United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Bustling New York Mayoral Race Reaches a Pivotal Moment

      by

      The New York Times’s City Hall bureau chief preps us for the Democratic primary.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.Tuesday’s Democratic mayoral primary is a pivotal marker in the race to lead New York City.One candidate who is polling well, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, 67, would be the oldest elected mayor in the city’s modern history. Another front-runner, Zohran Mamdani, 33, a state lawmaker, would be the youngest in a century. Mr. Cuomo has a long track record laid with a style of governance that rubs many the wrong way. Mr. Mamdani was unknown to most people before his media-savvy campaign.There are other prominent candidates who are trailing in the polls but who may still affect the outcome as voters use a ranked-choice ballot system for the second time.In an interview with Times Insider, Emma G. Fitzsimmons, the city hall bureau chief for the Metro desk at The New York Times, explained the contours of the race. This conversation has been edited.One of your colleagues described the final weeks of the race as “chaotic.” How so?First, the race is close. Different polls say different things, but Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, has been leading for months. Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist lawmaker from Queens, has been rising in the polls. The current mayor, Eric Adams, decided not to run in the Democratic primary and is running as an independent in the November general election.The race has gotten pretty nasty in the final weeks. Cuomo is attacking Mamdani; a super PAC that is supporting Cuomo is running millions of dollars’ worth of advertisements calling Mamdani radical, and some people believe those advertisements are Islamophobic because Mamdani is Muslim. Mamdani is hitting Cuomo pretty hard, saying he’s the candidate of the billionaire class and that he’s a disgraced former politician who doesn’t deserve a second chance.A year ago, for different reasons, it seemed unlikely that Mamdani and Cuomo would be in the positions they are in today. How did they get here?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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Bill Clinton Endorses Andrew Cuomo for NYC Mayor

      by

      The former president’s endorsement came as Letitia James, the state attorney general who supports Andrew M. Cuomo’s mayoral rivals, criticized the former governor over harassment allegations.Former President Bill Clinton endorsed former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in the New York City mayor’s race on Sunday, giving a last-minute boost of support to Mr. Cuomo, as he urged supporters to head to the polls for the last day of early voting.Mr. Cuomo worked in the Clinton administration as the housing secretary. The backing of the former president, as well as a taped robocall providing his support, could help turn out older voters in the tightening Democratic mayoral primary on Tuesday.Mr. Clinton said in the robocall that he had hired Mr. Cuomo “because he knew how to get things done” and that he believed he would “stand up and protect the people of this city” from President Trump.Mr. Clinton, 78, who lives in a Westchester County suburb north of New York, has not often weighed in on city primary races. His endorsement is another indication that some establishment Democrats prefer Mr. Cuomo to Zohran Mamdani, a state lawmaker and Democratic Socialist who is second in the polls.The endorsement came as Mr. Cuomo and his rivals attended campaign events across the city, trying to convert undecided voters and to ensure that their supporters showed up at the polls. The push appeared more urgent this weekend, with a forecast heat wave potentially depressing turnout on Primary Day.By the end of the early voting period on Sunday, 384,000 Democrats had voted in the primary. That was nearly twice as many people as voted during the same period four years ago, when the coronavirus pandemic was still raging and many New Yorkers voters cast ballots by mail.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Need Their Own Trump

      by

      We are more than 1,200 days away from the 2028 presidential election, but the Democratic presidential primary is already well underway. The likely candidates are fund-raising, hosting campaign rallies, starting podcasts and staking out ideological lanes.Candidates will try to carve out distinct political identities, but one challenge unites them all: Their party is historically unpopular. The Democratic Party’s favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably. Apart from the waning days of Joe Biden’s presidency, that is by far the lowest it’s been during the more than 30 years Pew Research has collected data.The presidential hopefuls are likely to divide into two camps, moderates and progressives. But these paths misunderstand Democrats’ predicament and will fail to win over a meaningful majority in the long term. If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn’t rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn’t write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left.It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump.To be clear, the blueprint I refer to is not the one Mr. Trump has used to violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders.In January 2013, at the time of Barack Obama’s second inauguration, Republicans were deeply unpopular. Conservative thought leaders like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove advocated comprehensive immigration reform as a pathway back to a majority. By the summer, the base’s backlash to the idea was itself so comprehensive that many of them were forced to retreat.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Can’t Include Limits on Trump Lawsuits in Megabill, Senate Parliamentarian Rules

      by

      The Senate parliamentarian rejected a measure in Republicans’ domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block presidential orders.A Senate official rejected on Sunday a measure in Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block President Trump’s executive actions.The measure would target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges on Mr. Trump’s directives. Those rulings have halted or delayed orders on a host of policies, including efforts to carry out mass firings of federal workers and to withhold funds from states that do not comply with demands on immigration enforcement.The G.O.P. proposal would require parties suing over federal policies to post a bond covering the government’s potential costs and damages from an injunction if the judge’s order were found later to have been wrongly granted.“Individual district judges — who don’t even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts — are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,” Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March.Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out President Trump’s agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits.The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader.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

