Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Road Map for Undoing the Damage of the Big, Awful Bill

      by

      In the 30 years I have been a part of fiscal policymaking I don’t think I have ever seen a legislative push as impressive as the passage of President Trump’s big, dubious tax and policy bill.Don’t get me wrong: The consequences for health insurance, poverty, climate change and macroeconomic stability, in roughly that order of importance, will be horrendous. The Medicaid and other health care changes would undo about three-quarters of the coverage expansion from President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion. The law repeals much of what Joe Biden did for climate change in the Inflation Reduction Act. The tax provisions sustain most of the cuts from Mr. Trump’s first term and add in several others for good measure.But before Democrats — and hopefully some Republicans — even try to fix the damage, they should learn the lessons of how the Republicans got all this done, working against tremendous odds on a much faster timetable than the major legislative accomplishments from Mr. Trump’s three predecessors.The first lesson is that ideas really do matter. This legislation did not happen because the public or lobbyists were clamoring for it. Instead Donald Trump and congressional Republicans wanted it and were willing to overcome public disfavor and opposition from vested interests.Sure, special interests were at play in ways big (preserving workarounds to limits on state and local tax deductions) and small (getting new tax breaks for Alaskan whaling captains). But no major lobbying groups were asking for the broad contours of this legislation. The health care industry, which is expected to lose about half a trillion dollars, and the energy industry, which is losing huge tax breaks and subsidies, put up a fight. Their opposition, like that of other industries, went nowhere. And neither did Elon Musk’s — further evidence that oligarchy is the wrong lens through which to view this political moment.The second lesson is that while ideas matter, expert ideas do not necessarily matter. Past fiscal debates have divided economists and policy wonks. In President Trump’s first term, some economists would write opinion articles or go on TV news programs defending his tax cuts as adding to growth while other economists (including me) would write rebuttals.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In Trump’s Bill, Democrats See a Path to Win Back Voters

      by

      Top party officials consider the president’s sweeping domestic policy bill to be cruel and fiscally ruinous — and they’re betting the American public will, too.Demoralized Democrats who have denounced President Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill have landed on a silver lining. It is so unpopular with voters, they say, that it could win them back one, if not both, chambers of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.Top officials in the party, who see the bill as cruel, fiscally ruinous and the single biggest wealth transfer in American history, expect that they can blame Republicans who voted for the loss of health care coverage, nursing home care and food security for millions of Americans in order to extend the 2017 tax cuts that favor the wealthy.And they have plenty of quotes from Republicans like Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska denouncing their own bill that, Democrats say, will make the argument that much more potent.“There’s going to be some powerful ads,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamber’s Democratic leader, before rattling off potential scripts for advertisements that are set to begin airing as early as next week. “‘My daughter had cancer. She was doing fine. Well, all of a sudden, her health care was blown up.’ ‘I worked at this rural hospital for 30 years. I put my heart into it because I wanted to help people. I was fired.’ Stuff like that is going to really matter.”It may take a while for people to feel the full effects of the bill because Republicans front-loaded some temporary tax cuts for working people, like no taxes on tips, that were engineered to appeal to working-class voters. The cuts to Medicaid are not set to be implemented until after the midterm elections.Still, there were some immediate effects. A clinic in southwest Nebraska announced this week that it was closing, blaming anticipated cuts to Medicaid. And Democrats said they expected millions of people to feel the impact from the bill’s allowing credits from the Affordable Care Act to expire. It will be up to Democrats over the next year to drive home the argument that these policies are the fault of Republican lawmakers.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

      Zohran Mamdani Won by Listening. Democrats Should Try It.

