United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump to Name Michael Waltz as His National Security Adviser

      by

      The president-elect has chosen a Republican member of Congress from Florida to oversee national security policy in the White House.President-elect Donald J. Trump has chosen Representative Michael Waltz of Florida to be his national security adviser, two people familiar with the decision said on Monday, turning to a former Green Beret who has taken a tough line on China to oversee foreign and national security policy in the White House.Mr. Waltz is the second Republican House member to be selected by Mr. Trump for a high-level job in his next administration, after his choice of Representative Elise Stefanik of New York for ambassador to the United Nations.Mr. Waltz, 50, has been a member of the Armed Services, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees in the House and would join the Trump administration as it addresses Russia’s war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East and confronts an increasingly aggressive China. His wife, Julia Nesheiwat, was homeland security adviser in the first Trump administration.Even as a congressional freshman, Mr. Waltz caught the eye of the Trump White House with his national security credentials. In 2020, in the days after Mr. Trump authorized the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran, Mr. Waltz was included in a small group of Republicans invited to the White House who received a briefing on the strike.The Wall Street Journal earlier reported the move.Mr. Waltz, who became a fixture on Fox News on matters of foreign policy, is widely regarded on Capitol Hill as a hawk on both China and Iran. He served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and vociferously opposed President Biden’s withdrawal of troops from there. “What no one can ever do for me, including this administration right now, is articulate a counterterrorism plan that’s realistic without us there,” Mr. Waltz, who also served as a counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, said in an interview in the days after the withdrawal.Mr. Waltz had also opposed withdrawing large numbers of troops from Afghanistan during the Trump administration without stringent conditions, and he introduced legislation to prevent a significant troop drawdown from Afghanistan unless the director of national intelligence could certify that the Taliban would not associate with Al Qaeda.The pick would also whittle down even further what is expected to be a slender Republican majority in the House in the early days of the next congressional session.House Republicans appear on track to win a narrow majority in the next Congress. Special elections would need to be held to replace both Mr. Waltz and Ms. Stefanik, who currently represent safe districts for the party. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Offers Elise Stefanik Role as U.N. Ambassador

      by

      In one of his first cabinet-level personnel decisions, the president-elect has chosen the Republican member of Congress from New York to represent the United States at the United Nations.President-elect Donald J. Trump has offered Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, the role of U.N. ambassador in his upcoming administration.Ms. Stefanik, who represents an upstate New York district in the House and is a member of the Republican leadership in the chamber, has been a vocal supporter of Mr. Trump. His decision to name her to the post was reported earlier by CNN.Ms. Stefanik has accepted the offer, her office said.Ms. Stefanik, 40, emerged as a key ally to Mr. Trump during his first impeachment proceeding. She has been chair of the House Republican conference, but has minimal experience in foreign policy and national security. She has served on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. She has been an outspoken supporter of Israel, and had a high-profile role in the congressional hearings that led to the resignations of several university presidents over their handling of campus unrest following the terror attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.She also impressed Mr. Trump years ago with an outspoken defense of him during his first impeachment trial in the House. In a statement, Mr. Trump called her a “strong, tough and smart America First fighter.”House Republicans appear on track to win a narrow majority in the incoming Congress. Ms. Stefanik’s departure could make their margin even thinner until an election to replace her is held in what is considered a safe district for the party.It’s not yet clear whether Mr. Trump will be able to raid the House for his loyalists who serve there. Republicans are currently on track to keep their majority, but only by the similar razor-thin margin they have now, which has made it difficult to control the floor. Next year, they will be expected to produce major legislative results as a result of the party’s unified power in Washington.Ms. Stefanik, the first Trump ally from the House who has been announced as a cabinet pick, has long been positioning herself to rise in a Trump administration. But her situation may be particularly difficult. In New York State, Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, would most likely wait as long as possible to call a special election to fill her seat.Elon Musk, the billionaire and major Trump supporter, made clear on X that he had reservations about her appointment, based on the tight margin of control he is expecting in the House.“Elise is awesome, but it might be too dicey to lose her from the House, at least for now,” Mr. Musk wrote on the social media platform.Her selection comes after Mr. Trump last week named Susie Wiles, a longtime political operative who helped lead his campaign, as his White House chief of staff. On Sunday evening, Mr. Trump named Thomas D. Homan, an immigration hard-liner, to be his “border czar.”Annie Karni More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, Jay Powell and a Potential Fight over the Fed’s Future

