Subterms
Donald Trump has signed an executive order to expand access to in vitro fertilization, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday.“The Order directs policy recommendations to protect IVF access and aggressively reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for such treatments,” Leavitt said in a post on Twitter/X.More details soon … More
Billionaire Elon Musk’s role in Donald Trump’s second presidential administration is as an Oval Office employee and senior adviser to the president – and is not an employee of the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and has no decision-making authority, the White House said in a court filing on Monday.According to a filing signed by Joshua Fisher, director of the office of administration at the White House, Musk can only advise Trump and communicate the president’s directives.“Like other senior White House advisers, Mr Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself,” it said.Fisher’s filing, made in a case brought against Musk by the state of New Mexico, said that Musk was not an employee of the US Doge Service, or the US Doge Service Temporary Organization, and added: “Mr Musk is not the US Doge service administrator.”Doge has swept through federal agencies since Trump began his second term as president in January and put Musk, the chief executive of the carmaker Tesla, in charge of rooting out wasteful spending as part a dramatic overhaul of government that has included thousands of job cuts.Despite Monday’s court filing, ProPublica recently reported that a number of people who have previously worked with Musk have Doge roles. More
Ukraine reacted with gloom and dismay on Tuesday to the meeting between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia, with Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying he would never accept Russia’s ultimatums.The high-stakes negotiations between the two delegations got under way in Riyadh just hours after Russia attacked Ukraine with dozens of drones. At least two people were killed and 26 injured in strikes across the country.One drone hit the top floor of a high-rise residential building in the central city of Dolynska, in the Kirovohrad region. A mother and her two children were injured and taken to hospital. “A difficult night,” said the local governor, Andriy Raikovych.Soon after the talks concluded in Riyadh, air raid sirens wailed across the capital, Kyiv. Millions of Ukrainians were told by text message to seek shelter because of a threat from Russian ballistic missiles.Speaking in Ankara after a meeting with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Zelenskyy said Ukraine would not accept the results of talks on how to end the war with Russia that were held “behind Ukraine’s back”.“It feels like the US is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war,” Zelenskyy told reporters. He added: “Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment?”Zelenskyy also said he would seek the return of occupied eastern and southern towns and villages via diplomatic means, emphasising: “They will be Ukrainian. There can be no compromise.”Reuters reported that Zelenskyy has postponed a visit to Saudi Arabia planned for Wednesday to avoid giving the US-Russia talks “legitimacy”.It was absurd for Moscow to talk about peace while killing Ukrainians, said Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the head of Zelenskyy’s office. The latest salvo of 176 drones fired at Ukraine represented Russia’s actual “negotiating position”, he posted.Without criticising the Trump administration directly, he said the high-level US-Russia talks had not been properly prepared, adding that they were merely a forum for more Russian “ultimatums”.“Encouragement rather than coercion, a voluntary and bizarre renunciation of strength in favour of disheartening and unmotivated appeasement of the aggressor,” Podolyak wrote, summing up Kyiv’s negative reaction.There is widespread scepticism that Russia would abide by any ceasefire deal unless it was underpinned by security guarantees – from the US and other western powers. Podolyak said there was no point in having a “fake peace” that would lead to “an inevitable continuation of the war”.Ukrainians have bitter memories of two deals signed with Russia in the Belarus capital, Minsk, after Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 and began a covert invasion of the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Russia repeatedly violated both ceasefires.There are fears that a quick deal between Washington and Moscow would amount to Minsk 3 – another agreement that Russia would swiftly break. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Zelenskyy said Russia was ready to expand its invasion and “wage war” against Nato.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMore immediately, there were concerns that a Trump-Putin deal would demand that Ukraine hold elections immediately after a ceasefire came into force, and before any final agreement was reached. The goal, Ukrainian commentators suggested, would be to replace Zelenskyy with a weaker leader, or even a pro-Russian candidate.Ukraine is not obliged to hold elections under martial law. Few Ukrainians think they are practical at a time when Russia’s invasion has forced millions of citizens to flee abroad and when soldiers are fighting and dying on the frontline. European embassies in Kyiv agree.The White House excluded Kyiv and European nations from its direct talks with Russia, the first bilateral contact between the two sides since before Moscow’s 2022 invasion.Ukraine’s former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said he did not expect a truce with Russia any time soon, telling the BBC: “Peace is not even visible on the horizon.” Kuleba said it was in Ukraine’s interest to resist US pressure for a speedy solution and to instead engage with Trump over a sustained period.Kuleba said: “Peace isn’t visible for one simple reason: because Putin still believes that he can outwit everyone, that time is on his side, fate is on his side, the west has wavered, America is retreating, Europe is not able to take the field instead of America, or … is not ready to put on the captain’s armband.”He added: “The key question now is, actually, where is Putin in this scheme? In my opinion, he believes that he will win. Victory for him is all of Ukraine. He didn’t come for some piece of land. He came for Ukraine.” More