      by

      In the doldrums of last November, depressed and paralyzed by Donald Trump’s victory, I stumbled upon a video in my social media feed of an affable young man in a suit and tie, microphone in hand, interviewing voters in immigrant-heavy areas in Queens and the Bronx.“Did you get a chance to vote on Tuesday?” he asks. And then, “Who did you vote for?”Some didn’t vote at all. But many voted for Trump.What struck me about the video was the young man’s open-ended curiosity. Through it all, he simply listened to the responses to his questions, his friendly face inquisitive.Toward the end of the video he finally makes his pitch to a voter: “You know, we have a mayor’s race coming up next year, and if there was a candidate talking about freezing the rent, making buses free, making universal child care a reality — are those things that you’d support?”“Absolutely,” the man replies.New York Democrats did indeed embrace that message, vaulting that young man, Zohran Mamdani, who was as unknown to most New Yorkers as he was to me, to the top of the heap last month in the very crowded Democratic mayoral primary field. Like many people, I was resigned to an Andrew Cuomo romp, despite his odious past and his lazy campaign. Instead, we got an electrifying rout by a young, charismatic democratic socialist. When the final tally under ranked-choice voting was announced on Tuesday, Mamdani had won 56 percent of the vote, a 12-point margin on Cuomo, the heavy favorite.In the dizzying days since that stunning upset, there has been a great deal of hand-wringing about its meaning. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have had a racist freakout, portraying Mamdani, a Muslim who was born in Uganda to Indian-origin parents, as a dangerous jihadist who will impose Shariah law and invite the slaughter of Jewish New Yorkers. Without a trace of irony, they have also pilloried him as a godless Communist who will destroy the financial capital of the United States by seizing the means of production. Trump mused about arresting him.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Let Shark Panic Spoil Your Fourth of July

      by

      Yes, the shark population has increased. But the threat is minimal and, in truth, sharks have always been swimming around us, experts say.Good morning. It’s Thursday. Today we’ll look at how concerned about sharks you should be if your plans for the long Fourth of July weekend include going to the beach. We’ll also get details on the continuing war of words between President Trump and Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesIt’s a safe bet that more cameras will be trained on the beaches off Long Island over the Fourth of July weekend than Steven Spielberg used in making “Jaws.” State agencies have 28 camera-equipped drones they can send up, including one that can drop life jackets as needed. Local governments have their own aerial equipment.If the heart-pounding theme from that movie is not already running through your head, this is when it might start. But shark experts maintain that the chance of a close encounter with a shark is unlikely, even though a 20-year-old woman apparently had one at Jones Beach last week. She sustained a bite on one foot and a gash on one leg, officials said.“I tell people, have fun — the threat is minimal,” said John Sparks, a curator in the department of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History. “You’re always swimming around sharks. You always have been. My bottom line: You shouldn’t be any more worried than you’ve ever been.”Nothing unusual happened on Monday when the Nassau County executive, Bruce Blakeman, went for a swim not far from where the woman was bitten. But Blakeman, and any creatures circling in the water at the same time, were being watched by a marine patrol boat and a helicopter. And on Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul said that New York State was “continuing to strengthen our shark surveillance capabilities.”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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      C.I.A. Says Its Leaders Rushed Report on Russia Interference in 2016 Vote

      by

      But the new review of the earlier assessment does not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.A C.I.A. review of its assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election criticized the agency’s leadership at the time for rushing the effort but did not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.The review also criticized John O. Brennan, who was the C.I.A. director when the assessment was written, for his oversight of the project and for too tightly controlling access to sensitive intelligence that formed the basis of the work.The original intelligence review, which was undertaken in the aftermath of the November 2016 vote, came amid concerns about Russian ties to Mr. Trump’s campaign and efforts by the Kremlin to sow dissent during the election.Before the vote, the Obama administration issued warnings about Russian cyberoperations, and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. intensified their scrutiny of Russian activity after the election.Early on, the intelligence assessment, an unclassified version of which was released in January 2017, came under criticism from Republican supporters of Mr. Trump. The criticism continued through his first term, though a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the judgment of the assessment.John H. Durham, a Justice Department special counsel in the first Trump administration, looked at the C.I.A.’s and other intelligence agencies’ work on the assessment, but made no substantive mention of it in his final report.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mamdani Says Trump Is Attacking Him to Divert Focus From G.O.P. Agenda

