More stories

  • in

    Kushner Deal in Serbia Follows Earlier Interest by Trump

    More than a decade ago, before running for president, Donald Trump expressed interest in developing the same site in Belgrade that his son-in-law now plans to invest $500 million in rebuilding.The plan by Jared Kushner and his business partners to redevelop a prized location in Serbia’s capital, Belgrade, echoes interest from Donald J. Trump a decade ago in pursuing a deal for the site and a similar proposal pushed during his White House term by a top aide now working with Mr. Kushner, a review of the project shows.The tentative agreement between the Kushner team and the Serbian government would grant Mr. Kushner’s investment firm a 99-year lease, at no charge, and the right to build a luxury hotel and apartment complex and a museum on the site of the former headquarters of the Yugoslav Ministry of Defense in Belgrade, which was bombed by NATO in 1999. A draft outline of the agreement was provided to The New York Times by a Serbian official.In 2013, two years before he began running for president, Mr. Trump — Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law — told a top Serbian government official that he wanted to build a luxury hotel on the site. Associates of the Trump Organization traveled to Belgrade to inspect the location. The project did not come together before Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, and after being sworn in he vowed to not do any new foreign deals.But developing the site would again draw interest from Mr. Trump’s circle.Richard Grenell, whom Mr. Trump had appointed as a special envoy in the Balkans, pushed a related plan during the Trump administration that Serbia and the United States jointly work to rebuild the Defense Ministry site. He argued in favor of using American investments to transform the Belgrade site while he was still serving in his official capacity as an American diplomat in 2020, according to transcripts and a recording of remarks made during several government news conferences.Mr. Kushner said in an interview on Sunday that he had never discussed the Belgrade project with Mr. Trump and was not aware of his father-in-law’s prior interest in redeveloping the site.“I had no idea my father-in-law had been interested in that region, and I doubt he has any awareness of this deal we are working on,” Mr. Kushner said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    What Really Causes Poor Performance in School

    More from our inbox:Becoming a Republican to Vote Against TrumpCountering Propaganda From the Fossil Fuel Industry Wayne Miller/MagnumTo the Editor:Re “We’re Not Battling the School Issues That Matter,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, March 7):I completely agree with Mr. Kristof’s column. The situation is serious, not only for education but also for our embattled democracy.I would like to add some nuance. I have been working on a state-by-state analysis of the possible influence of racism, specifically anti-Black racism, on educational achievement.What I have found so far indicates that some children are taught quite well: those in private schools, of course; Asian American children (particularly those whose families are from India); white children of families prosperous enough to be ineligible for the National School Lunch Program; children of college-educated parents; and Hispanic children who are not English-language learners.Some students are in groups that are not likely to be taught to read effectively: Native Americans, children who are poor enough to be eligible for the National School Lunch Program and Black children.None of this will be news to Mr. Kristof. What is surprising to me is the sheer extent and arbitrary nature of the failure by school authorities. Almost everywhere that urban schools, in particular, are failing, socioeconomically similar children are being taught much more effectively in the nearest suburban districts.Part of the reason is money: Per-student expenditure is associated with educational achievement.But part of the problem — most of it — is a matter of administrative decisions: placing the best teachers in schools with the “best” students; equipping schools, in effect, in accordance with parental income; offering more gifted and talented classes to white students — all the perhaps unconscious manifestations of everyday racism.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    What Trump’s TikTok Flip-Flop Tells America

    When the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly last Wednesday to pass a bill that would require TikTok to divest its Chinese ownership or face an American ban, it provided a glimmer of hope in a dreary political time. This is exactly what a nation should do when it’s getting serious about the national security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China.It makes no strategic sense for America to permit one of its chief foreign adversaries to exercise control over an app that both vacuums up the personal information of its more than 150 million American users and gives that adversary the opportunity to shape and mold the information those users receive.Indeed, in one of the more astonishing public relations blunders in modern memory, TikTok made its critics’ case for them when it urged users to contact Congress to save the app. The resulting flood of angry calls demonstrated exactly how TikTok can trigger a public response and gave the lie to the idea that the app did not have clear (and essentially instantaneous) political influence.Moreover, the vote demonstrated that it’s still possible to forge something approaching a foreign policy consensus on at least some issues. When a threat becomes big enough — and obvious enough — the American government can still act.Or can it? The bill is now slowing down in the Senate, and there is real doubt whether it will pass. The app, after all, is phenomenally popular, and Congress is not often in the business of restricting popular things.But there’s another reason to question the bill’s prospects. And it not only threatens this particular piece of legislation, but also is yet another indication of the high stakes of the 2024 election: Donald Trump has abruptly flip-flopped from supporting the TikTok ban to opposing it — and that flip-flop is more important than most people realize.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Biden’s $53 Million February Haul Fuels Money Edge Over Trump

    President Biden’s re-election campaign said on Sunday that it had raised more than $53 million in February together with the Democratic Party, an influx of cash that is expected to widen the Democrats’ cash advantage in a general-election contest against former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Biden, the Democratic Party and their shared accounts now have $155 million cash on hand — up from $130 million at the end of January, his campaign said. The campaign credited strong support from small-dollar donors for its February fund-raising.So far in the race, Mr. Biden and the Democrats have built a substantial fund-raising advantage over Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee, which reported around $40 million in cash on hand between them at the end of January. The Trump campaign has not released its February fund-raising figures but has said it also had its strongest month among small donors — topping the $22.3 million raised last August. Mr. Trump and the R.N.C. formed a formal joint fund-raising account only last week.“The fact that we have $155 million in cash on hand — which is 100 percent going to building out the campaign and focused on the six or seven states that are going to determine the outcome of this election — is just a huge competitive advantage,” Jeffrey Katzenberg, a co-chair of the Biden campaign, said in an interview.Mr. Trump has been schmoozing with donors at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Fla., trying to lessen the financial disparity he faces against Mr. Biden. The former president is also confronting the financial pressure of his legal bills, which are being paid by one of his political action committees.Both campaigns must disclose details of their finances on March 20, with a more complete picture due on April 15.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Says Some Migrants Are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses

