United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Chuck Schumer: Trump and Musk Would Love a Shutdown. We Must Not Give Them One.

      by

      Over the past two months, the United States has confronted a bitter truth: The federal government has been taken over by a nihilist.President Trump has taken a blowtorch to our country and wielded chaos like a weapon. Most Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have caved to his every whim. The Grand Old Party has devolved into a crowd of Trump sycophants and MAGA radicals who seem to want to burn everything to the ground.Now, Republicans’ nihilism has brought us to a new brink of disaster: Unless Congress acts, the federal government will shut down Friday at midnight.As I have said many times, there are no winners in a government shutdown. But there are certainly victims: the most vulnerable Americans, those who rely on federal programs to feed their families, get medical care and stay financially afloat. Communities that depend on government services to function will suffer.This week Democrats offered a way out: Fund the government for another month to give appropriators more time to do their jobs. Republicans rejected this proposal.Why? Because Mr. Trump doesn’t want the appropriators to do their job. He wants full control over government spending.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democratic Attorneys General Sue Over Gutting of Education Department

      by

      A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Thursday, two days after the Education Department fired more than 1,300 workers, purging people who administer grants and track student achievement across America.The group, led by New York’s Letitia James, sued the administration in a Massachusetts federal court, saying that the dismissals were “illegal and unconstitutional.”“Firing half of the Department of Education’s work force will hurt students throughout New York and the nation, especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding,” Ms. James said in a news release. “This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal.”The cuts to the department’s staff will cause a delay in “nearly every aspect” of the K-12 education in their states, the attorneys general said in their suit. Therefore, the coalition is seeking a court order to stop what it called “policies to dismantle” the agency, arguing that the layoffs are just a first step toward its destruction.“All of President Trump’s executive actions are lawful, constitutional and intended to deliver on the promises he made to the American people,” a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said. “Partisan elected officials and judicial activists who seek to legally obstruct President Trump’s agenda are defying the will of 77 million Americans who overwhelmingly re-elected President Trump, and their efforts will fail.”Linda McMahon, the education secretary, has said that the layoffs will help the department deliver services more efficiently and that the changes will not affect student loans, like Pell Grants, or funding for special-needs students.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Dr. David Weldon on the Withdrawal

      by

      particles were causing the problem in these children, and I was surprised that O’Leary withdrew
      his assertions.
      I then called O’Leary on the phone and asked him why he was doing this. There was a very long
      pregnant pause. He then said that it had taken him many years to get to the place where he was
      in the scientific community, and after another pause, he said he had four small children at
      home. I had small children at home myself at the time and I understood what he was saying. If
      he didn’t do it, he was going to be fired. He was going to be ruined.
      British officials were not satisfied with just getting the journal to withdraw the article and
      getting Dr. O’Leary to withdraw his claims. They then decided to begin proceedings to take away
      Dr. Wakefield’s medical license and one of his lead co-authors. Wakefield by this time had
      moved to the United States and to defend himself in court would have cost him hundreds of
      thousands of dollars so he let them take his license away. But his lead co-author Dr. Simon
      Murch was still practicing medicine in England and decided to defend himself in court, and the
      government lost and they were not able to take his license away. If Wakefield had the money to
      defend himself, he would never have lost his license. The court documents clearly show that
      Wakefield and his co-authors had not done anything unethical or inappropriate and their work
      was possibly valid.
      But that was all big Pharma needed. They could go around, saying it and feeding it to the media
      that the research had been withdrawn and Wakefield lost his license. But I looked at the
      micrographs and it sure looked to me like there was vaccine strain measles particles infecting
      the bowels of these kids.
      The CDC was charged with the responsibility of repeating to Wakefield research and showing
      that the measles vaccine was safe, but they never did it the right way. They decided to de
      epidemiologic studies instead of a clinical study. Again, as in the mercury study there were
      claims made that indicators that there was a problem with MMR were there. CDC was accused
      again of changing the protocol and data analysis until the association went away.
      Ironically, I talked with Wakefield after all of this was over. He agreed with me that we have to
      vaccinate our kids for measles. He thought the solution was to give the vaccine at a slightly
      older age, like they do in many European countries. Or we might be able to do research and
      figure out why some kids have a bad reaction to the MMR. Clearly, big Pharma didn’t want me
      in the CDC investigating any of this.
      There are a lot of additional ironies in all of this. I believe the CDC is mostly made up of really
      good people who really care about public health for our nation, though its credibility has been
      seriously tarnished because of the failures in the way the COVID-19 crisis was managed. 40% of
      Democrats and 80% of Republicans, don’t trust the CDC. Many don’t trust Pharma as well. I
      really wanted to try to make the CDC a better more respected agency and killing my nomination
      may have the opposite effect. Distrust may worsen. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump apuesta a que EE. UU. tolerará una recesión a fin de revivir la industria manufacturera