I look with horror and outrage not only at the patronising and hypocritical words of JD Vance in Munich (JD Vance stuns Munich conference with blistering attack on Europe’s leaders, 14 February) but also at the apparent attempt by Donald Trump to effect peace between Ukraine and Russia without including either Ukraine or Europe more generally (Trump says he has spoken to Putin and agreed to negotiate Ukraine ceasefire, 12 February).A peace that prevents any more bloodshed can only be a good thing, but it cannot be a carve-up in which Vladimir Putin achieves the victory that Ukrainians have so gallantly deprived him of on the battlefield. Or in which Ukraine is impoverished and emasculated by a greedy US and irredentist Russia.Moreover, if Europe and, by extension, the UK, are to be excluded from negotiations on the future of Ukraine and the continent, under no circumstances should British or other European troops be used in a peacekeeping role.The idea that Trump thinks he can cut a deal with Putin, rob Ukraine of her mineral wealth and then leave Europe to pick up the pieces is disgraceful beyond belief. We should not fall for it.It is unacceptable that British lives be risked for the knavery of Trump and his acolytes. If the US wants European troops on the ground, we get a place at the negotiating table. No ifs, no buts. No taxation without representation: is that not a founding principle of US democracy?William SeafordNewport If Donald Trump is determined to upend post-1945 international structures, as seems likely given his vice-president’s speech, then both sides of the Atlantic need to contemplate the full meaning of a transactional approach to security. Maybe British politicians will stop kidding themselves about the so-called special relationship, which has only ever been special to the Americans when it suited them. At the same time, perhaps someone can inform Trump that it is a mistake to evaluate defence alliances like real-estate deals.Should the president pay a visit to the UK, as Keir Starmer seems to hope, I suggest he be taken to visit the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial in Victoria Embankment Gardens, London, where he’ll be reminded of the 626 UK military personnel who died in furtherance of American wars in those countries between 2001 and 2014. Given the popular reverence for veterans in the US, the Maga movement might find our military sacrifice is one of the few aspects of the North Atlantic alliance it can’t easily dismiss.If Trump then still ditches Europe in favour of deals with Putin, it needs to be made clear that self-interest works on both sides. The US won’t be able to expect its former allies to fall in line behind it in the same way it has commanded since the end of the second world war.Mark CottleMaesygwartha, Monmouthshire As Simon Tisdall pointed out a year ago in the Observer, the UK cannot maintain its Trident nuclear deterrent without the active support of the United States. There now appears a high risk that the US will want to be able to veto the use of Trident by the UK and/or to extract a high price for any continued support. Isn’t it time to think about mothballing Trident and redirecting that funding to conventional defence capacity in Europe?Simon RewLondon More
It is humbling to realize, almost a decade into his tenure at the center of American politics and life, that Donald Trump still has the power to surprise us. As recently as inauguration day, the conventional wisdom on Elon Musk’s role in the administration was that he’d been given a meaningless post at a powerless agency whose name itself was a joke. From the “department of government efficiency”, or Doge, it was said, Musk would issue easily ignored recommendations the gullible would take as evidence that Trump was streamlining the federal bureaucracy – a promise reliably made and broken by countless presidents. Instead, in a turn of events magazine cover artists have delighted in, Musk as a “special government employee” has seemingly taken the reins of the executive branch – a de facto co-president or perhaps a vice, while JD Vance busies himself with his duties delivering social media clapbacks and jeremiads about wokeness to European leaders.For weeks now, the Doge’s fleas have been hopping from agency to agency, gaining access to key administrative and financial systems, including databases filled with sensitive information on ordinary Americans and infrastructure at the treasury that disburses trillions in payments across the federal government. One member of the team Musk installed there, Marko Elez, resigned after it was revealed he had written posts supporting, in his words, “Indian hate” and a “eugenic immigration policy” as recently as December. After defenses from Vance and Trump, he was reinstated. Meanwhile, fired leaders across the government are now seeking employment; about 75,000 federal workers have accepted a buyout from the administration. USAid has been gutted, putting the health and sustenance of countless vulnerable people around the world in immediate jeopardy, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Education are now under assault. Words and whole areas of inquiry are being banned for researchers; government-wide, anything that smacks even vaguely of diversity and equity recruitment and