      by

      As Trump allies including Elon Musk endorse ending the Federal Reserve’s independence, the central bank’s chair is reportedly ready to go to court to fight back.Jay Powell appears ready to defend Fed independence, and his job.Kent Nishimura/Getty ImagesA battle over the Fed’s future Donald Trump’s threat to exert more say over the Fed or even fire Jay Powell, the chair of the central bank, has alarmed some on Wall Street. But the president-elect’s effort took on added weight in recent days, after Elon Musk endorsed a push to erode the Fed’s independence.The fight shows how the future of the Fed could remain high on the agenda, and how far Musk’s influence — and the role of X as place for announcing policy positions — could extend across government.The Fed has its foes. Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, introduced a bill in June to abolish the central bank, accusing it of being an “economic manipulator that has directly contributed to the financial instability many Americans face today.”Lee said on X that he wants to see the Fed under the president’s control — a view that Musk backed.Powell could turn to the courts to challenge any White House attempt to exert more control, according to The Wall Street Journal’s Nick Timiraos. Trump appointed Powell in 2017 but flirted with removing him shortly afterward. Powell held onto his job, but was ready for a fight if Trump made a move, Timiraos writes:Powell told then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that he would fight his removal if sought by the president, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump was upset the Fed was raising interest rates against his wishes.For Powell, the unsavory prospect of a legal showdown — one he might have to pay for out of his own pocket — was imperative to preserve the ability of future Fed chairs to serve without the threat of being removed over a policy dispute.Powell has made it clear that the president doesn’t have the authority to remove a Fed chair. Last week, he said he wouldn’t step down if Trump asked him to do so after the central bank lowered borrowing costs by a quarter point. Removing him, he added, was “not permitted under the law.”A 1977 law gave Congress more oversight of the Fed, but enshrined the institution’s independence on policy.The central bank’s ability to set monetary policy without political influence is a core tenet for markets and the economy. The Fed also has an outsized influence through its freedom to buy and sell securities, like Treasury notes and bonds, as it looks to bring more liquidity to trading.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Search for Answers

      by

      Nina FeldmanCarlos PrietoSydney Harper and Marc Georges and Sophia Lanman and Listen and follow ‘The Daily’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadioDemocrats, devastated by their sweeping losses in the election, are starting to sift through the wreckage of their defeat.Political leaders from all corners of the Democratic coalition are pointing fingers, arguing over the party’s direction and wrestling with what it stands for.Reid J. Epstein, who covers politics for The Times, discusses the reckoning inside the Democratic Party, and where it goes from here.Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.On today’s episodeReid J. Epstein, a reporter covering politics for The New York Times.Vice President Kamala Harris performed worse than President Biden did four years ago across the country, in cities, suburbs and rural towns.Kevin Lamarque/ReutersBackground readingIn interviews, lawmakers and strategists tried to explain Kamala Harris’s defeat, pointing to misinformation, the Gaza war, a toxic Democratic brand and the party’s approach to transgender issues.Nancy Pelosi, the influential former House speaker, lamented Biden’s late exit and the lack of an “open primary.”There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg, and Chris Haxel.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Military Judge Postpones Guilty Plea Proceedings in Sept. 11 Case

      by

      The judge asked defense and prosecution lawyers to settle on a date for the accused mastermind of the terrorist attacks to plead guilty.A military judge on Sunday postponed a hearing to receive the guilty plea of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, so that prosecutors can seek again to nullify the plea deal.Col. Matthew N. McCall, the judge, did not freeze preparations for the hearing, as prosecutors had requested. Instead, he told defense and prosecution lawyers to agree on a week or more next month or in early January to hold plea hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for Mr. Mohammed and his co-defendants, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi.The judge said it was “not reasonable to indefinitely delay” the entry of pleas in the case. He also told the sides to continue to collaborate on providing answers to questions related to clauses in the plea agreements. All three plea deals were reached July 31 and ostensibly withdrawn by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III two days later. On Wednesday, however, the judge ruled that Mr. Austin had acted too late and that the pleas were still valid, lawful contracts.Colonel McCall made no mention of the fact that his next scheduled hearing, from Jan. 20 to Jan. 31, straddled the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump — and most likely Mr. Austin’s departure from the Pentagon.But a defense lawyer noted that the official who had approved the deal — an Austin appointee — was likely to leave the Pentagon at the end of the Biden administration and could potentially become unavailable for questions related to aspects of the plea deals.In a rare Sunday hearing, Clayton G. Trivett Jr., the lead prosecutor, told the judge that the chief prosecutor for military commissions, Rear Adm. Aaron C. Rugh, had instructed his staff on Friday night to prepare an appeal of the judge’s decision reinstating the guilty pleas. Mr. Trivett asked the judge to halt all plea-related proceedings.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

