United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares158 Views

      in Elections

      The Abundance Agenda Has Its Own Theory of Power

      by

      I have had a fascinating few months. “Abundance,” the book I wrote with Derek Thompson, is either going to save the Democratic Party or destroy it. You think I’m kidding. Here’s The Wall Street Journal’s headline: “Can the ‘Abundance Agenda’ Save the Democrats?” Here’s The Nation: “Why the ‘Abundance Agenda’ Could Sink the Democratic Party.” The Atlantic placed the book at the center of “the coming Democratic civil war.”Before “Abundance” came out, I worried that its argument would be too agreeable to generate much debate. I didn’t foresee Ragnarok.But I was wrong about who would perceive it as a threat. The book is largely a critique of how Democrats have governed in the places where they’ve held power. But the obvious targets of that critique — blue-state governors like Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul and top Obama and Biden administration officials — have largely embraced it. Maura Healy, the governor of Massachusetts, laid out a plan for “housing abundance.” More than one top Democrat I expected to react defensively to the argument told me that they felt that they could have written it.This is, for Democrats, a liquid moment. The party is reimagining itself after its crushing loss in 2024, and a lot is riding on which critiques are woven into its renewal. And so the backlash to the book has come from a faction of the party that saw itself rising within the wreckage and worries that “Abundance” will derail its ascendance: the anti-corporate populists.“Abundance” is an effort to focus more of American politics on a surprisingly neglected question: What do we need more of, and what is stopping us from getting it? It is that focus that some of my friends on the populist left object to. Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham law professor who’s a central figure on the anti-monopolist left, told me that her problem with “Abundance” wasn’t the policies but the central question: “We should be focusing Democratic politics and politics in general on the problem of concentrated power and the way in which concentrated power is making it impossible to do things.”Demand Progress, a leftist advocacy group, went so far as to commission a poll to see which message appealed to more voters. Voters were asked to choose between the two framings of “the big problem” in American life: Was it “‘bottlenecks’ that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production or build new roads and bridges” or rather that “big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government.” Unsurprisingly, the latter won.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Deploying National Guard Troops Under a Rarely Used Power

      by

      President Trump bypassed the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom by sending 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protesters.President Trump took extraordinary action on Saturday by deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protesters in California, making rare use of federal powers and bypassing the authority of the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.Governors almost always control the deployment of National Guard troops in their states. But according to legal scholars, the president has the authority under Title 10 of the United States Code to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”In a presidential memo, Mr. Trump said, “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement on Saturday night that President Trump was deploying soldiers in response to “violent mobs” that she said had attacked federal law enforcement and immigration agents. The 2,000 troops would “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester,” she said.Protests have occurred Friday and Saturday in California to oppose federal immigration raids on workplaces in California. The latest incident was at a Home Depot in Paramount, Calif., about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, immediately rebuked the president’s action, indicating that Mr. Trump had usurped his own state authority.“That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” Mr. Newsom said, adding that “this is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”California Democrats have braced for months for the possibility that President Trump would seek to deploy U.S. troops on American soil in this way, particularly in Democratic-run jurisdictions.Mr. Trump suggested deploying U.S. forces in the same manner during his first term to suppress outbreaks of violence during the nationwide protests over the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.He opted against doing so at the time, but he has repeatedly raised the idea of using troops to secure border states.“Federalizing a state’s National Guard is a huge expansion of presidential power,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley. “It allows use of the military in domestic matters. It would be stunning to see this done here.”Trump and his aides have often lamented that not enough was done by Minnesota’s governor to quell protests that followed the death of Mr. Floyd in 2020.During a campaign rally in 2023, Trump made clear he was not going to hold back in a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in — the next time, I’m not waiting,” Mr. Trump said.Jonathan Swan More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Clash of the Bilious Billionaires

      by

      Sometimes you’re better off letting the children fight.That was President Trump’s callous wisdom on looking the other way as the Russians and Ukrainians continue to kill each other. But it might better be applied to Trump’s social media spat with Elon Musk. It’s hard to think of two puer aeterni who are more deserving of a verbal walloping.Their venomous digital smackdown fulgurated on their dueling social media companies, flashing across the Washington sky.In March, Trump showed off Teslas in the White House driveway and bought an over-$80,000 red Model S. Now, he says he’s going to sell it.Thursday was the most titillating day here since the sci-fi classic “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” when a spaceship landed an alien to warn human leaders to stop squabbling like children, or the aliens would destroy the Earth.On Friday, Trump tried to convey serenity. “I’m not thinking about Elon Musk,” Trump said aboard Air Force One. He added, “I wish him well.” But Trump then jumped on the phone to knock Elon, telling ABC’s Jonathan Karl that Musk has “lost his mind” and CNN’s Dana Bash that “the poor guy’s got a problem.” Trump had to know that would be seen as a reference to the intense drug use by Musk chronicled by The Times.As Raheem Kassam, one of the owners of Butterworth’s, the new Trumpworld boîte on Capitol Hill, assured Politico, “MAGA will not sell out to ketamine.”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

