Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Sohei Kamiya Brings Trump-Style Populism to Japan’s Election

      by

      With his calls to limit foreign workers, fight globalism and put “Japanese First,” Sohei Kamiya has brought a fiery right-wing populism to Japan’s election on Sunday.The crowd of 800 people were younger than those who typically attend political rallies in Japan. But they had gathered in the shadow of a smoking volcano to hear a populist upstart in Sunday’s parliamentary elections whose heated campaign speech would sound familiar to voters in the United States or Europe.They burst into cheers when Sohei Kamiya climbed to the top of a campaign truck decorated in the orange colors of his fledgling political party, Sanseito. Grabbing a microphone, he told them that Japan faced threats from shadowy globalists, lawbreaking foreigners and a corrupt domestic political establishment that was stifling the younger generation with taxes. His solution: a nationalist agenda that he calls “Japanese First.”“Japan must be a society that serves the interests of the Japanese people,” Mr. Kamiya told his applauding audience.The crowds who turn out to hear Mr. Kamiya speak are younger than those who typically attend political rallies in Japan.Ko Sasaki for The New York TimesMr. Kamiya founded the party and is one of its two sitting members in the Upper House. Elected to a six-year term in 2022, he is not on the ballot himself this year. But he has crossed Japan to campaign on behalf of Sanseito’s 54 candidates, a large number that reflects the new party’s big ambitions.Opponents and many domestic media reports have accused him of being xenophobic, saying he is directing public dissatisfaction with high prices and stagnant wages at Japan’s growing population of foreign residents. At campaign stops, small numbers of protesters hold up signs saying “no hate” toward non-Japanese.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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Rubio Restricts U.S. Criticism of Tainted Foreign Elections

      by

      A State Department cable telling officials to avoid comments on the “fairness or integrity” of most elections continues a U.S. turn away from promoting democratic values abroad.The State Department will sharply restrict its commentary on the legitimacy of foreign elections to “rare” occasions, according to a new directive from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that continues the Trump administration’s turn away from promoting democracy abroad.In an official cable to diplomatic and consular posts on Thursday, Mr. Rubio said that public comments on foreign elections “should be brief, focused on congratulating the winning candidate and, when appropriate, noting shared foreign policy interests.”Such messages, the agency memo added, “should avoid opining on the fairness or integrity of an electoral process, its legitimacy, or the democratic values of the country in question.” The directive applied to the department’s domestic offices and foreign posts, Mr. Rubio said.The New York Times obtained the text of the cable, which was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.It has long been standard practice for the U.S. government to call out foreign elections tainted by fraud, intimidation and other tactics. Doing so puts pressure on corrupt or unethical governments, encourages democratic opposition movements and bolsters America’s moral standing, diplomats say.As it had done in previous administrations, the State Department under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. criticized foreign votes frequently, including what it called a “pantomime election” in Nicaragua, “election fraud” in Belarus and “democratic backsliding” after a disputed vote in the Republic of 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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Gabbard Claims Obama Administration Tried to Undermine Trump in 2016

      by

      Democrats denounced a report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as politically motivated and error-ridden.The Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Friday issued the latest in a series of reports from the Trump administration attempting to undermine the eight-year-old assessment that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016.Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said the information she was releasing showed a “treasonous conspiracy in 2016” by top Obama administration officials to harm Mr. Trump.Democrats denounced the effort as politically motivated, error-ridden and in contradiction with previous reviews of the assessment.Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called Ms. Gabbard’s accusation of treason “baseless.”Intelligence agencies and Senate investigators spent years reviewing the work, and concluded that during the 2016 election, the Russians conducted probing operations of election systems to see if they could change vote outcomes. While they extracted voter registration data in Illinois and Arizona, and probed in other states, there was no evidence that Moscow’s hackers attempted to actually change votes.The Obama administration assessment never contended that Russian hackers manipulated votes.Russia also conducted influence operations to change public opinion. That included using fake social media posts to sow division among Americans and leaking documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee to denigrate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.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

