United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares32 Views

      in Elections

      Assessment Warns Against Conflating Legal Musk Protests With Tesla Vandalism

      by

      President Trump has suggested attacks against Tesla are a coordinated effort to intimidate the billionaire Elon Musk, but an internal intelligence assessment did not support that claim and warned against conflating legal protests against Mr. Musk with vandalism to his property.The attacks on Tesla vehicles and facilities “appear to have been conducted by lone offenders, and all known incidents occurred at night, making identification and arrest of the actors difficult,” officials with the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security wrote in an intelligence bulletin dated March 21 and obtained by The New York Times.The initial assessment, shared with law enforcement agencies across the country and subject to change as investigations proceed, was based on an analysis of vandalism investigations in nine states over the past two months. It concluded that the attacks, which included firing gunshots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows and setting vehicles on fire, were “rudimentary” and not intended to injure people.The people taking these actions “may perceive these attacks as victimless property crimes,” but their “tactics can cause accidental or intentional bodily harm” to bystanders and first responders, the officials wrote in the report.While law enforcement agencies should aggressively pursue people committing those acts, they should not investigate “constitutionally protected activity” directed at Mr. Musk, who has overseen a far-reaching effort to reduce the size and function of the federal government, they added.Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi described the Tesla attacks as “domestic terrorism.” The director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel, reiterated that assessment on Monday, saying it was investigating what he described as an increase in violent activity.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 Shares18 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Campaign Aide Chris LaCivita Sues The Daily Beast for Defamation

      by

      The lawsuit accuses the news site of knowingly publishing false information about how much Chris LaCivita, a Trump campaign manager, was paid by the campaign.One of President Trump’s former campaign managers, Chris LaCivita, on Monday filed a defamation lawsuit against The Daily Beast over its reporting on how much he was paid by the campaign.The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, accuses The Daily Beast of creating “the false impression that Mr. LaCivita was personally profiting excessively from his work on the campaign and that he was prioritizing personal gain over the campaign’s success.”It centers on an article published Oct. 15, 2024, with the headline: “Trump In Cash Crisis-As Campaign Chief’s $22m Pay Revealed.” The article was written by Michael Isikoff, a freelance journalist, who was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.The article stated that Mr. LaCivita, a manager of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, had negotiated a series of contracts and was paid millions of dollars over two years from the campaign. The allegations were repeated in several follow-up articles and discussed on a Daily Beast podcast.According to the complaint, Mr. LaCivita’s lawyers on Nov. 5 demanded a correction and a retraction, saying public records from the Federal Election Commission conflicted with statements in the article.The Daily Beast corrected its article a few days after the demand by changing the amount to $19.2 million from $22 million and clarified that the funds went to Mr. LaCivita’s consulting firm rather than to him personally. The headline was modified, and an editor’s note was appended to the article.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 Shares42 Views

      in Elections

      Blumenthal Calls ‘Shadow Hearing’ on Trump Veterans Cuts

      by

      Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, on Monday called on Doug Collins, the secretary of veterans affairs, to testify at an informal hearing next week to discuss how the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the federal work force have affected veterans and the federal agency that serves them.Mr. Collins is all but certain to decline the invitation from Mr. Blumenthal, who as a member of the minority party has no authority to call a hearing or set the panel’s agenda. His attempt to hold a so-called “shadow hearing” is the latest move by top Senate Democrats to try to scrutinize — and focus public attention on — the effects of President Trump’s policies on Americans at a time when Republicans who control Congress have refrained so far from using their oversight power to examine his administration’s actions in official settings.Mr. Trump’s initial job reductions at the Veterans Affairs Department, and the cancellation of hundreds of contracts, have caused chaotic ripple effects at the agency, disrupting treatment studies and forcing some facilities to fire support staff. Mr. Collins has promised a much deeper round of cuts — eliminating some 80,000 jobs and reviewing tens of thousands of contracts.In announcing his plan, Mr. Blumenthal emphasized the urgency of congressional oversight during what he called a “moment of crisis for veterans,” saying in a statement that he and his colleagues on Capitol Hill “have a responsibility to bring to light the impact of Musk-Trump’s disastrous and disgraceful cuts.” He said the hearing was also a bid to ensure that the voices of affected veterans and Department of Veterans Affairs employees were heard.The move underscores a notable deterioration in the normally bipartisan relationship between Mr. Blumenthal and Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, the Republican chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. The senators have maintained a productive working relationship, cosponsoring a range of legislation including measures to expand medical facilities run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and demonstrating a shared commitment to bettering the lives of veterans.Mr. Blumenthal’s effort mirrors similar action taken by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee who in February organized a similar “shadow hearing” to question Elon Musk regarding changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Musk did not appear, and Democrats had no power to compel him.The Department of Veterans Affairs, a vast bureaucracy with nearly 500,000 employees, has been a focal point for the Trump administration’s overhaul efforts because of its complex structure and history of scandals and waste.“Hearing from veterans and impacted stakeholders firsthand is the first step toward holding this administration accountable for their reckless and lawless directives,” Mr. Blumenthal said. More

