ford, for example, had no compunction about telling the Guardian that he considers Trump one of history’s biggest criminals. Robert De Niro has gone further as an anti-Trump spokesperson, recently noting that he was “very happy” to see so many mobilizing against Trump at recent No Kings protests, and repeatedly bringing up his concern that Trump will not abide by the legal term limits on his presidency: “We cannot let up because he is not going to leave the White House. Anybody who thinks, ‘Oh, he’ll do this, he’ll do that,’ is just deluding themselves.”Does anyone need to hear this alarm sounded by De Niro in particular? Probably not, and surely some former fans will dismiss him as an anti-Trump crank. But at 82, the actor is too late in his career to spend much time calculating what is best for business, which also inures him from charges of empty virtue-signaling. He is clearly saying this stuff because he fully believes it. It’s not that De Niro needs Lawrence, Sweeney or whoever else to stand alongside him, but for all the strangeness of a legendary actor reinventing himself as a cable-news staple, it does seem like De Niro better understands his fellow baby boomer New Yorker. He especially seems to get that Trump is a poisonously ironic figure to inspire this kind of celebrity silence.This president is himself a celebrity first, a corrupt politician second, and an actual political strategist in a distant and possibly accidental third. He may well survey his presidency and secretly conclude that his greatest triumph was asserting that celebrity over others – to get away with literally telling people how to think and how to vote (or maybe in the future, that voting is no longer necessary) while cowing others from expressing their opinions on the matter. If celebrities had no political sway at all, Trump would be doddering and leering his way around a TV studio. Lawrence and Sweeney are right to aspire toward their work saying more than they do – but maybe not for the reasons they think. Celebrity without art is what gets you Donald Trump in the first place. For this administration, it’s not the singing that’s important; it’s the shutting up. More