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      When Getting Fired Is Only the Beginning for Federal Workers

      by

      One thing is clear from a reporter’s conversations with laid-off federal workers this year: The cuts have been anything but straightforward and efficient.The week after Martin Basch was fired from his federal job in February, he started applying for state unemployment benefits in Ohio, his home state, determined to find a new path.But he soon found himself facing an unexpected snag: He kept receiving paychecks, beyond his official termination date of March 14.This might not seem like a problem. But for Basch, it was a sign of the chaotic and costly limbo in which he and many other federal workers have found themselves as President Trump seeks to streamline the federal government.I’ve been talking to federal workers for months about the mass firings’ impact on them, and one thing has been clear: The cuts have been anything but straightforward and efficient.For many, the layoff was just the beginning. Workers have found themselves locked in a Kafkaesque cycle of getting fired and rehired, and some have struggled to track down the documentation they need to move on.Basic questions, elusive answersTheir terminations came abruptly, and with little explanation. Legal challenges have added more chaos as judges ordered thousands of fired workers to be temporarily reinstated, and higher courts have reversed some of those decisions.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Seeds of Democratic Revival Have Already Been Sown

      by

      Now is an agonizing time for Democrats. Some days are dominated by feelings of despair, others by recriminations. But in fact the Democratic Party is on the cusp of a renaissance if it plays its cards right.The claim that a revival may be near at hand might seem bizarre, given that the party is at its weakest point in at least half a century. It is all but shut out of power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Its popularity is at a record low, according to a report by Third Way, a center-left think tank and advocacy organization. Since 2022, according to Gallup, more Americans identify and lean Republican than Democratic, the first time that has been true since 1991. Leading figures in the Democratic Party, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, call the Democratic brand “toxic.” Democratic support has collapsed among non-college-educated voters, who make up some 64 percent of electorate. Voters are leaving blue states for red ones. And if that were not enough, based on current demographic trends, blue states will lose up to a dozen electoral votes after the 2030 census.Despite this, Democrats have an opening. The Trump administration’s wall-to-wall incompetence, and the human suffering that is resulting from it, will become more and more obvious. Disenchantment with President Trump and his party is already spreading. But can Democrats exploit the opportunity?To help figure out an answer, we conducted written interviews with 19 Democrats, from progressives to centrists. They included officeholders, analysts, strategists and state party chairs chosen because they represent a range of views and experiences and have given careful thought to how the Democratic Party needs to change. We also plowed through a stack of white papers, articles and published interviews.These Democrats agree that attacking Mr. Trump is not sufficient; the party must make a new offer to Americans. They also agree on a main theme of that new offer: making the American dream affordable for the middle class and especially the working class. But Democrats across the ideological spectrum, not just on the party’s right flank, also recognize that their economic message will fall on deaf ears if they cannot re-enter the cultural mainstream and stop talking down to ordinary people.Rahm Emanuel, a former Democratic representative in Congress and mayor of Chicago who served as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, was blunt: “If you’re outside the mainstream on culture, the public will never trust you enough to listen to your ideas on economic ‘kitchen table’ issues.”When It Comes to ‘Prosperity’, Republicans Have an Edge. But That Hasn’t Always Been True.“Which political party do you think will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous?”

      Source: GallupBy The New York TimesWe 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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Newsom Wants California to Counter Texas on Redistricting

      by

      Gov. Gavin Newsom says California should redraw its own congressional districts if Texas tries to gerrymander its lines. His idea faces long odds.When Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, urged voters to “terminate gerrymandering” 15 years ago, most welcomed the chance to take some power away from politicians.In 2010, more than 60 percent of voters approved a measure that put the job of drawing California’s congressional map in the hands of an independent commission instead of with partisan lawmakers.Now one of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s successors, Gov. Gavin Newsom, is threatening to blow up California’s system for a partisan purpose.As Texas considers an extraordinary middecade redrawing of its maps to help Republicans win more seats in Congress and to satisfy President Trump, Mr. Newsom has said California should counter with a similar move to help Democrats.Never mind that legal scholars have described his proposals as far-fetched. The longest of long shots. A path that would require political gymnastics and subvert California’s high-minded approach.Mr. Newsom, in suggesting that California play hardball politics, seems determined to show that he is a Democratic warrior trying to beat Republicans at their own game.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Legislature Special Session Will Answer Questions About Redistricting, Floods