    • 100 Shares30 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Moves on Greenland Appear to Be Backfiring

      by

      For more than 150 years, U.S. officials have repeatedly wanted, as President Trump puts it, to “get” Greenland.The idea came up in the 1860s, then again before and after the world wars. In a way, the timing couldn’t be better than now, with Greenlanders re-examining their painful colonial history under Denmark and many people there itching to break off from Denmark, which still controls some of the island’s affairs.But President Trump seems to have overplayed his cards — big time.His decision, announced this weekend, to send a high-powered U.S. delegation to the island, apparently uninvited, is already backfiring. The administration tried to present it as a friendly trip, saying that Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, would attend a dogsled race this week with one of her sons, and that Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, would tour an American military base.But instead of winning the hearts and minds of Greenland’s 56,000 people, the move, coupled with Mr. Trump’s recent talk of how he will “get it, one way or the other,” is pushing Greenland further away.Over the past 24 hours, the Greenlandic government has dropped its previous posture of being shy and vague in the face of Mr. Trump’s pushiness. Instead, it has blasted him as “aggressive” and asked Europe for backup. And the planned visit may only strengthen the bonds between Greenland — an ice-covered land three times the size of Texas — and Denmark.“This will clearly have the opposite effect of what the Americans want,” said Lars Trier Mogensen, a political analyst based in Copenhagen. “This offensive pushes Greenland further away from the U.S., even though a year ago, all parties in Greenland were looking forward to more business with the Americans.”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 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      White House Wants to Recruit Corporate Sponsors for Easter Egg Roll

      by

      The White House wants to recruit corporate sponsors to contribute to its Easter Egg Roll next month, raising ethical and legal concerns that President Trump is allowing companies to profit from the 147-year-old tradition by turning it into a showcase for their brands.The financial backers of the April 21 event would be able to choose from three options that cost between $75,000 and $200,000, according to a nine-page guide for potential sponsors that was reviewed by The New York Times.The most expensive package includes a corporate booth, logo placements, branded snacks or beverages, exclusive tickets to brunch with the first lady, Melania Trump, a chance to engage with the White House Press Corps, a private White House tour and 150 tickets to the event.“Be a part of history,” reads the guide, which was written by Harbinger, an event production company founded by Republican aides in 2013. It invites sponsors to “provide financial support, activities and giveaways to enhance the event while gaining valuable brand visibility and national recognition.”As in the past, any money raised through the event will go to the White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit educational organization founded by Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961. The event is largely held without taxpayer dollars, with the American Egg Board, a marketing group for the egg industry, sponsoring thousands of eggs for the event — but without the kind of visibility laid out by Harbinger’s guide.Federal regulations prohibit government employees from using their public office for private gain. Richard W. Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush, said that the White House was clearly breaking that code by allowing private enterprises to use an official event to showcase their brands and letting the proceeds flow into a private nonprofit.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 Shares33 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Insists on Thanks From Zelensky and Other Foreign Leaders