      Senators Vying to Be G.O.P. Leader Vow to Quickly Confirm Trump Nominees

      by

      Senators Rick Scott, John Thune and John Cornyn quickly responded to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s demand on social media, the latest example of his influence over Republican lawmakers.Senators vying to become the next leader of the Republican conference pledged on Sunday to quickly push through President-elect Donald J. Trump’s appointees after he demanded on social media that they do so.Senator Rick Scott of Florida was the first to make such a vow in an attempt to curry favor with Mr. Trump. Mr. Scott quickly picked up the endorsement of one of the president-elect’s biggest backers, the billionaire Elon Musk.Not to be outdone, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, who is considered a front-runner in the race, released a statement saying that he, too, would push to swiftly staff Mr. Trump’s administration.“One thing is clear: We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s cabinet and other nominees in place as soon as possible to start delivering on the mandate we’ve been sent to execute, and all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments,” Mr. Thune said.Senator John Cornyn of Texas was not far behind.“It is unacceptable for Senate Ds to blockade President @realDonaldTrump’s cabinet appointments,” he wrote on social media on Sunday. “If they do, we will stay in session, including weekends, until they relent. Additionally, the Constitution expressly confers the power on the President to make recess appointments.”Mr. Cornyn’s staff pointed out that he had already been advocating for quick approval of Mr. Trump’s nominees.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      There Were Two Huge Problems Harris Could Not Escape

      by

      Sarah Isgur, a longtime Republican campaign operative — and my friend and a senior editor at The Dispatch — has a brilliant sports analogy for the process of campaigning. She compares it to … curling.For those unfamiliar with the sport (which enjoys 15 minutes of fame every Winter Olympics), it involves sliding a very large, heavy “rock” toward a target on the ice. One person “throws” a 44-pound disc-shaped stone by sliding it along the ice, sweepers come in and frantically try to marginally change the speed and direction of the rock by brushing the ice with “brooms” that can melt just enough of the ice to make the rock travel farther or perhaps a little bit straighter.The sweepers are important, no doubt, but they cannot control the rock enough to save a bad throw. It’s a matter of physics. The rock simply has too much momentum.What does this have to do with politics? As Isgur writes, “The underlying dynamics of an election cycle (the economy, the popularity of the president, national events driving the news cycle) are like the 44-pound ‘stone.’ ” The candidates and the campaign team are the sweepers. They work frantically — and they can influence the stone — but they don’t control it.One of the frustrating elements of political commentary is that we spend far too much time talking about the sweeping and far too little time talking about the stone. Political hobbyists in particular (and that includes journalists!) are very interested in ad campaigns, ground games and messaging.Those things do matter, but when facing an election defeat this comprehensive, you know it was the stone that made the difference.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

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Democratic Blind Spot That Wrecked 2024

      by

      The 2022 election went better than Democrats could have hoped. The party picked up governor’s mansions and state legislatures and expanded their Senate majority. It held down losses in the House. The promised “red wave” never crashed ashore. Perhaps it would have been better if it had.Looking back, the seeds of Democrats’ 2024 wipeout were planted in the quasi-victory of 2022. Three things happened in the aftermath. The pressure on President Biden not to run for re-election, and the possibility of a serious primary challenge if he did run, evaporated. Democrats persuaded themselves of a theory of the electorate that proved mistaken. And as a result, the Biden-Harris administration avoided the kind of hard, post-defeat pivot that both the Clinton and Obama administrations were forced to make after the midterm defeats of 1994 and 2010.In 2020, Democrats had worried over Biden’s age, but were comforted, in part, by the soft signals he sent that he would serve only one term. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he said in 2020. By mid-2022, as Biden signaled his intention to run again, the party was growing alarmed. In June of that year, The Times interviewed nearly 50 Democratic officials and found that among “nearly all the Democrats interviewed, the president’s age — 79 now, 82 by the time the winner of the 2024 election is inaugurated — is a deep concern about his political viability.”Nor was the public thrilled about the results the Biden administration was delivering. In October of 2022, amid widespread anger over inflation, the Times-Siena poll found Biden with a 38 percent job approval rating and trailing Trump in a hypothetical rematch.If Democrats had been wiped out in the midterms, the pressure on Biden to be the transitional figure he’d promised to be would have been immense. If he’d run again despite that pressure, he might have faced serious challengers. But Democrats fared far better than they had expected. The president’s saggy approval rating and the widespread anger at inflation were nowhere to be found in the election results. In their first referendum under Biden, Democrats did much better than they had under Clinton or Obama. Any pressure on Biden to step aside — and any possibility of a real primary challenge — ended.In its place, a new theory of the electorate emerged, based on the way Democrats over-performed in contested states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and underperformed in safe states, like New York and California. There were two coalitions: the MAGA coalition and the anti-MAGA coalition. The anti-MAGA coalition was bigger, but it needed to be activated by the threat of Donald Trump or the Dobbs abortion ruling. A slew of special election victories in 2023 seemed to confirm the theory. Democrats were winning elections they had no business winning, given Biden’s low approval rating and public anger over inflation. But the anti-MAGA coalition’s hatred of Trump had changed the electoral math.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