training isn’t long for this world. What’s more, all of this comes on the heels of Trump’s extraordinary freeze on federal loans and grants – justified as a step towards rooting out “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies” in government – which threatened programs like Medicaid, Head Start and even Meals on Wheels before it was blocked in court.There and elsewhere, those hoping to put the brakes on the administration’s moves are relying on lawfare to restore order. But this blitzkrieg is working anyway – the federal government has been weakened and all Trump and Musk have left standing is being remade in their image. Meanwhile, outside DC, Trump’s deportation campaign has begun with alarming departures even from the barbarism of Trump’s first term, like the provisions being made to house migrants at Guantánamo Bay and to send detainees, perhaps including American citizens, to prison in El Salvador.It’s on tariffs, though, that Trump’s ambitions seem to have been significantly impeded. When Canada and Mexico struck border security deals to pause the administration’s threatened levies for a month, the White House was quick to frame them as victories for its trade agenda.But anyone who’s bothered to examine the Canadian and Mexican concessions closely knows that Trump delivered next to nothing – his ploy won a Canadian border plan that had already been announced and a reshuffling of Mexican troops to bolster the 10,000 already stationed at that border to little effect as far as the flow of fentanyl is concerned. Even the 10% tariff on China now in effect is much lower than the 60% levy Trump promised during the campaign.It will take some time before all the dust settles and the rest of the Trump domestic agenda shapes up. But these early days have given us enough of a glimpse at what will matter most to the administration that we can finally close the book on what Trumpism is all about. Nearly 10 years have been spent parsing Trump’s policies and rhetoric to identify points of departure from the Republican party of old. In columns and essays, academic symposiums and cable news bull sessions, it’s been argued that Trumpism has less to do with conservatism as we’ve known it than with other more interesting -isms – post-liberalism, post-neoliberalism, populism and, yes, fascism. It ought to be clearer to us now that the reality is much simpler. Donald Trump, a Republican president backed by Republican voters and the Republican party as an institution, is using extralegal means to enact longstanding parts of the Republican agenda and the conservative project – including, chiefly, the crippling of the federal government. The most significant standing policy accomplishment of his first term in office was a large tax cut Republicans are hoping to extend. This Trump administration promises to be more innovative to the same ends. The tasks of deregulation and privatization are themselves being deregulated and privatized – turned over substantially to Musk, who seems willing to shrink and weaken government in ways Republican politicians and bureaucrats in administrations past were unwilling to try themselves, a crusade legal scholars and government officials are calling illegal.As Musk and conservative movement veterans like office of management and budget director, Russell Vought, work away at all this, Trump’s tariff agenda – long scoffed at by Republican business leaders and donors – is faltering. And on immigration, it bears repeating that Trump’s supposedly distinctive nativism has precedents in Republican politics. The more immigration-friendly George W Bush-era that the Trump years are often unfavorably compared with were preceded by a period in the 1990s when the right, including establishment figures like William F Buckley Jr, strongly backed restrictionism. They were followed, in the years just before Trump fully entered the picture, by a period when candidates like the now-sainted Mitt Romney leaned into restricting immigration so strongly that Republican leaders openly feared they would be permanently uncompetitive with Latino voters.That never came to pass for reasons the 2024 election underscored clearly – many Americans, of all ethnicities, are plainly through with politics as usual. Decades of rhetoric from mainstream politicians about how Washington is broken and in need of candidates willing to bust things up and Get Stuff Done, whatever the Stuff may be, have culminated in the re-election, by a genuine plurality, of a candidate willing to abrogate the constitution to that end – one who has also promised to finally deliver on another standard bit of political pablum, the idea of “running the government like a business”. This is essentially what Musk has been brought on to do. The move-fast-and-break-things ethos of Silicon Valley is breaking the federal infrastructure; whether they recognize it or not, workers across many industries have faced the very same situation federal workers do now, with their agency and very livelihoods being sacrificed on the altar of supposed efficiency.The Democrats who have been roused to action on their behalf – feebly and belatedly, per usual – have centered the argument that Trump’s and Musk’s rampage through the federal government is unlawful and unconstitutional. “What Trump and Musk have done is not only wrong, it’s illegal,” the Virginia congressman Don Beyer said at a rally outside USAid’s offices earlier this month.