Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares95 Views

      in Elections

      The Republicans in Congress Who Are Opting to Self-Deport From Washington

      by

      Feeling out of step with President Trump’s G.O.P., Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Don Bacon are deciding to retire.Senator Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican, knows a thing or two about the power of health care at the ballot box.In 2011, he became the speaker of the State House in North Carolina after a wave of populist anger over the Affordable Care Act swept Republicans into office across the country. In 2014, he defeated the state’s incumbent Democratic senator as voters who saw the election as a referendum on government competence in the wake of the health care law’s messy rollout handed the Senate back to Republicans.So Tillis’s refusal to back President Trump’s signature domestic policy bill could be interpreted as a clanging alarm for a party that doesn’t want to hear it.“Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betraying a promise,” Tillis said on the Senate floor on Sunday, blaming “amateurs” in the White House for encouraging Trump to back a bill that Tillis said would kick some 663,000 people off Medicaid in North Carolina alone.Tillis had found himself squeezed between a key lesson of his career — don’t mess with voters’ health care — and President Trump’s biggest domestic priority. With Democrats eager to hold the measure’s deep Medicaid cuts against him, and Trump blasting him for wavering, Tillis decided there was only one option left: self-deportation from Washington (also known as retirement).And he’s not the only one, as congressional Republicans reckon with the fact that even a modicum of independence from Trump can be politically untenable in their branch of government.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 Shares145 Views

      in Elections

      Thom Tillis, Republican Senator, Won’t Seek Re-election Amid Trump’s Primary Threats

      by

      The day after President Trump castigated Senator Thom Tillis for opposing the bill carrying the president’s domestic agenda, the North Carolina Republican said he would not seek a third term.Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, announced on Sunday that he would not seek re-election next year, a day after President Trump threatened to back a primary challenger against him because Mr. Tillis had said he opposed the bill carrying Mr. Trump’s domestic agenda.Mr. Tillis’s departure will set off a highly competitive race in North Carolina that could be pivotal in the battle for control of the closely divided Senate. It was the latest congressional retirement to underscore the rightward shift of the G.O.P. and the reality that there is little room for any Republican to break with Mr. Trump.“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” Mr. Tillis said in a lengthy statement on his decision.The announcement came as the Senate was wading into a debate over the large-scale tax cut and domestic policy bill that Mr. Trump has demanded be delivered to his desk by July 4. Mr. Tillis announced his decision the day after issuing a statement saying he could not in good conscience support the measure, which he said would lead to tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for his state, costing people Medicaid coverage and critical health services.He was one of just two Republicans who voted Saturday night against bringing up the bill.Mr. Tillis has been privately critical of the legislation and cautioned colleagues of the political downsides for them if they back it. In a closed-door meeting with his Republican colleagues last week, he warned that the sweeping legislation could be an albatross for the party in 2026.The president’s allies celebrated Mr. Tillis’ announcement as more proof of Mr. Trump’s political strength. “Don’t Cross Trump,” Jason Miller, who served as a top adviser for the president’s re-election campaign, wrote on social media. “The voters gave him a mandate to implement a specific agenda, and they want everyone to get behind his efforts!”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

    • 75 Shares137 Views

      in Elections

      We Shouldn’t Have Billionaires, Mamdani Says

      by

      Appearing on “Meet the Press” days after the mayoral primary, Zohran Mamdani defended his proposals to make New York City more affordable and to increase taxes on the wealthy.Zohran Mamdani, who campaigned for mayor on the theme of making New York City more affordable, said in a major national television interview that during a time of rising inequality, “I don’t think we should have billionaires.”Mr. Mamdani, the likely winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, said in an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that more equality is needed across the city, state and country, and that he looked forward to working “with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of them.”At the same time, Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, asserted that he is not a communist, a response to an attack from President Trump. “I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I’m from, who I am — ultimately because he wants to distract from what I’m fighting for,” Mr. Mamdani said.But one question he continued to sidestep was whether he would denounce the phrase “globalize the intifada,” after he declined to condemn it during a podcast interview before the primary.The slogan is a rallying cry for liberation among Palestinians and their supporters, but many Jews consider it a call to violence invoking resistance movements of the 1980s and 2000s.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 Shares145 Views