    • 38 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Hope After Trump

      by

      Is President Trump irrecoverably damaging America?I’ve been pondering that lately, partly because several of my friends have been so traumatized by Trump that they are wondering whether to give up on America and move to Canada to rebuild their lives there. I’ve tried to reassure them that this is not 1938 Germany.They shrug and note that 1935 Germany wasn’t 1938 Germany, either — but that’s what it became.Yet in the post-Cold War era, the typical authoritarian model isn’t the police state conjured by Hitlerian nightmares. Rather, it’s more nuanced. It’s one in which a charismatic leader is elected and then uses a democratic mandate to rig democratic institutions.In such states, there are elections that aren’t entirely fair, news organizations that aren’t free but also aren’t Pravda, a repressive apparatus that may not torture dissidents but does audit and impoverish them. The rough model is Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungary, or the Law and Justice party’s Poland, or President Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines or Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s India. You can call this competitive authoritarianism or a rigged democracy or something else, but a key feature is that elections still matter even if the playing field is tilted — and most important, such authoritarians are periodically ousted.These 21st-century authoritarians have gained ground in many countries, partly in reaction to surging migration. But the longer trend runs against autocrats, I think.That’s partly structural. Authoritarians surround themselves with sycophants, so that no one warns them when they proclaim dumb policies that tank the economy. Free from oversight, they yield to dissolution and corruption.I’ve been covering authoritarians around the world my entire career, and so often they seemed unassailable as they banned me “for life.” But it usually turned out to be the dictator’s life, not mine.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Can Restrict A.P. Journalists’ Access, Appeals Court Rules

      by

      By a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel found that the president can bar the news outlet from small settings such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, reversing at least for now a lower court’s ruling.A federal appeals court on Friday paused a lower court’s ruling that had required the White House to allow journalists from The Associated Press to participate in covering President Trump’s daily events and travel alongside their peers from other major news outlets.By a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that many of the spaces in the White House complex or on Air Force One where members of the press have followed the president for decades are essentially invite-only, and not covered by First Amendment protections.“The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted,” wrote Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee. She was joined by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, who was also appointed by Mr. Trump.The ruling temporarily lifted the requirement that the White House give A.P. journalists the same access as other news media professionals while the appeal continues. But it was clouded by the fact that the situation facing The Associated Press has shifted considerably since the legal standoff began in February.The lawsuit was born of a dispute between The Associated Press and the White House over the outlet’s refusal to adopt language favored by Mr. Trump and refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.When The Associated Press refused to change its newsroom style and take up the new name, the White House began openly excluding the outlet’s journalists from covering Mr. Trump as part of a daily rotation system that news media companies have long used to deal with the limited space in some areas and share the cost and commitment of covering the president.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Return of Abrego Garcia Raises Questions About Trump’s Views of Justice

      by

      For the nearly three months before the Justice Department secured an indictment against the man, it had repeatedly flouted a series of court orders to “facilitate” his release from El Salvador.When Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Friday that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia had been returned to the United States to face criminal charges after being wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador, she sought to portray the move as the White House dutifully upholding the rule of law.“This,” she said, “is what American justice looks like.”Her assertion, however, failed to grapple with the fact that for the nearly three months before the Justice Department secured an indictment against Mr. Abrego Garcia, it had repeatedly flouted a series of court orders — including one from the Supreme Court — to “facilitate” his release.While the indictment filed against Mr. Abrego Garcia contained serious allegations, accusing him of taking part in a conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants as a member of the street gang MS-13, it had no bearing on the issues that have sat at the heart of the case since his summary expulsion in March.Those were whether Mr. Abrego Garcia had received due process when he was plucked off the streets without a warrant and expelled days later to a prison in El Salvador, in what even Trump officials have repeatedly admitted was an error. And, moreover, whether administration officials should be held in contempt for repeatedly stonewalling a judge’s effort to get to the bottom of their actions.Well before Mr. Abrego Garcia’s family filed a lawsuit seeking to force the White House to release him from El Salvador, administration officials had tried all means at their disposal to keep him overseas as they figured out a solution to the problem they had created, The New York Times found in a recent investigation.Cesar Ábrego García, left, and Cecilia García, center, the brother and mother of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, participated in a press conference with Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, following his trip to El Salvador.Allison Bailey 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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Signs Executive Orders Intended to Jolt U.S. Drone Manufacturing

      by

      President Trump also eased restrictions on commercial drone flights and called for the revival of supersonic flights for nonmilitary aircraft.President Trump on Friday signed executive orders aimed at bolstering the U.S. drone industry, cracking down on unauthorized, unmanned flights and countering threats to national security and public safety.The orders sought to expand opportunities for commercial and recreational drone use, and tighten restrictions to address security threats. American officials have been concerned about foreign adversaries using drones to spy on sensitive areas, including military installations, and about China’s dominance of the drone market, which they see as a national security threat.“Building a strong and secure domestic drone sector is vital to reducing reliance on foreign sources, strengthening critical supply chains and ensuring that the benefits of this technology are delivered to the American people,” one of the orders said.Mr. Trump’s drone orders were part of a broader federal push into airborne technology. A third order he signed on Friday sought to revive high-speed commercial air travel, by repealing regulations prohibiting cross-country supersonic flights, which for decades have precluded nonmilitary air travel over land at faster-than-sound speeds.Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as Congress, have grappled in recent years with the risks posed by Beijing’s role in drone manufacturing. The United States has struggled to develop alternatives at a scale necessary to wean drone operators, including the U.S. military, completely off Chinese components.At the same time, the growing popularity of both commercial and recreational drones, and an increase in incidents of drones flying over sensitive sites, have heightened demand for regulations.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