Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 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 Shares189 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 Shares189 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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Won by Turning Out Voters and Building a Diverse Coalition, Report Finds

      by

      A new Pew Research Center study found that 85 percent of President Trump’s 2020 supporters came out to vote for him again, a better rate than Democrats pulled off.One of the most robust studies of the 2024 election shows that President Trump’s return to the White House was powered more heavily by his ability to turn out past supporters than by winning over Democratic voters, even as he built one of the most diverse coalitions in Republican Party history.The new report, released on Thursday from Pew Research Center, offers some of the most detailed analysis yet of what actually happened last fall, in particular how infrequent voters broke for Mr. Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris.In the end, the math was simple and significant: A larger share of voters who supported Mr. Trump in the 2020 election — 85 percent — showed up to vote for him again in 2024. Ms. Harris earned the support of just 79 percent of former President Joseph R. Biden’s 2020 voters.The analysis showed that 5 percent of Mr. Biden’s voters flipped to Mr. Trump, while only 3 percent of Mr. Trump’s 2020 voters flipped to Ms. Harris.But the bigger factor was turnout: 15 percent of Mr. Biden’s voters did not vote at all in 2024, Pew found.Tony Fabrizio, who was the lead pollster for the Trump campaign, said the new report validated the campaign’s strategic successes.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Is Mamdani Really a Gift to Trump and the G.O.P.?

      by

      Republicans have gleefully seized on Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as a fresh boogeyman. The reality could be more complicated.The votes were still being tallied last night when Representative Elise Stefanik, the New York Republican, sought to blame a potential political rival for Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s all-but-official upset victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City.“Make no mistake, it is BECAUSE OF Kathy Hochul and the NY Democrat Party’s inept weakness and sheer incompetence that this has happened,” Stefanik wrote on X, referring to Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York.Never mind that Hochul didn’t so much as endorse Mamdani. Stefanik, who is contemplating a run for governor next year after President Trump pulled her nomination to be his United Nations ambassador, saw an obvious target.So has much of her party.In the hours since Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, opened up a healthy lead over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the city’s ranked-choice voting, Republicans have gleefully seized on a fresh new boogeyman for 2025. They’ve denigrated Mamdani’s age, his criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and his progressive politics. Some on the right have directly vilified his Muslim faith.“We’ve had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous,” the president wrote on his social media site a few hours into his flight from Amsterdam to Washington today, adding that Mamdani “looks TERRIBLE.”Representative Mike Lawler, a moderate Republican from the Hudson Valley, said New York Democrats would “pay the price for this insanity.” The National Republican Congressional Committee called Mamdani “proudly antisemitic” — a charge he has forcefully rejected — and demanded that moderate Democrats like Representatives Tom Suozzi and Laura Gillen of New York say whether or not they support 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

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Evolution of Trump’s Views on Foreign Aid

      by

      Foreign aid, a pillar of American foreign policy for generations, has been gutted since President Trump began his second term in office. The United States Agency for International Development and other government agencies that provide food, medical care and economic development assistance to the world’s poorest nations, have been largely defunded or eliminated in recent months.In justifying the administration’s destruction of the agency, Mr. Trump said U.S.A.I.D. had been run by “radical lunatics,” and he has made numerous false claims about the agency’s work in the developing world. It included preventing and treating H.I.V. and malaria; providing emergency food assistance; and advancing the country’s national security interests by establishing new markets for American goods.Mr. Trump has never been a big fan of foreign aid. But in his first term, he often reveled in the role of dispenser-in-chief of American largess.Not so anymore.To understand Mr. Trump’s evolution from foreign aid skeptic to enthusiastic supporter to, lately, its most determined and powerful foe, The New York Times reviewed nearly 1,000 speeches and interviews he has given over the past 15 years.2011As a presidential candidate in his first bid for office, Mr. Trump often described foreign assistance as wasteful and said the money would be better spent at home. “Foreign affairs is we take care of ourselves,” he said during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show.

      @media screen and (max-width: 600px) {

      figure.img-sz-medium {
      max-width: calc(100% – 40px);
      }

      .sizeMedium {
      max-width: calc(100% – 40px) !important;
      }

      }

      section div:first-of-type div p:first-of-type {
      padding-bottom: 10px;
      }

      figcaption[data-testid=”photoviewer-children-caption”] {
      margin: 12px auto 0 auto;
      padding-right: 13px;
      padding-left: 13px;
      text-align: center;
      }

      #top-wrapper, sponsor-wrapper {
      display: none;
      }

      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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democratic Leaders Tried to Crush Zohran Mamdani. They Should Have Been Taking Notes.

      by

      On Tuesday night, Zohran Mamdani shocked the political establishment. There are lessons that national Democrats should take from his strong showing in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. But I worry they won’t. Democrats have a curiosity problem, and it’s losing us elections.After Bernie Sanders mounted a formidable challenge to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential primary, precious few Democratic leaders asked what they could learn from it. Two years later, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out of nowhere to defeat the No. 4-ranking Democrat in the House. They again dismissed it as a fluke.The party establishment’s impulse to stifle and ignore some of its most exciting emerging voices isn’t limited to progressives. Take Chris Deluzio in Pennsylvania or Pat Ryan in New York. While decidedly more moderate than Mr. Mamdani, both congressmen campaigned last fall on bringing down costs for people in their swing districts and taking on huge corporations and billionaires, a strategy Mr. Ryan described as “patriotic populism.” Even though it won them both races, Washington Democrats have been hesitant to embrace that strategy.I saw similar complacency last year while advising Ruben Gallego’s successful Senate campaign in Arizona. Although Mr. Gallego was the only Democratic candidate in the race, we struggled to get buy-in early on from the Washington Democratic establishment. It saw his blunt-spoken style as too risky for Arizona. He went on to outperform Kamala Harris by eight points.If Democratic leaders don’t start asking themselves how these candidates won, and what they can learn from their success, we’ll be doomed to fail in the future.Since their losses last fall, Democrats have obsessed over how to reverse their declining fortunes. By and large, the consensus has been that we need candidates with a sharp economic argument that can connect with young people, men, voters of color and the working class.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

      Alvin Bragg, the Democratic Incumbent, Wins D.A. Primary in Manhattan

      by

      Mr. Bragg, who defeated Patrick Timmins, will face a Republican and an independent in the general election.Alvin L. Bragg, Manhattan’s incumbent district attorney, won the race for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, The Associated Press reported.He moves on to a general election that his two challengers have cast as a referendum on his record.Mr. Bragg, 51, has held the job since 2022, when he became the first Black person to hold the office and the fourth district attorney in 80 years. He also became the first prosecutor to win the conviction of a president when Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies last year.In this year’s primary, he faced a sole Democrat, Patrick Timmins, a civil litigator who served in the Bronx district attorney’s office in the late 1990s. Mr. Timmins said he campaigned in order to give Manhattanites who feared crime a chance for change.In the general election, Mr. Bragg will face the Republican Maud Maron, a conservative activist and self-described former liberal who once was a Legal Aid Society lawyer. An independent, Diana Florence, a veteran of the district attorney’s office who opposed Mr. Bragg in 2021, is also running.Dozens of Mr. Bragg’s supporters gathered in the sweltering heat Tuesday night at the Harlem Tavern, where he gave his speech in 2021 after winning the office. The race was called in favor within 20 minutes of polls closing, with Mr. Bragg winning close to 74 percent of the vote with three-quarters of the vote counted. He said the numbers were a sign that Manhattanites had “spoken quite loudly.”“That’s a loud voice in favor of us continuing to make Manhattan safer and our system fairer at the same time,” he told his supporters.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