      in Elections

      A Reckless Judicial Nomination Puts the Senate to the Test

      by

      Republicans in the Senate may be on the verge of their most consequential capitulation to President Trump so far — and I am not talking about the deficit-busting “big, beautiful bill.”On Wednesday, when the eyes of the nation were still fixed on the Middle East, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Trump’s nomination of Emil Bove to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which covers cases from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands.Bove’s nomination is yet another sign that Trump’s second term is beginning (yes, it’s still only the beginning) very differently from his first. Just as he wants sycophants and yes men staffing his administration, he’s now moving toward staffing the judiciary with the same kind of person: judges who will do whatever it takes to curry favor with a president who values fealty above all.By now, Americans are accustomed to the devolution of Trump’s team. Serious people populated the highest levels of the executive branch at the start of Trump’s first term, but now some of the most important positions in American government are held by cranks like Kash Patel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth.But as bad as those men are, their influence is ultimately limited — first by Trump himself, who feels completely free to overrule and disregard any decision they make for the sake of his own interests and whims, and second by time itself. Trump’s political appointees won’t be in American government for long, and while they can inflict lasting damage during their short tenures, the next president can replace them and at least start the process of repair.Emil Bove, however, would be a problem for a very long time. At 44 years old, he’s been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. That means he’d long outlast Trump in the halls of American power, and if past performance is any measure of future results, we should prepare for a judge who would do what he deems necessary to accomplish his political objectives — law and morality be damned.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 Shares143 Views

      in Elections

      Mamdani, Trump and the End of the Old Politics

      by

      Mamdani, Trump and the End of the Old PoliticsThe MSNBC anchor — and native New Yorker — Chris Hayes considers what Democrats can learn from the mayoral primary.This is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing to the show on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.The Democratic primary that just wrapped up in New York was a collision between two very different candidates on almost every level: ideologically, outsider versus insider and name recognition. But it was also a collision that I think matters, for much beyond New York City politics, of two very different theories of attention.Andrew Cuomo ran a campaign that was based on a tried-and-true strategy of buying attention. He had this gigantic super PAC with tens of millions of dollars purchasing all the advertising money can buy, absolutely dominating airwaves with negative ads about Zohran Mamdani.Archived clip: In his own words, Zohran Mamdani wants to defund the police.Archived clip: Zohran Mamdani is a 33-year-old dangerously inexperienced legislator who has passed just three bills.Archived clip: Zohran Mamdani, a risk New York can’t afford.And then you had Mamdani, who was running a campaign on a very different theory of attention, a theory of viral attention, a campaign built on these vertical videos that, if you opened Instagram, if you opened TikTok, and you were in any way connected to his ideas or to New York City, this was all you saw.Archived clip of Kareem Rahma: So what’s your take?Zohran Mamdani: That I should be the mayor.Archived clip of Mamdani: New York is suffering from a crisis, and it’s called halalflation.Archived clip of Mamdani: Did you know that Andrew Cuomo gutted the pensions for hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers?Archived clip of Mamdani: Mr. Cuomo, and furthermore, the name is Mamdani. M-A-M-D-A-N-I. You should learn how to say it.”Attention works differently now. This is one of the core political theses of this entire podcast. It is laced through so many of these episodes.You just watched these two incredibly different attentional strategies collide. Cuomo got flattened. He got flattened. It was not close.There are things you cannot learn about how to win elections in other places from an off-year June Democratic primary in New York City using rank-choice voting.But there are things you can learn about how attention works right now — and that’s in a large part the subject of this conversation.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

    • 88 Shares156 Views

      in Elections

      Why a Bill Nobody Loves Feels Inevitable

      by

      President Trump’s megabill makes many Republicans uncomfortable, but that probably won’t stop it from becoming law.The path for the One Big Beautiful Bill, as President Trump calls his signature domestic legislation, has not been linear.The bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts and cut into the social safety net to pay for it, barely passed the House. It was heavily rewritten in the Senate. In recent days, various provisions have been rejected by a key Senate official whose job is to make sure that lawmakers color inside the lines of such budget bills, leaving senators scrambling to add back in what they can.Then there’s the fact that, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, nobody really loves the bill. But this is Trump’s Washington. And trifling matters like not knowing quite what’s going to be in the bill — and not particularly liking it — will probably not stop Senate Republicans from voting for it, potentially as soon as this weekend.I asked Catie, who has covered every twist and turn of this bill’s winding path, to explain how it became a policy grab bag, why it makes so many Republicans uncomfortable — and why none of that probably matters when it comes to its chances of becoming law.As we speak, Republicans are scrambling to save various provisions that the Senate parliamentarian believes run afoul of the rules governing budget bills. You’ve covered Congress since the first Trump administration, and you have seen a lot of sausage-making in that time. Is it always, uh, like 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

