United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Does Trump Have the Power to Install Jeanine Pirro as Interim U.S. Attorney?

      by

      By using another interim appointment to fill a vacancy for the top prosecutor in Washington, the White House is bypassing Senate confirmation and potentially claiming expansive authority.President Trump’s announcement that he was making the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro the interim U.S. attorney in Washington has raised questions about whether he had legitimate legal authority to do so.Under a federal law, the attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. But soon after taking office in January, the Trump administration installed a Republican lawyer and political activist, Ed Martin, in that role.The question is whether presidents are limited to one 120-day window for interim U.S. attorneys, or whether they can continue unilaterally installing such appointees in succession — indefinitely bypassing Senate confirmation as a check on their appointment power. Here is a closer look.What is a U.S. attorney?A U.S. attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, wields significant power. That includes the ability to start a criminal prosecution by filing a complaint or by requesting a grand jury indictment. Presidents typically nominate someone to the role who must secure Senate confirmation before taking office.What is an interim U.S. attorney?When the position needs a temporary occupant, a federal statute says the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney who does not need to undergo Senate confirmation. The statute limits terms to a maximum of 120 days — or fewer, if the Senate confirms a regular U.S. attorney to fill the opening.Is the president limited to one 120-day window?This is unclear. The ambiguity underscores the aggressiveness of Mr. Trump’s move in selecting Ms. Pirro. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats on the panel “will be looking into 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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      After Criticism, Harris’s $900 Million Group Tries to Lay Out a Future

      by

      Future Forward, the big-money group supporting Kamala Harris’s presidential bid last year, resurfaced after her loss with an event in California.Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election in November, a big-money group that had raised over $900 million to support her but ultimately failed in its efforts has kept a low profile — even as Ms. Harris’s advisers have publicly second-guessed its approach to the campaign.But a closed-door conference this week hosted by the super PAC, Future Forward, at a luxury seaside hotel in California made plain that the group does not plan to fade away.Future Forward drew some of the biggest names in Democratic politics to the Ritz-Carlton resort in Half Moon Bay, Calif., south of San Francisco, to brief donors on what it thought went wrong last year — and what could come next.Attendees included potential future presidential candidates, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and seven-figure Democratic donors, some of whom had questions about why Future Forward was unable to help Ms. Harris win.At an event on Thursday with passed hors d’oeuvres like mini lobster rolls and short-rib tostones and a dinner featuring heirloom tomato carpaccio, beef tenderloin and seared sea bass, Chauncey McLean, the group’s leader, gestured to criticism of what he called the group’s “reputation” — a dependence on polling and testing and randomized trials.“Those are all just fancy ways of saying we listen to voters and try to gauge whether any of the things we do actually work,” Mr. McLean said, according to a person in the room. The group declined to comment.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

      Pope Leo XIV Voted in Democratic and Republican Primaries, Records Show

      by

      Pope Leo XIV voted in Democratic primaries in 2008 and 2010 and in three Republican primaries in the years that followed, state records show.Pope Leo XIV has voted fairly regularly in general elections over the last two decades, and has chosen to participate in both Republican and Democratic primary elections over the years, state and local records in Illinois show.The new pontiff, a Chicago native, has voted in at least 10 general elections since 2000, the records show, most recently in November when he cast an absentee ballot in the presidential election. In primary elections in Illinois, voters may choose any party’s ballot at the polls, and Pope Leo has varied in his selection, picking Democratic ballots years ago and Republican ones more recently.Will County, in suburban Chicago, released records on Thursday showing that the pope had voted in several elections there since 2012, including three Republican primaries between 2012 and 2016.Records viewed on Friday at the Illinois State Board of Elections office in Springfield showed that Pope Leo, who was born Robert Francis Prevost, voted with regularity in Cook County between 2000 and 2010. During that time, he voted in two primaries, selecting Democratic ballots in 2008 and 2010.In Illinois, where Democrats dominate in statewide elections, voters do not register as members of a political party. American citizens living outside the country remain eligible to vote.Pope Leo was born in Chicago and grew up in nearby Dolton, Ill., in a family that was deeply involved in its local parish. Though his career has included long stints in Peru and Rome, he has returned to Illinois several times as an adult, including for graduate school and for postings with the Midwest Augustinians.Susan C. Beachy More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Agenda Hits Familiar Obstacle: State and Local Taxes