“USAid was established by an act of Congress, and it can only be disbanded by an act of Congress. Stopping this will require action by the courts and for Republicans to show up and show courage and stand up for our country.” Republicans, wouldn’t you know it, have gotten rather blase about the whole constitution thing in response. Last week, John Kennedy, the Oxford-educated senator from Louisiana who does a mean Foghorn Leghorn impression for his constituents and the press, defended the constitutionality of Musk’s activities immediately before dismissing the idea that their constitutionality mattered at all. “[T]he issue, anyway, is not process,” he said. “The issue is substance. Did they find wasteful spending, or not?” The North Carolina senator Thom Tillis was more direct – while Musk’s attack on Congress-approved spending “runs afoul of the constitution in the strictest sense”, he said, “nobody should bellyache about that.”Just how much bellyaching about the constitution should Democrats actually be doing? All that’s happening now is happening in large part because the men who wrote the constitution more than two centuries ago failed to anticipate anything like contemporary political parties, much less parties that would adopt the ironic disposition towards the document that Republicans now have. Its checks and balances simply weren’t designed to withstand the skulduggery of organized political factions willing to sacralize the document instrumentally and disregard it as necessary. It should never be forgotten that Trump was brought to power by an ugly mutant of the founders’ electoral college to begin with. The longstanding Republican structural advantage in the Senate and constitution’s supermajoritarian threshold for an impeachment conviction allowed Republicans to defend him from the consequences of his actions twice – the second time despite a simple majority of senators voting to convict in the wake of his scheme to steal the 2020 election and the resulting attack on Congress.In November, voters either enthralled by his seeming invincibility or resigned to it sent him back to the White House. And the major legal challenges to all he’s done and will do this time around will inevitably wind their way to a supreme court dominated by conservatives Trump himself and the Republican party successfully installed, in full keeping with the constitution’s rules, to give themselves their best possible odds of winning their policy fights and hobbling Democratic governance. Topping it all off, Musk’s seat at the heart of the federal government has been handed to him as a reward for the more than $250m – a mere sliver of his wealth – that he contributed to Trump’s re-election effort, a sum only made possible by the supreme court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010, which allowed donors, corporations and interest groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts on elections through Super Pacs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBy now, it should be clear to all who don’t have an emotional, political or professional investment in believing or pretending to believe otherwise that the American constitutional order has developed a kind of autoimmune disease. The very mechanisms the founders crafted to protect the republic are now an existential threat to it; in their greed and determination to implement the conservative agenda, Trump, Musk and Republicans empowered by those mechanisms are happily ignoring or working to override the parts of the constitution that don’t advantage them or suit their ends. As a matter of substance, this is a system that needs to be dramatically reformed or reimagined rather than rescued; as a matter of politics, one of the central lessons of this past election is that critical constituencies Democrats need to improve with in order to stay competitive federally care far less about protecting our sickly institutions than they care about a great many other things that they hoped Donald Trump would accomplish. As of now, even amid the mess in Washington, voters aren’t giving him marks that are all that terrible – a recent CBS poll found solid majorities of Americans describing his leadership so far as “tough”, “energetic”, “focused” and “effective”.The legal fights against the administration being waged on constitutional grounds should obviously continue; like Republicans, liberal lawyers seeking liberal ends should avail themselves of whatever arguments stand the best chance of prevailing in the courts. Politically though, Democrats need to refocus. If appeals to our norms and constitution were politically potent enough on their own to work against Trump, he wouldn’t be in the Oval Office waging war against the administrative state today. Put more simply, no one watches a game for the referees.Democrats should be positioning themselves not as the guardians of America’s institutions but as the defenders of the American people’s concrete interests – showing and telling voters about all the federal government does for them every day and how the conservative agenda Trump, Musk and the Republican party are pursuing threatens and has always threatened them. The perversity of a man getting to rework their government purely because he happens to be the wealthiest person in the world and financially backed Trump’s campaign should, of course, also be underscored.The especially ambitious might even try arguing to the American people that all the goings-on in Washington illustrate the danger of having so much wealth accumulate in the hands of a few in the first place. Elon Musk is gliding towards becoming the planet’s very first trillionaire. His access to the levers and gears of the federal government now could help him along in myriad ways. Even an improved political system would struggle to constrain the amount of power he possessed as a private citizen and has now leveraged into a public office; democratic republican governance will never be secured in America without turning our attention to the structure of our economic system as well. Dismantling the federal government to prevent that from happening was a key object of the conservative project before Trump. It has remained so with him at the head of the Republican party and will remain so whenever his time is up. Right now, that project is succeeding.