      by

      It’s not unusual for presidents to want to hear some words of gratitude. But the friction usually happens behind closed doors.After President Trump spoke on the phone with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine last week, the White House wanted to make one thing clear: The Ukrainian leader was grateful to the American president. Very grateful.The statement recounting the call mentioned four times that Mr. Zelensky had thanked the president for his efforts to negotiate terms of a ceasefire with Russia. It then went on to note that Mr. Zelensky was “grateful” for Mr. Trump’s leadership.The description revealed a pattern in the Trump administration’s shaping of its foreign policy agenda: When it comes to diplomacy, Mr. Trump wants an implicit or explicit display of personal gratitude from American allies.Michael Froman, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Mr. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy suggests that he sees aiding U.S. allies as a favor, rather than as a cornerstone of foreign policy that will pay dividends down the road.“That does sort of signal a fundamentally different notion of order than we have had for the last 80 years, which is that while our allies need to step up and do more for their own defense, our support of their defense is also in our interest,” Mr. Froman said. “ I believe President Trump is questioning that.”The starkest example of Trump’s insistence on a thank-you came during a meeting last month in the Oval Office that included Mr. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Mr. Zelensky.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

    • 50 Shares36 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats: Still Under Construction

      by

      More from our inbox:Domestic EnemiesNew housing under construction in Georgetown, Texas.Mike Osborne for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Alliance,” by Ezra Klein (column, March 9):Mr. Klein gets some things right about government efficiency and some things absolutely wrong. I agree that Democrats should pursue policies of abundance rather than policies of constraint. But Democrats did make that argument repeatedly and provided real policy solutions — for example, an expanded child tax credit that reduced child poverty roughly by half within a two-year period.Mr. Klein underestimates the power of the media’s constantly hammering on the message of division and the false assumption that taking care of the poorest will disadvantage working- and middle-class white people. He also contrasts housing construction policy in California and Texas, blaming overregulation for California’s lack of progress in meeting needs. Earthquakes? Wildfires? Coastal erosion? Access to adequate water? Mr. Klein ignores those constraints. And has he been to Texas lately?I am from a large Texas family and lived in California for 40 years. “Accessible housing” in Texas has led to endless sprawl, long commutes, increasing air pollution alerts and limited access to amenities to improve the quality of life. With its diminishing investment in public goods like schools and parks, its poor family support and hostility to women and diverse people, and one of the most corrupt administrative and legislative governments in the United States, Texas is hardly a model.Terry L. AllisonMontrealTo the Editor:Ezra Klein suggests that “a politics of abundance” can defeat the “politics of scarcity” that fuels the fear driving people into the arms of authoritarians like Donald Trump. While I agree from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask: How can we pull that off in a world where more and more of our planet is becoming uninhabitable because of climate change?Climate change is at the root of most of the challenges we face today. Millions of people displaced by famine, fire or flood will move to the quickly dwindling parts of the planet that are habitable. People in these still habitable locations sense this at their deepest core, and thus the politics of scarcity are born — not from propaganda but from actual crisis.We cannot even begin to project any sense of “abundance” while this indisputable fact remains true. The only way to save not only our political representation but also our planet is to face this existential crisis squarely, so that maybe one day “abundance” becomes a word that we can use truthfully, and joyfully, once again.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 Shares42 Views

      in Elections

      Columbia University’s Concessions to Trump Seen as a Watershed

      by

      Threatened with losing $400 million in federal funding, the university agreed to overhaul its protest policies and security practices.Many professors saw it as surrender, a reward to the Trump administration’s heavy hand. Conservative critics of academia celebrated it as an overdue, righteous reset by an Ivy League university.Columbia University’s concession on Friday to a roster of government demands as it sought to restore about $400 million in federal funding is being widely viewed as a watershed in Washington’s relationships with the nation’s colleges.By design, the consequences will be felt immediately on Columbia’s campus, where, for example, some security personnel will soon have arrest powers and an academic department that had drawn conservative scrutiny is expected to face stringent oversight. But they also stand to shape colleges far from Manhattan. “Columbia is folding and the other universities will follow suit,” Christopher Rufo, an activist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote on social media after the university’s announcement on Friday.“They must restore the pursuit of truth, rather than ideological activism, as their highest mission,” said Mr. Rufo, who is close to the Trump administration and has helped make battles against diversity and equity into a conservative rallying cry. He added: “This is only the beginning.”The end is not clear. Columbia’s moves on Friday — revealed in a letter to the campus from the interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong — were essentially an opening bid in negotiations with the federal government to let the $400 million flow again. But the Trump administration has not publicly said what other concessions it might seek from Columbia or the dozens of other universities, from Hawaii to Harvard, that it has started to scrutinize since taking power on Jan. 20.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