United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Tax Bill May Hurt the Lowest Earners and Help the Richest

      by

      Even though most Americans may see lower taxes, Republicans’ spending cuts could outweigh those benefits and leave some worse off.As Representative Jason Smith commenced a marathon session this week to consider a sprawling and expensive Republican tax package, he took special care to emphasize his party’s commitment to “hard-working Americans.”“Pro-growth tax policy will shift our economy toward one that serves them, not the wealthy and well-connected,” Mr. Smith, the Missouri lawmaker who leads the House’s top tax panel, proclaimed.But the proposal he is trying to get to President Trump’s desk ultimately tells a more complicated story. The Republican tax plan may offer only modest gains to everyday workers, according to a wide range of tax experts, and some taxpayers may actually be left in worse financial shape if the bill becomes law.The latest assessment arrived Friday from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan scorekeeper closely watched on Capitol Hill. Economists found that many Americans who make less than $51,000 a year would see their after-tax income fall as a result of the Republican proposal beginning in 2026.The Penn Wharton estimate sought to analyze the full scope of the Republican tax package, computing the effects of the tax cuts as well as the plan to pay for them by slashing federal spending on other programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Combined, those policies could fall disproportionately on the poorest, including those near or below the poverty line, the economists found.People making between about $51,000 and $17,000 could lose about $700 on average in after-tax income beginning in 2026, according to the analysis, when factoring in both wages and federal aid. That reduction would worsen over the next eight years. People reporting less than $17,000 in income would see a reduction closer to $1,000, on average, also increasing over time, a shortfall that underscores their reliance on federal benefits.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Voice of America Employees

      by

      The layoffs amounted to over a third of the media organization’s staff, and came as the Trump administration put up for sale the federal building in Washington that houses the network.The Trump administration on Thursday fired nearly 600 employees at Voice of America, a federally funded news network that provides independent reporting to countries with limited press freedoms.The layoffs targeted contractors, most of them journalists but also some administrative employees, and amounted to over a third of Voice of America’s staff. They signaled that the Trump administration planned to continue its efforts to dismantle the broadcaster despite a court ruling last month that ordered the federal government to maintain robust news programming at the network, which President Trump has called “the voice of radical America.”In another sign of the Trump administration’s hostility toward the broadcaster, the federal building in Washington that houses the media organization was put up for sale on Thursday.Michael Abramowitz, the director of Voice of America, said in an email to his staff on Thursday that the firings were “inexplicable.”“I am heartbroken,” he said. Mr. Abramowitz has sued to stop the Trump administration from closing the news organization.Kari Lake, a senior adviser at the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America, said that the Trump administration had acted within its legal authority.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Can C-SPAN Pull Off ‘Crossfire,’ but With Civility?

      by

      “Ceasefire” will be the low-key public affairs channel’s first new weekly show in two decades. The question is whether Republicans and Democrats will show up.As a young producer at CNN in the 1990s, Sam Feist spent countless hours working on “Crossfire,” one of the first cable news shows to pit partisan pundits against one another. At lunch one day, the co-host Michael Kinsley mused about an alternative idea: “Ceasefire,” a program where Republicans and Democrats tried to find areas of agreement.“It sat with me for, gosh, 20-something years,” Mr. Feist recalled.Now Mr. Feist is the chief executive of C-SPAN, the low-key public affairs network beloved by political junkies. And “Ceasefire” is about to become a reality.Envisioned as a respectful conversation between lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, “Ceasefire,” which is expected to debut in the fall, will be C-SPAN’s first new weekly program in two decades. “No shouting, no fighting, no acrimony,” Mr. Feist said in an interview. “Just two American political leaders with a willingness to find common ground.”And where, pray tell, does he expect to find those?Mr. Feist, a fixture of the Washington press corps who led CNN’s elections coverage for many years, acknowledged with a laugh that bipartisan relations in the nation’s capital were at a low ebb. That, he explained, is why a show like “Ceasefire” is sorely needed.“I’m not sure this program would work on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC,” said Sam Feist, the chief executive of C-SPAN since September.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images“The country rarely sees Republicans and Democrats engaged in a productive conversation,” he said. So for the past year, every time he has met with a member of Congress, Mr. Feist has pitched his idea for the show and asked the lawmaker who his or her best friend from the opposing party is.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

      An Afrikaner Farming Family Trades South Africa for Alabama

      by

      Errol Langton and eight members of his family were among the first group of white South Africans to arrive in the United States this week after President Trump created an expedited path to citizenship.The Afrikaner family of nine looked around the small office space in Birmingham, Ala., feeling jet-lagged as they took in their new surroundings. Errol Langton, the patriarch of the white South African family, had spent much of his time so far with a pen in hand, signing required documents at a refugee coordinating office.His granddaughter played with toy blocks on the floor. His oldest son watched over her. They had just eaten noodles. Later, they would spend time looking for apartments.“Everybody still doesn’t believe that we’re actually standing here,” Mr. Langton, 48, said in an interview, about 40 hours after landing at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. His family was among the first group of 59 South Africans who arrived in the United States this week, about three months after President Trump signed an executive order establishing refugee status for Afrikaners, the white ethnic minority that ruled during apartheid.The president essentially halted all refugee admission programs on his first day in office. But he soon created an expedited pathway for Afrikaners, who claim they have been discriminated against and subjected to violence because of their race, or have reason to believe they will be.Now, the Langton family has traded its South African hometown on the beach, Hibberdene, for a southern American city thousands of miles away. But Mr. Langton said he felt much safer already, as did his extended family who had joined him: his wife, son, three daughters, son-in-law and two grandchildren.Mr. Langton has a brother in Birmingham. But he said another factor had also drawn his family to the state.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Budget Cuts Hobble Antismoking Programs