      Judge Orders Abrego Garcia Released on Smuggling Charges Before Trial

      by

      The order to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from criminal custody as he awaits trial was a rebuke to the Trump administration. But he is likely to remain in immigration custody.In a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department, a federal judge said on Sunday that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia should be freed from criminal custody as he awaits trial on smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador and return to the United States.In a scathing order, the judge, Barbara D. Holmes, ruled that Mr. Abrego Garcia was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The decision undermined repeated claims by President Trump and some of his top aides who have described the Salvadoran immigrant as a violent gang member, even a terrorist.But the decision by Judge Holmes, filed in Federal District Court in Nashville, was likely to be a short-lived victory for Mr. Abrego Garcia and his defense team. The judge acknowledged that he would probably remain in the custody of immigration officials, as his charges of smuggling undocumented immigrants across the United States moved through the courts.Judge Holmes’s ruling was the first judicial evaluation of the charges filed against Mr. Abrego Garcia since he was suddenly brought back to U.S. soil last month after prosecutors indicted him in Nashville. The decision to get him out of Salvadoran custody came as the Justice Department was under mounting pressure in a separate civil case. The judge in that case has threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for their serial evasions and delays in complying with her order to free him from El Salvador.Federal prosecutors immediately asked Judge Holmes to put the decision to free Mr. Abrego Garcia on hold, even as his lawyers hailed it.“We are pleased by the court’s thoughtful analysis and its express recognition that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled both to due process and the presumption of innocence, both of which our government has worked quite hard to deny him,” Sean Hecker, one of the defense lawyers, 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

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Decided to Strike Iran

      by

      Standing at the lectern in the White House briefing room on Thursday afternoon, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, read a message she said came “directly from the president.”Because of the “substantial chance of negotiations” with Iran that could bring the United States back from the brink of jumping into the war in the Middle East, President Trump’s statement said, he would make a decision about whether or not to strike Iran “within the next two weeks.”Mr. Trump had been under pressure from the noninterventionist wing of his party to stay out of the conflict, and was having lunch that day with one of the most outspoken opponents of a bombing campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, fueling speculation that he might hold off.It was almost entirely a deception. Mr. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Ms. Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world’s most volatile regions.Mr. Trump’s “two weeks” statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first American military strikes inside Iran since that country’s theocratic revolution in 1979.Journalists watching as President Trump addressed the nation after American bombs were dropped on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday night.Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Iran’s Fordo Nuclear Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed

      by

      Initial military assessments of the buried nuclear site contrast with the statement on the strike there made by President Trump.After overnight strikes on Iran, President Trump on Sunday declared the operation a “success,” and said that Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.” But his early public pronouncements contrast with more cautious assessments by the U.S. and Israeli militaries.The Israeli military, in an initial analysis, believes the heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordo has sustained serious damage from the American strike on Sunday, but has not been completely destroyed, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter. The officials also said it appeared Iran had moved equipment, including uranium, from the site.A senior U.S. official similarly acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it “off the table.” The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site.The damage assessments by Israel and the United States are ongoing, and they have not made any final conclusions. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.In its overnight strikes, the United States took aim at three nuclear site, including dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting bombs on Fordo, Iran’s most critical site.In a briefing Sunday morning, top Pentagon officials echoed President Trump’s claims of success, while also saying the final assessment would take time. Gen. Dan Caine, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the initial assessment indicated that all three sites sustained “severe damage and destruction,” but added that it was too soon to say whether Iran retained some nuclear capability.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

      Pentagon Details Multipronged Attack on Iranian Nuclear Sites

      by

      B-2 stealth bombers, fighter aircraft and submarine-launched cruise missiles struck Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan during “Operation Midnight Hammer.”Senior Pentagon officials on Sunday described an extraordinary coordinated military operation targeting Iran that took place under utmost secrecy and showcased what the American military was capable of when it put in place its doctrine of using air and naval forces to strike an adversary.But neither Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nor Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could immediately say whether Iran still retained the ability to make a nuclear weapon. Mr. Hegseth repeated President Trump’s assertion from the previous night that the nuclear sites had been “obliterated.” General Caine did not.The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, General Caine said, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three of the Iranian nuclear sites that were struck “sustained severe damage and destruction.”Mr. Hegseth and General Caine, appearing before reporters in the Pentagon’s briefing room for the first time since they took office, described an intricate operation that began at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to the B-2 stealth bombers used in the strikes, and hit three nuclear sites in a span of less than a half-hour — 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday.The bombers took off in secrecy on Friday night from Missouri for the more than 7,000-mile trip, which involved multiple refuelings. They crossed the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea to reach the skies above Iran, where they struck the heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordo, as well as facilities at Natanz.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