Osita Nwanevu is a Guardian US columnist More
In both real life and on film, New York City has often been a city linked with public scandals, corruption and high drama.But even Hollywood scriptwriters, so often keen on using the Big Apple as a backdrop, would have been hard-pushed to describe the astonishing events that have played out around the mayor, Eric Adams, in recent days.Last week, the US Department of Justice moved to drop criminal charges against Adams, in what many see as a blatant quid pro quo for getting Adams onboard as a political ally to a Donald Trump administration seemingly intent on launching a radical remaking of American government.It was a move that raised alarm among many residents of the city and legal experts about what many see as Trump – and Adams – undermining the integrity of the US judicial system and American democracy.Earlier this week, a top official at the justice department ordered the acting US attorney in the southern district of New York to stop prosecuting Adams for allegedly accepting bribes and illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources.The move was the latest stop in a dramatic term for America’s highest-profile mayor, which has seen the former cop elected as a Democrat but then drift rightwards, especially after Trump was elected and Adams faced prosecution. In heavily Democratic New York, Adams is now seen as an ally to Trump and has even reportedly flirted with the idea of becoming a Republican.Since being indicted in September, Adams has made regular overtures to Trump, including visiting him at his resort in Florida and skipping scheduled Martin Luther King Jr Day events in the city to attend Trump’s inauguration.Some observers said Adams was trying to obtain a pardon from Trump and ignoring his responsibilities as mayor. Adams claimed he has not discussed his legal case with Trump and that he had been talking with the president to help the city.Whatever Adams’s intentions were, Trump now appears to have helped him and, in doing so, added to the perception he will ignore the rule of law when it benefits him politically.“We have an administration that is willing to use its power to benefit favorite people, to the extent it’s able to do so without controversy – or even with controversy,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law. “It’s a truly aggressive decision on the part of DoJ and an indefensible decision.”Adams was elected mayor in November 2021. Before the indictment, he already faced criticism because of the criminal histories of people in his inner circle, his frequent participation in the city’s nightlife and allegations that he did not actually live in the city, among other complaints from residents.“You would see him partying at clubs that my peers were at, and he seemed to fit there very well, more so than the office he was holding,” said Maedot Yidenk, a 27-year-old neuroscientist from Seattle who now lives in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn.After his indictment, Adams said the Biden administration had targeted him for prosecution because he had criticized its immigration policies. Prosecutors countered that the investigation had begun before Adams started attacking the federal government over its response to the number of immigrants entering the country.However, Trump agreed with Adams’s assessment and said he would consider pardoning the Democrat.But the justice department instead now wants to dismiss the charges. According to the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, federal prosecutors behind the case “threatened the integrity of the proceedings, including by increasing prejudicial pretrial publicity” and “unduly restricted” the mayor’s ability to “devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that has escalated under the policies of the prior Administration”.View image in fullscreenBove’s justification – that the prosecutor had been keeping Adams from doing his job – is “ridiculous”, according to Gillers.“It would immunize office holders, certainly mayors and governors, from criminal investigation and criminal charges, so long as they were named in that position,” Gillers said. “The real explanation, I think, is that Trump wanted to dismiss the indictment as a favor to Adams, for whatever reason, but to do it in the most neutral way.”Still, Bove has encountered resistance from prosecutors, which has plunged the city’s legal community into turmoil.On Thursday, the interim US attorney for the southern district, Danielle Sassoon, a Republican, resigned and accused the justice department of letting the defendant off in exchange for his help with Trump’s immigration policy. Five other officials in the justice department also resigned.“I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams’s counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal,” Sassoon wrote to the attorney general, Pam Bondi.Bove responded in a letter to Sassoon, stating that she had been “pursuing a politically motivated prosecution despite an express instruction to dismiss the case. You lost sight of the oath that you took when you started at the Department of Justice.”Trump said he had not asked prosecutors to drop the case. But in his letter, Bove wrote that Sassoon was “disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President”.But the scandal did not stop there. Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the New York city council, on Monday called on the mayor to resign. Her demand came just hours after four of Adams’s eight deputy mayors announced they would leave his administration – another crippling blow to his ever more disastrous reputation.Trump could have avoided the legal wrangling by just pardoning Adams, as some predicted he would.