    Former President Donald J. Trump, at an event on Saturday ostensibly meant to boost his preferred candidate in Ohio’s Republican Senate primary race, gave a freewheeling speech in which he used dehumanizing language to describe immigrants, maintained a steady stream of insults and vulgarities and predicted that the United States would never have another election if he did not win in November.With his general-election matchup against President Biden in clear view, Mr. Trump once more doubled down on the doomsday vision of the country that has animated his third presidential campaign and energized his base during the Republican primary.The dark view resurfaced throughout his speech. While discussing the U.S. economy and its auto industry, Mr. Trump promised to place tariffs on cars manufactured abroad if he won in November. He added: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”For nearly 90 minutes outside the Dayton International Airport in Vandalia, Ohio, Mr. Trump delivered a discursive speech, replete with attacks and caustic rhetoric. He noted several times that he was having difficulty reading the teleprompter.The former president opened his speech by praising the people serving sentences in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Mr. Trump, who faces criminal charges tied to his efforts to overturn his election loss, called them “hostages” and “unbelievable patriots,” commended their spirit and vowed to help them if elected in November. He also repeated his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, which have been discredited by a mountain of evidence.If he did not win this year’s presidential election, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t think you’re going to have another election, or certainly not an election that’s meaningful.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Assessing Donald Trump’s Claims That He Would Have Done Better

    The war in Ukraine. Hamas’s attack on Israel. Inflation. The former president has insisted that none would have occurred if he had remained in office after 2020.Aside from falsely insisting that he did not lose the 2020 election, former President Donald J. Trump has peddled a related set of theories centered on one question: What would the world have looked like had he stayed in office?Mr. Trump, in rallies and interviews, has repeatedly asserted — more than a dozen times since December, by one rough count — that three distinct events, both in the United States and abroad, are a product of the 2020 election.“There wouldn’t have been an attack on Israel. There wouldn’t have been an attack on Ukraine. And we wouldn’t have had any inflation,” he declared during a rally in January in Las Vegas. The next month in South Carolina, he baselessly claimed that Democrats had admitted as much.Politicians routinely entertain what-ifs, which are impossible to prove or rebut with certainty. But Mr. Trump’s suppositions underscore the ways in which he often airs questionable claims without explanation and which might not be supported by the broader context.And unlike simply attacking an opponent’s record or making a campaign promise, such alternative realities enjoy the benefit of being untestable.“People already grapple with how to hold elected officials accountable,” said Tabitha Bonilla, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University who has researched campaign promises and accountability. “And what is super interesting here is that there’s no way to hold someone accountable at all, because there’s no way to measure any of this.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Fani Willis Hangs Onto Trump Case, but More Turbulence Lies Ahead

    A fresh array of problems are in store for Ms. Willis and her prosecution of Donald Trump, one of the most significant state criminal cases in American history.After revelations of Fani T. Willis’s romance with a subordinate sent the Georgia criminal case against Donald J. Trump down a two-month detour worthy of a soap opera, a judge’s ruling on Friday resolved a major cliffhanger. Ms. Willis could continue prosecuting the case, so long as her ex-boyfriend withdrew from it.But the resignation hours later of the former boyfriend, Nathan J. Wade, whom Ms. Willis hired as a special prosector, only settled so much. A fresh and complicated array of problems lies ahead for Ms. Willis, and for one of the most significant state criminal cases in American history.“Her troubles are far from over,” Clark D. Cunningham, a law professor and ethics specialist at Georgia State University, said in an email on Friday.The defense effort to disqualify Ms. Willis began in early January, upending the case and making it unlikely to reach trial before the November rematch between Mr. Trump and President Biden. Any attempts to appeal Friday’s ruling by Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court could delay matters even further.Republicans have smelled blood. The G.O.P. lawmakers who dominate Georgia politics have created new ways to investigate Ms. Willis, which could potentially lead to her removal from office. And last week, a young lawyer named Courtney Kramer, a former intern in the Trump White House, announced that she would run against Ms. Willis in this year’s race for district attorney.Ms. Kramer’s campaign, while unlikely to succeed in heavily Democratic Fulton County, could amplify criticism of Ms. Willis and the case, which charges Mr. Trump and some of his allies with conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Highlights of the Judge’s Ruling on Fani Willis in the Georgia Trump Case

    A judge overseeing the criminal election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump in Georgia declined on Friday to disqualify the district attorney leading the prosecution, Fani T. Willis, over a romantic relationship she had with the lawyer she hired to manage the case, Nathan J. Wade.But even as the judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, rejected the claim by one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Mike Roman, that the relationship raised an actual conflict of interest by giving Ms. Willis a financial stake in the case, the judge also ruled that it raised “a significant appearance of impropriety.”The judge gave her two choices: either Mr. Wade leaves her prosecution team, or she and her office must step aside from the case.Here are highlights from the 23-page ruling:A combination of factors raises a legitimate question.Alone, each of the two main issues raised by the defense — that Mr. Wade is being paid by the hour, and that two members of the prosecution team were having a relationship — would not be a problem. But combined, they raise an deeper issue, the judge wrote.Financial gain was neither proven nor shown to be a motivating factor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More