      by

      Students at Wyoming East High School in West Virginia’s coal country had different reasons for joining Raze, a state program meant to raise awareness about the health risks of tobacco and e-cigarettes.Cayden Oliver, 17, grew up around generations of people who smoked and vaped, and he wanted to make his own choice. Nathiah Brown, 18, was struggling to quit e-cigarettes and showed up for moral support. Kimberly Mills, 18, wanted to prove that even though she had been a foster child, she would defy the odds.This high school’s program cost West Virginia less than $3,000 a year and was meant to protect teenagers in the state that has the highest vaping rate in their age group. It fell prey to U.S. government health budget cuts that included hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco control funds that reached far beyond Washington, D.C.At the high school, students pack into stalls in the school restrooms, sneaking puffs between classes. “It’s bad now,” said Logan Stacy, 18, a member of the Raze group. “Imagine what it will be like in two years.”Experts on tobacco control said the Trump administration’s funding cuts would set back a quarter-century of public health efforts that have driven the smoking rate to a record low and saved lives and billions of dollars in health care spending. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly 29 million people in the United States continue to smoke.The decimation of antismoking work follows a year of lavish campaign donations by tobacco and e-cigarette companies to President Trump and congressional Republicans.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Stephen A. Smith’s Relentless, Preposterous, Probably Inevitable Road to Political Clout

      by

      Stephen A. Smith has had something on his mind for a while now.“Let me switch to a subject near and dear to my heart,” he said on his podcast recently. “Me.”Mr. Smith, 57, is the terminally expressive face of sports media, ESPN’s $100 million opinion-haver. Each day, and on many nights, he is beamed into living rooms, bars and airport lounges to sling hours of sports-debate chum, whether or not there are hours’ worth of viable material.And for the industry’s most inescapable voice, its high priest of the big fat adjective — ludicrous officiating, preposterous coaching, blasphemous choke-jobs — “Stephen A. Smith” is perhaps the sole matter on which all parties can agree that Stephen A. Smith is an expert.He is a first-person thinker (“When I think about me. …” he said, twice, on the podcast, “The Stephen A. Smith Show”), third-person talker (“Stephen A. Smith is in the news”) and occasional simultaneous first-and-third-person thinker-talker. “Calling things like I see them,” he wrote in his memoir, “is who Stephen A. Smith has been my entire life.”So it has been striking lately, friends allowed, to find Mr. Smith lamenting the chaos of federal tariff policy (“utterly ridiculous!”) and floating a flat-tax plan.He has applied the signature cadence once reserved for segments on LeBron James and the Dallas Cowboys — the hushed windup, the all-caps name-dropping, the yada-yada of certain details — to geopolitical discussions for which he prepares diligently.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Judge Accused of Obstructing Federal Agents Pleads Not Guilty

      by

      Judge Hannah C. Dugan claimed judicial immunity this week after a federal grand jury indicted her.The Wisconsin state judge accused of impeding immigration agents at a Milwaukee courthouse last month pleaded not guilty on Thursday morning during a brief appearance in federal court.Prosecutors have said that the judge, Hannah C. Dugan, violated federal law when she directed an undocumented defendant who was being sought by immigration agents through an alternate exit from her courtroom. Judge Dugan, who was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday, is seeking the dismissal of the charges against her and has asserted that her actions were protected by judicial immunity.A lawyer entered the plea on behalf of Judge Dugan, who was seated next to him in the federal courtroom on Thursday.The Justice Department’s decision to arrest and charge a sitting state judge has drawn sharp criticism from many Democrats, lawyers and former judges, who have described the case as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. Top Trump administration officials have defended the prosecution.“It doesn’t matter what line of work you are in, if you break the law, we will follow the facts and we will prosecute you,” Attorney General Pam Bondi has said about the case.The prosecution of Judge Dugan quickly became synonymous with the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown, and its warnings to local officials that they must not stand in the way of deportation efforts. Since President Trump returned to office, the Justice Department has sued state and local governments that limit cooperation with immigration agents and has announced investigations of some elected Democrats over their immigration policies.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Several Supreme Court Justices Have Been Critical of Nationwide Injunctions

      by

      Across the ideological spectrum, justices have been troubled by rulings that touch everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action.Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have said they are troubled by at least some nationwide injunctions, and several have long called for the court to address their proper scope.“It just can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022 at Northwestern University’s law school, “that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”It is one thing for federal trial judges to resolve the dispute before them in rulings that are binding on the parties to the case, several justices have said. It is another to issue nationwide injunctions — sometimes called “universal” injunctions — that apply to everyone affected by the challenged law, regulation or executive action.In 2018, in a concurring opinion in a decision upholding President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.” He added that “if federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”In 2020, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, urged his colleagues to give lower courts guidance on when such injunctions were appropriate.“The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”In 2023, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a statement joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when the court refused to revive a Florida law barring children from drag performances.“The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against nonparties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.Justices Kagan, Thomas and Gorsuch all said that the availability of nationwide injunctions can spur forum shopping, the practice of filing lawsuits in friendly jurisdictions, as it takes only one judge to block a program even if several others reject similar challenges.“In the Trump years,” Justice Kagan said in 2022, “people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas.”Challengers in the birthright citizenship cases said that some issues, like school segregation and racial gerrymandering, required universal relief rather than case-by-case litigation. Birthright citizenship, they wrote, is also such an issue.“The universal injunction in this case preserves the uniformity of United States citizenship, an area in which nationwide consistency is vitally important,” lawyers for the challenger wrote. “Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born.”A nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order, they wrote, “serves the public interest by preventing chaos and confusion.” More