    • 150 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyer Who Pushed Bogus Trump Elector Scheme Is Disbarred in New York

      by

      Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the plan to use phony slates of pro-Trump electors to overturn the 2020 election, was indefinitely barred from practicing in the state last year.Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer who helped spearhead a brazen legal effort to use phony slates of pro-Trump electors to overturn the 2020 presidential election, was disbarred in New York on Thursday, cementing an indefinite ban issued last year.The decision by a New York State appellate court concluded a strange legal journey for a Harvard-educated lawyer who worked for former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida and later evolved into a supporter of President Trump.In a seven-page opinion, the court cited a criminal racketeering case centered on the fake electors in Georgia, where in 2023 Mr. Chesebro pleaded guilty.The New York court said Thursday that Mr. Chesebro’s “criminal conduct — conspiracy to commit filing false documents — is unquestionably serious” and that he had undercut “the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.”Mr. Chesebro, 64, could not immediately be reached for comment, and lawyers who have represented him did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The decision came nearly eight months after Mr. Chesebro was indefinitely barred from practicing law in New York because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The theory that Mr. Chesebro pushed centered on the certification process carried out on Jan. 6, 2021. He posited that Mike Pence, then the vice president, could count bogus slates of electors for Mr. Trump rather than the real ones from states that backed Joseph R. Biden Jr., or otherwise use the existence of the pro-Trump electors to delay the process.In 2022, before Mr. Chesebro was indicted, he told Talking Points Memo that it was “the duty of any attorney to leave no stone unturned in examining the legal options that exist in a particular situation.”Other lawyers who supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 election have also faced consequences. In 2023, Sidney K. Powell and Jenna Ellis, two members of Mr. Trump’s legal team after the 2020 election, also pleaded guilty in election-interference cases in Georgia. Ms. Ellis’s license to practice law in Colorado was suspended last year.Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who became Mr. Trump’s legal browbeater, was barred from practicing in New York and in Washington, D.C.Mr. Chesebro was mentored at Harvard by Laurence H. Tribe, a leading liberal constitutional law scholar. With Mr. Tribe, Mr. Chesebro helped represent Mr. Gore, a Democrat, in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election recount.Mr. Tribe said Thursday that Mr. Chesebro was particularly skilled at “coming up with arguments — sometimes too clever.”“He’s one of the few students who seriously disappointed me,” Mr. Tribe said, adding: “He’s a very smart person who learned how to manipulate and abuse the tools that the law gave him. And it was proved now that he can’t be trusted to use those tools at all.”Kitty Bennett More

    • 125 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      If Everyone Had Voted, Kamala Harris Still Would Have Lost

      by

      New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.A voting line in Phoenix in November. Jon Cherry for The New York TimesIn the wake of last November’s election, many Democrats blamed low turnout for Kamala Harris’s defeat.It wasn’t entirely without reason, as turnout dropped in Democratic areas, but many months later it is clear the blame was misplaced. Newly available data, based on authoritative voter turnout records, suggests that if anything, President Trump would have done even better if everyone had voted.The new data, including a new study from Pew Research released Thursday, instead offers a more dispiriting explanation for Democrats: Young, nonwhite and irregular voters defected by the millions to Mr. Trump, costing Ms. Harris both the Electoral College and the popular vote.The findings suggest that Mr. Trump’s brand of conservative populism once again turned politics-as-usual upside down, as his gains among disengaged voters deprived Democrats of their traditional advantage with this group, who are disproportionately young and nonwhite.For a generation, the assumption that Democrats benefit from high turnout has underpinned the hopes and machinations of both parties, from Republican support for restrictive voting laws to Democratic hopes of mobilizing a new progressive coalition of young and nonwhite voters. It’s not clear whether Democrats will struggle with irregular voters in the future, but the data nonetheless essentially ends the debate about whether Ms. Harris lost because she alienated swing voters or because she failed to energize her base. In the end, Democrats alienated voters whose longtime support they might have taken for granted.The 2024 election may feel like old news, especially in the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York City on Tuesday, but the best data on the outcome has only recently become available. Over the last two months, the last few states updated their official records of who did or did not vote in the election. These records unlock the most authoritative studies of the electorate, which link voter turnout records to high-quality surveys. More