“If he does go that route, I think it raises the question why he wouldn’t have done it in the first place,” said Thomas Frampton, an associate law professor at the University of Virginia. “I think the answer is because he wanted to test to see how compliant the [southern district] would be.”Even in a liberal city like New York, there are people who both don’t like Trump – or his efforts to exert control over the justice department – and aren’t sure prosecutors should have filed charges against Adams.Stanley Brezenoff, who once chaired the city’s housing authority and board of correction, argued that the allegations that Adams pressured the fire department to open the Turkish consulate despite safety concerns were “not pretty, but I’m not sure that in and of itself warranted the extent of the criminal justice response”.“I can understand him trying to figure out ways to avoid the retribution,” said Brezenoff, who did not vote for Adams in the last election and has not decided who he will support in the Democratic primary in June: “I may not like that, but you wouldn’t say: ‘Impeach Adams’ because he’s currying favor with Washington, with Trump.”View image in fullscreenKelly Johnson, a mechanical engineer and marine veteran, used to encounter Adams, then a police officer, walking around Brooklyn and through mutual friends. Johnson said he felt that Adams “worked a lot with the community … I didn’t necessarily have anything really bad to say about him”.Johnson, who is Black, appreciates that Adams filled his administration with people of color and thinks that serving as only the city’s second Black mayor is especially difficult.“Everyone is going to make sure that if you’re not all the way clean, the slightest of things that you may do wrong – hell, you could buy a pack of cigarettes off of some government funding – you’ll get impeached,” said Johnson, 52, who lives in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood and would consider voting for Adams.There is a long list of candidates in the Democratic primary, and the former New York governor Andrew Cuomo is reportedly considering entering the race. Meanwhile, Adams has recently explored running in the Republican primary, the New York Times reported.In the 2021 election, Laurie Levinson, a retiree who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, voted for Maya Wiley, a former lawyer for Mayor Bill de Blasio who has not entered the new race.“There were people who were really, really qualified, like Maya Wiley,” said Levinson, who has not decided whom she will support this time. Like Trump, she said, “Adams is another moron … I can’t wait till the next mayoral races.”Patrick Canfield, a 31-year-old who works in publishing, sees Adams as corrupt and also dislikes his policies, such as increasing the police presence on the city’s subways.“I think we’re witnessing the crumbling of American institutions,” said Canfield, who also lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant. “Adams is just a microcosm of that.” More
Donald Trump’s re-election has “turbocharged” climate accountability efforts including laws which aim to force greenhouse gas emitters to pay damages for fueling dangerous global warming, say activists.These “make polluters pay” laws, led by blue states’ attorneys general, and climate accountability lawsuits will be a major front for climate litigation in the coming months and years. They are being challenged by red states and the fossil fuel industry, which are also fighting against accountability-focused climate lawsuits waged by governments and youth environmentalists.On day one of his second term, the US president affirmed his loyalty to the oil industry with a spate of executive actions to roll back environmental protections and a pledge to “drill, baby, drill”. The ferocity of his anti-environment agenda has inspired unprecedented interest in climate accountability, said Jamie Henn, director of the anti-oil and gas non-profit Fossil Free Media.“I think Trump’s election has turbocharged the ‘make polluters pay’ movement,” said Henn, who has been a leader in the campaign for a decade.More state lawmakers are writing legislative proposals to force oil companies to pay for climate disasters, while law firms are helping governments sue the industry. And youth activists are working on a new legal challenge to the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuel policies.Industry interests, however, are also attempting to kill those accountability efforts – and Trump may embolden them.The state of Vermont in May passed a first-of-its-kind law holding fossil fuel firms financially responsible for climate damages and New York passed a similar measure in December.The policies force oil companies to pay for climate impacts to which their emissions have contributed. Known as “climate superfund” bills, they are loosely modeled on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Superfund program.Similar bills are being considered in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Rhode Island, where a measure was introduced last week. A policy will also soon be introduced in California, where recent deadly wildfires have revived the call for the proposal after one was weighed last year.Minnesota and Oregon lawmakers are also considering introducing climate superfund acts. And since inauguration day, activists and officials in a dozen other states have expressed interest in doing the same, said Henn.“I think people are really latching on to this message and this approach right now,” Henn said. “It finally gives people a way to respond to climate disasters, and it’s something that we can do without the federal government.”View image in fullscreenProgressives introduced a federal climate superfund act last year. But with Republicans in control of the White House and both branches of Congress, it has a “less than zero chance of passing”, said Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin center for climate change law at Columbia University.The state laws are already facing pushback in the courts. This month, 22 red states and two oil trade groups sued to block New York’s climate superfund law.