      by

      A small group of Republicans are threatening to torpedo President Trump’s agenda over the state and local tax deduction, long a headache for both parties.It was perhaps inevitable that the Republican effort to pass a vast fiscal package this year would, at some point, get caught up in the thicket of the state and local tax deduction.After all, the deduction, often called SALT, has long had the potential to cause a political standoff. Many G.O.P. lawmakers abhor it and, in 2017, imposed a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes Americans can write off on their federal returns. But to pass a tax bill this year, the party will need the support of a motivated clutch of Republicans who have made lifting that cap the animating promise of their political careers.Those lawmakers, who represent high-tax states like New York and New Jersey where the deduction is cherished, say they are willing to tank the package over the issue. Representative Nick LaLota, Republican of New York, can already visualize voting against the bill.“There’s a green ‘yes’ button and there’s a red ‘no’ button to press. Come time, if there’s not enough SALT in this bill, I’m pressing the red ‘no’ button,” he said. “It is a hill I am willing to stake my entire congressional career on.”Attempts by House Republican leaders to reach a deal with members like Mr. LaLota yielded little progress this week, leaving the issue unresolved as G.O.P. lawmakers prepare to release the first draft of their tax bill next week. Along with Medicaid, the health care program for the poor that Republicans have targeted for cuts, the state and local tax deduction could determine the fate of the entire G.O.P. legislative agenda.That’s because any change to the current $10,000 limit would be incredibly expensive, threatening to swamp the overall Republican budget for tax cuts. Even a relatively modest change, like doubling the cap for married couples, would cost $230 billion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. More generous alterations along the lines of what New York Republicans have demanded could surpass $1 trillion.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Softens on Raising Taxes on the Rich, Saying G.O.P. Probably Shouldn’t

      by

      Days after he privately encouraged Speaker Mike Johnson to increase tax for the wealthy in a bill to fulfill his agenda, he publicly said it could be a bad idea, one that was ‘OK’ with him.President Trump on Friday publicly softened his private push on House Republicans to raise taxes on wealthy people and scrap a tax break that benefits private equity executives as part of a megabill to carry out his agenda.“The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media website, Truth Social. “Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!”Mr. Trump on Wednesday had privately urged Speaker Mike Johnson to create a higher tax bracket for those making more than $2.5 million a year. He also said he supported closing what is known as the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund, private equity and venture capital executives to pay taxes of only about 20 percent on their profits, which is about half the top income tax rate.The request further complicated Republicans’ job as they toil to put together a domestic policy bill they hope to push through Congress this year. Divisions within the party over potential cuts to Medicaid and other popular social programs to pay for it, and which tax reductions to include, have delayed the drafting of the package and threaten to sap support for it. And Mr. Trump’s abrupt and sometimes fleeting demands for the bill have hung over the talks, with G.O.P. lawmakers reluctant to cross him but uncertain of where he will ultimately stand.Mr. Trump is not constitutionally eligible to run for another election, unlike President George H.W. Bush, who was famously accused of breaking his campaign pledge not to impose new taxes.But Republicans are already facing blowback over Mr. Trump’s first four months in office, well ahead of the midterm congressional elections. And many do not want to take a vote that would be used by Democrats as a weapon against them.Mr. Trump did not entirely walk away from his tax demand in the social media post. But he left himself an out should Republicans balk. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Holocaust Museum Board Member Condemns Silence on Trump Firings