      by

      A special session of the Texas Legislature will address the deadly floods in Hill Country, but the fireworks will come from President Trump’s demand for a newly gerrymandered House map.A special legislative session in Texas, set to begin on Monday in the wake of the flood in Texas Hill Country, is shaping up to be an emotionally raw diversion into what Democrats say is the gerrymandering the state’s House districts.Lawmakers will also take up questions about the handling of the devastating July 4 floods, which killed more than 130 people, including at least 37 children. Nearly 100 Texans remain missing.But that bipartisan imperative will be complicated by a hard-edge partisan agenda for the session, dominated by President Trump’s push for the Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional district maps to be more favorable for Republicans. He wants his party to gain five seats in Texas in the 2026 midterm elections to help retain control of the U.S. House.Gov. Greg Abbott has asked lawmakers to also consider a dozen other items during the 30-day special session, including new hard-line conservative proposals to ban mail-order abortion pills, lower property taxes and regulate intoxicating hemp. And he wants lawmakers to consider a state constitutional amendment that would empower the state attorney general to prosecute election crimes.“It’s a wild situation,” said State Representative Jon Rosenthal, a Houston-area Democrat. “The past sessions I’ve been a part of have been of a very limited scope.”Most Texans’ attention will probably lie with the July 4 flood and what can be done to improve warning systems, such as placing outdoor sirens along flood-prone waterways like the Guadalupe River, where most of the deaths occurred.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

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Morally Offensive and Fiscally Reckless’: 3 Writers on Trump’s Big Gamble

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Nate Silver, the author of “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything” and the newsletter Silver Bulletin, and Lis Smith, a Democratic communications strategist and author of the memoir “Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story,” to discuss the aftermath of the passage of President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill.Frank Bruni: Let’s start with that megabill, the bigness of which made the consequences of its enactment hard to digest quickly. Now that we’ve had time to, er, chew it over, I’m wondering if you think Democrats are right to say — to hope — that it gives them a whole new traction in next year’s midterms.I mean, the most significant Medicaid cuts kick in after that point. Could Trump and other Republicans avoid paying a price for them in 2026? Or did they get much too cute in constructing the legislation and building in that delay and create the possibility of disaster for themselves in both 2026 and 2028, when the bill’s effect on Medicaid, as well as on other parts of the safety net, will have taken hold?Lis Smith: If history is any guide, Republicans will pay a price for these cuts in the midterms. In 2010, Democrats got destroyed for passing Obamacare, even though it would be years until it was fully implemented. In 2018, Republicans were punished just for trying to gut it. Voters don’t like politicians messing with their health care. They have been pretty consistent in sending that message.I’d argue that Democrats have an even more potent message in 2026 — it’s not just that Republicans are messing with health care, it’s that they are cutting it to fund tax cuts for the richest Americans.Nate Silver: What I wonder about is Democrats’ ability to sustain focus on any given issue. At the risk of overextrapolating from my home turf in New York, Zohran Mamdani just won a massive upset in the Democratic mayoral primary by focusing on affordability. And a message on the Big, Beautiful Bill could play into that. But the Democratic base is often more engaged by culture war issues, or by messages that are about Trump specifically — and Trump isn’t on the ballot in 2026 — rather than Republicans broadly. The polls suggest that the Big, Beautiful Bill is extremely unpopular, but a lot of those negative views are 1) among people who are extremely politically engaged and already a core Democratic constituency, or 2) snap opinions among the disengaged that are subject to change. Democrats will need to ensure that voters are still thinking about the bill next November, and tying it to actual or potential changes that affect them directly and adversely.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