“This bill is an attempt by New York to step into the shoes of the federal government to regulate something that they have absolutely no business regulating,” West Virginia’s attorney general, John B McCuskey, who led the suit and whose state is a top coal producer, told Fox News.In late December, trade groups also filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s climate superfund act which, if successful, could potentially topple New York’s law.Fossil fuel interests were expected to challenge the climate superfund laws even if Kamala Harris was elected president and have been boosted by Trump’s win. “I think [they] feel like they have more of a shot with the executive backing them,” said Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign.It “would not be shocking” if Trump’s justice department were to file briefs in support of plaintiffs fighting the laws, said Gerrard, which could tip the scales in their favor.More legal challenges may also be on the way, and if additional states pass similar policies, they are expected to face similar lawsuits. But Henn says he is confident the laws will prevail.“I think Republicans think that they’re going to be able to just scare off local legislators or local attorneys general from pursuing a polluter pays agenda, but I think they’re wrong,” he said. “We have widespread public support for this approach. People don’t like the fossil fuel industry.”Over the last decade, states and municipalities have also brought more than 30 lawsuits against fossil fuel interests, accusing them of intentionally covering up the climate risks of their products while seeking damages for climate impacts.As Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies move the US in “precisely the wrong direction” on the climate crisis, they will “surely inspire yet more litigation”, said Gerrard. Michigan has announced plans to file a suit in the coming months, and more are likely to be rolled out this year.The cases face a formidable opponent in the fossil fuel industry, which has long attempted to fend off the lawsuits. Since January, courts have dismissed litigation filed by New Jersey, New York and a Maryland city and county, saying the states lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases.Other decisions have been positive for the plaintiffs. In three decisions since spring 2023, the supreme court turned down petitions from the fossil fuel industry to move the venue of the lawsuits from the state courts where they were originally filed, to federal courts which are seen as more friendly to the industry.Last week, a court in Colorado heard arguments over the same issue in a lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder. The outcome will have major implications for the future of the challenge.Trump has pledged to put an end to the wave of lawsuits, which he has called “frivolous”. During his first term, his administration filed influential briefs in the cases supporting the oil companies – something his justice department could do again. “It’s clear where their allegiances are,” said Gerrard. “And if they file briefs that would be good for the defendants.”Alyssa Johl, vice-president and general counsel of the Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports the lawsuits, said: “There is still a long road ahead for these efforts, but the path forward is clear.”“As communities grapple with the increasingly devastating consequences of big oil’s decades-long deception, the need for accountability is greater than ever,” she said.Youth-led litigationAnother climate-focused legal movement that is gaining steam: youth-led challenges against state and federal government agencies, for allegedly violating constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies.Trump’s second term presents an important moment for these lawsuits, said Julia Olson, founder of the law firm Our Children’s Trust, which brought the litigation. While some lawyers will fight each rollback individually, her strategy could “secure systemic change”, she said.View image in fullscreenOn Wednesday, a US judge rejected an Our Children’s Trust suit filed by California youth against the EPA, saying the challengers failed to show that they had been injured by the federal body. Olson said the judge “misapplied the law”.That same day, the most well-known Our Children’s Trust case, Juliana v United States – in which 21 young people sued the federal government – suffered a blow. In December, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the supreme court to send the case back to trial after it was tossed out. The US solicitor general has now filed a brief opposing their petition; Olson said it “mischaracterized” the case.Our Children’s Trust’s lawsuits have in other instances seen major victories. In December, Montana’s supreme court upheld a landmark climate ruling in favor of young plaintiffs, which said the state was violating youths’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting fossil fuel projects with no regard for global warming.That victory in a pro-fossil fuel red state, said Olson, inspires hope that children could win a lawsuit against a conservative, oil and gas-friendly federal government.She is working on another lawsuit against the Trump administration, whose “brazen” anti-environment agenda could bolster the challengers’ arguments, she said.“These policies will kill children … and by making his agenda obvious, I think that he helps us make that clear.” More
Though we might find it hard to imagine, we cannot now rule it out: the possibility of systemic collapse in the United States. The degradation of federal government by Donald Trump and Elon Musk could trigger a series of converging and compounding crises, leading to social, financial and industrial failure.There are several possible mechanisms. Let’s start with an obvious one: their assault on financial regulation. Trump’s appointee to the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Russell Vought, has suspended all the agency’s activity, slashed its budget and could be pursuing Musk’s ambition to “delete” the bureau. The CFPB was established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis, to protect people from the predatory activity that helped trigger the crash. The signal to the financial sector could not be clearer: “Fill your boots, boys.” A financial crisis in the US would immediately become a global crisis.But the hazards