      by

      Board members clashed over email after a Biden appointee sent a scathing letter invoking the Holocaust as he denounced the museum’s silence on President Trump’s firings of board members.A member of the board that oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum wrote a blistering letter to the other board members on Friday condemning the institution’s silence after President Trump’s recent firings and invoking the Holocaust as he warned about the dangers of not speaking out.In late April, Mr. Trump fired a number of board members appointed by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., including Doug Emhoff, the husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as other former senior administration officials.The firings were widely criticized as an effort to politicize an organization dedicated to educating the world about one of the worst atrocities in history. But the museum’s statement at the time made no mention of the terminations and instead emphasized an eagerness to work with the Trump administration.Kevin Abel, who was appointed to the museum’s board by Mr. Biden in 2023, wrote in his letter on Friday that Mr. Trump’s “campaign of retribution” had been met with troubling “public silence” by the museum.Mr. Abel wrote that while it was “understandable” that museum leaders might fear speaking out at the risk of losing funding, it was vital to do so.“At this juncture of rising threats and a swirling atmosphere of hatred, it is ever more imperative that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the one institution that can most credibly call out the administration’s attack of its Council for what it is, not choose to remain silent,” Mr. Abel wrote, invoking Martin Niemöller’s words “about the danger of not speaking out,” which he noted were “inscribed on the wall of the Museum’s permanent exhibition.”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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Writing Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Face Risks on Medicaid

      by

      Representatives from swing districts face tough votes as soon as next week, when key House panels are scheduled to consider legislation that would cut popular programs to pay for President Trump’s agenda.Gabe Evans, then a Republican state lawmaker in Colorado, defeated a Democratic member of Congress in November by less than 1 percentage point — just 2,449 votes — writing his ticket to Washington.Now Mr. Evans, 39, is helping to write legislation that could cement his own ticket back home.The first-term congressman, whose swing district just north of Denver includes 151,749 Medicaid recipients, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Republican budget resolution that lays the groundwork for sweeping legislation to enact President Trump’s domestic agenda instructs the panel, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, to slash spending by $880 billion over the next decade to help pay for a large tax cut. That number is impossible to reach without substantially reducing the cost of Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for lower-income Americans.As Republicans in Congress struggle to coalesce around the core pieces of what Mr. Trump calls his “one big, beautiful bill,” Mr. Evans and other G.O.P. lawmakers from some of the most competitive districts in the country are facing committee votes next week to approve cuts to popular programs that could come back to haunt them politically.And Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of Republican incumbents going on the record supporting the effort.“These members of Congress won with fewer votes than the number of people in their district on Medicaid,” said Jesse Ferguson, a veteran Democratic strategist and a former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Voting for this is like being the captain of the Titanic and deciding to intentionally hit the iceberg.”The group includes Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican of Iowa, who also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and is on even shakier ground than Mr. Evans, despite having warded off a challenger multiple times. Last year, Ms. Miller-Meeks, who represents 132,148 Medicaid recipients, won her seat by 0.2 percent, or 799 votes. Her local office in Davenport has been besieged by demonstrators concerned about spending cuts.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

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      House Votes to Rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America, Taking a Symbolic Step

      by

      The legislation was all but certain to die in the Senate, but the move put the Republican-led House on the record supporting President Trump’s nomenclature.A divided House on Thursday approved legislation to permanently rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, moving over the taunting objections of Democrats to codify President Trump’s executive order renaming the body of water in line with his “America First” worldview.The 211-to-206 mostly party-line vote to pass the bill amounted to a symbolic show of Republican deference to Mr. Trump, given that Democrats are unlikely to allow the legislation to move forward in the Senate. But it put the G.O.P.-led House on the record backing the president in his effort to rewrite the rules of geography and to dare critics to defy him.Just one Republican, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, voted no.The White House has barred journalists from The Associated Press from covering events in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One, as punishment for the news organization’s continued use of the name Gulf of Mexico.“The American people deserve pride in their country, and pride in the waters that we own and we protect with our military and our Coast Guard,” said Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who sponsored the bill, calling it “one of the most important things we can do this Congress.”Democrats dismissed the legislation as a pandering and performative waste of time when Republicans were struggling to reach agreement on legislation to fulfill the president’s domestic policy agenda — the “big, beautiful bill” that could include unpopular cuts to Medicaid.Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, called it a “silly, small-minded and sycophantic piece of legislation.” He said the only silver lining of the exercise was that it underscored how Republicans were laboring to enact that domestic policy measure, which he warned would impose the largest Medicaid cut in history.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