      by

      Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, has been targeted by the president and other Republicans since his success in the primary.Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, forcefully denounced President Trump on Wednesday for threatening to arrest him and repeating baseless claims that he immigrated to the United States illegally.Speaking after a labor union rally in Manhattan, Mr. Mamdani said that he was running to make New York City a bulwark against “authoritarianism” in Washington. But he also argued that Mr. Trump was targeting him as a way of diverting attention from Republican plans to slash taxes for the rich and social safety net programs for the neediest.“I fight for working people,” Mr. Mamdani said. “Ultimately, it is easier for him to fan the flames of division than to acknowledge he has betrayed those working-class Americans.”The remarks, Mr. Mamdani’s first public comments since clinching his party’s nomination this week, offered an early glimpse at how the New York Democrat may try to blunt Mr. Trump’s extraordinary attacks and use them for his own purposes.The victory by Mr. Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other Democratic rivals has illustrated and even deepened the divisions in American politics, not always along party lines. But few responses have been as ugly or sustained as Mr. Trump’s.“A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally,” Mr. Trump said on Tuesday. “We’re going to look at everything.”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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Explores Using Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

      by

      Such a path could drastically raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, bringing the department and the threat of criminalization into the election system.Senior Justice Department officials are exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against state or local election officials if the Trump administration determines they have not sufficiently safeguarded their computer systems, according to people familiar with the discussions.The department’s effort, which is still in its early stages, is not based on new evidence, data or legal authority, according to the people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. Instead, it is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation, these people said.Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before.Federal voting laws place some mandates on how elections are conducted and ballots counted. But that work has historically been managed by state and local officials, with limited involvement or oversight from Washington.In recent days, senior officials have directed Justice Department lawyers to examine the ways in which a hypothetical failure by state or local officials to follow security standards for electronic voting could be charged as a crime, appearing to assume a kind of criminally negligent mismanagement of election systems. Already, the department has started to contact election officials across the country, asking for information on voting in the state.Ballots from the 2024 general election locked in a secure warehouse area of the Ada County Elections Office in Boise, Idaho, last November.Natalie Behring for 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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Streets Are Safer This Year for Drivers, Cyclists and Pedestrians

      by

      There have been 87 traffic deaths in the city so far this year, the lowest number since 2018. Officials credit the Vision Zero program and congestion pricing.Good morning. It’s Wednesday. Today we’ll look at street fatalities in the first six months of 2025, which fell to a number not seen since 2018. We’ll also get details on Zohran Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primary, which is now official.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesTo city transportation officials, 2025 looks a lot like 2018. So far, anyway.In the first half of this year, 87 traffic deaths were recorded on New York City streets. That was the same number as in the first six months of 2018, which went on to become the safest year since the city began keeping records on traffic fatalities 115 years ago, with 206 deaths on city streets.As that total suggests, the statistics may look different by the end of the year. Crashes and collisions typically rise in the summer, and the second half of a year usually outpaces the first.But for now, city officials are encouraged, with Ydanis Rodriguez, the transportation commissioner, saying in a statement that the city’s streets are “are safer than ever” for everyone on them — pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The 87 deaths from January through June compared with the 128 reported in the first six months of last year, which ended with 251 fatalities in all.Of the 87:51 were pedestrians, compared with 63 in the first half of last year.15 were drivers or passengers in cars or S.U.V.s, down from 29 in the first six months of 2024.20 were people on what the city calls “motorized two-wheelers,” a category that includes e-bikes, scooters, mopeds and motorcycles. That was down from 33 from January to June a year ago.So far in 2025, one cyclist on a conventional, nonelectric bike has been killed. There were three such deaths in the first half of 2024, six in the comparable months of 2023 and 11 from January to June 2019.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