extend much further. Musk, calling for a “wholesale removal of regulations”, sends his child soldiers to attack government departments stabilising the entire US system. Regulations, though endlessly maligned by corporate and oligarchic propaganda, are all that protect us from multiple disasters. In its initial impacts, deregulation is class war, hitting the poorest and the middle classes at the behest of the rich. As the effects proliferate, it becomes an assault on everyone’s wellbeing.To give a couple of examples, the fires in Los Angeles this year are expected to cost, on various estimates, between $28bn and $75bn in insured losses alone. Estimates of total losses range from $160bn to $275bn. These immense costs are likely to be dwarfed by future climate disasters. As Trump rips down environmental protections and trashes federal responsiveness, the impacts will spiral. They could include non-linear shocks to either the insurance sector or homeowners, escalating into US-wide economic and social crisis.If (or when) another pandemic strikes, which could involve a pathogen more transmissible and even more deadly than Covid-19 (which has so far killed 1.2 million people in the US), it will hit a nation whose defences have been stood down. Basic public health measures, such as vaccination and quarantine, might be inaccessible to most. A pandemic in these circumstances could end millions of lives and cause spontaneous economic shutdown.Because there is little public understanding of how complex systems operate, collapse tends to take almost everyone by surprise. Complex systems (such as economies and human societies) have characteristics that make them either resilient or fragile. A system that loses its diversity, redundancy, modularity (the degree of compartmentalisation), its “circuit breakers” (such as government regulations) and backup strategies (alternative means of achieving a goal) is less resilient than one which retains these features. So is a system whose processes become synchronised. In a fragile system, shocks can amplify more rapidly and become more transmissible: a disruption in one place proliferates into disaster everywhere. This, as Andy Haldane, former chief economist at the Bank of England, has deftly explained, is what happened to the financial system in 2008.A consistent feature of globalised capitalism is an unintentional assault on systemic resilience. As corporations pursue similar profit-making strategies, and financialisation and digitisation permeate every enterprise, the economic system loses its diversity and starts to synchronise. As they consolidate, and the biggest conglomerates become hubs to which many other enterprises are connected (think of Amazon or the food and farming giant Cargill), major failures could cascade at astonishing speed.As every enterprise seeks efficiencies, the system loses its redundancy. As trading rules and physical infrastructure are standardised (think of those identical container terminals, shipping and trucking networks), the system loses both modularity and backup strategies. When a system has lost its resilience, a small external shock can trigger cascading collapse.Paradoxically, with his trade wars and assault on global standards, Trump could help to desynchronise the system and reintroduce some modularity. But, as he simultaneously rips down circuit breakers, undermines preparedness and treats Earth systems as an enemy to be crushed, the net effect is likely to make human systems more prone to collapse.At least in the short term, the far right tends to benefit from chaos and disruption: this is another of the feedback loops that can turn a crisis into a catastrophe. Trump presents himself as the hero who will save the nation from the ruptures he has caused, while deflecting the blame on to scapegoats.Alternatively, if collapse appears imminent, Trump and his team might not wish to respond. Like many of the ultra-rich, key figures in or around the administration entertain the kind of psychopathic fantasies indulged by Ayn Rand in her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in which plutocrats leave the proles to die in the inferno they’ve created, while they migrate to their New Zealand bunkers, Mars or the ocean floor (forgetting, as they always do, that their wealth, power and survival is entirely dependent on other people). Or they yearn for a different apocalypse, in which the rest of us roast while they party with Jesus in his restored kingdom.Every government should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. But, as they do with climate and ecological breakdown, freshwater depletion, the possibility of food system collapse, antibiotic resistance and nuclear proliferation, most governments, including the UK’s, now seem to hope for the best and leave it there. So, though there is no substitute for effective government, we must seek to create our own backup systems.Start with this principle: don’t face your fears alone. Make friends, meet your neighbours, set up support networks, help those who are struggling. Since the dawn of humankind, those with robust social networks have been more resilient than those without.Discuss what we confront, explore the means by which we might respond. Through neighbourhood networks, start building a deliberative, participatory democracy, to resolve at least some of the issues that can be fixed at the local level. If you can, secure local resources for the community (in England this will be made easier with the forthcoming community right to buy, like Scotland’s).From democratised neighbourhoods, we might seek to develop a new politics, along the lines proposed by Murray Bookchin, in which decisions are passed upwards, not downwards, with the aim of creating a political system not only more democratic than those we currently suffer, but which also permits more diversity, redundancy and modularity.Yes, we also – and urgently – need national and global action, brokered by governments. But it’s beginning to look as if no one has our backs. Prepare for the worst.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist More