      by

      El presidente ofrece razones para imponer aranceles, como los ingresos, la influencia sobre los competidores y la creación de empleo. Pero el pasado sugiere una historia más compleja.Las guerras comerciales simultáneas del presidente Donald Trump con Canadá, México, China y la Unión Europea equivalen a una enorme apuesta económica y política: que los estadounidenses soporten meses o años de penuria económica a cambio de la lejana esperanza de reindustrializar el corazón de Estados Unidos.Es enormemente arriesgado. En los últimos días, Trump ha reconocido, a pesar de todas sus seguras predicciones de campaña de que “vamos a tener un auge como nunca antes hemos tenido”, que Estados Unidos puede dirigirse hacia una recesión, impulsada por su programa económico. Pero, en público y en privado, ha estado argumentando que “una ligera perturbación” en la economía y los mercados es un pequeño precio a pagar por traer de vuelta a Estados Unidos los puestos de trabajo en la industria manufacturera.Sus socios políticos más cercanos están redoblando la estrategia. “La política económica del presidente Trump es sencilla”, escribió el vicepresidente JD Vance en las redes sociales el lunes. “Si inviertes y creas empleo en Estados Unidos, serás recompensado. Reduciremos las normativas y los impuestos. Pero si construyes fuera de Estados Unidos, estarás solo”.La última vez que Trump intentó algo así, durante su primer mandato, fue un fracaso. En 2018 impuso aranceles del 25 por ciento al acero y del 10 por ciento al aluminio, sosteniendo que estaba protegiendo la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos y que, en última instancia, los aranceles crearían más puestos de trabajo en Estados Unidos. Los precios subieron y se produjo un aumento temporal de unos 5000 puestos de trabajo en todo el país. Durante la pandemia, se levantaron algunos de los aranceles, y hoy la industria emplea aproximadamente al mismo número de estadounidenses que entonces.Sin embargo, lo más preocupante fue la serie de estudios posteriores que demostraron que el país perdió decenas de miles de puestos de trabajo —más de 75.000, según un estudio— en las industrias que dependían de las importaciones de acero y aluminio. La producción por hora de los fabricantes de acero estadounidenses también había descendido, mientras que la productividad de la industria manufacturera en general en Estados Unidos aumentó.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Brad Schimel, a Trump Loyalist, Aims to Flip Wisconsin’s Supreme Court

      by

      Brad Schimel, a judge who is so supportive of the president that he dressed up as him for Halloween, is hoping to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court for conservatives.In October 2016, the day after the release of the “Access Hollywood” recording in which Donald J. Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, Wisconsin Republicans held a rally in the small town of Elkhorn.As the state’s top Republicans spoke at the event, they distanced themselves from Mr. Trump. Paul D. Ryan, then the House speaker, said he was “sickened.” Gov. Scott Walker declared that Mr. Trump’s remarks were “inexcusable.” Senator Ron Johnson called them “indefensible.”Just one Republican took the stage, framed by haystacks and pumpkins, and came to Mr. Trump’s defense: Brad Schimel, then the state’s attorney general and now a Waukesha County judge who is running in a high-profile, expensive race for control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.“I know that Donald Trump has said some things that are bad,” Judge Schimel said as a voice in the crowd cried out, “Get over it!” He added: “I’m the father of two daughters. My daughters look up to me, and I don’t like hearing anyone talk that way about women. But Donald Trump will appoint judges who will defend our Constitution and respect our Constitution.”Mr. Schimel during a 2016 event. Alone among top Wisconsin Republicans, Mr. Schimel spoke up in defense of Donald J. Trump at a campaign event the day after the “Access Hollywood” recording put Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential bid in jeopardy.Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, via ImagnNow, as Judge Schimel aims to return a conservative majority to the court after Wisconsin liberals flipped it in 2023, he is hoping to sustain the pro-Trump energy that helped the president carry the battleground state last fall.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

      Takeaways From the Irish Leader Micheál Martin’s Visit With Trump

      by

      In a meeting with Ireland’s prime minister, President Trump gave no hint of backing down from actions that have caused fissures in the trans-Atlantic alliance.President Trump hosted Micheál Martin, the prime minister of Ireland, at the White House on Wednesday, with an escalating trade dispute with Europe hovering over the usual pomp and circumstance.Official Washington, dappled in green, feted Mr. Martin at the traditional visit ahead of St. Patrick’s Day. But Mr. Trump gave no hint of backing down from actions that have caused fissures in the trans-Atlantic alliance.In the Oval Office, Mr. Trump, seated next to Mr. Martin, railed against the European Union’s trade policies and regulation of American companies.“The European Union treats us very badly, and they have for years,” he said.Mr. Martin largely took a back seat during the meeting, seeking to avoid the fireworks that erupted at the White House two weeks ago when Mr. Trump rebuked President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, casting him as ungrateful for U.S. aid.Here are three takeaways from Mr. Martin’s visit.The president showed no signs of changing course on tariffs.The stock market has declined. Top business leaders are privately complaining. And even some Republicans are voicing concern. But Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that he had no plans to change his strategy on sweeping tariffs.In fact, Mr. Trump suggested that he might institute steeper levies after the European Union announced billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs.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

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Cuts Ties With Migrant Shelter Provider After Dropping Child Abuse Lawsuit

      by

      The Trump administration said on Wednesday that it had stopped using the largest U.S. operator of shelters for migrant children over allegations of sexual abuse and harassment of minors at the facilities, and moved to dismiss a Biden-era lawsuit that sought to hold the nonprofit accountable for enabling that abuse.A joint statement issued by the Health and Human Services and Justice Departments on Wednesday cited concerns over allegations detailed in the lawsuit filed last year, namely that employees for the provider, Southwest Key Programs, subjected children to abuse and harassment.The suit accused employees of Southwest Key, which has worked with the federal government for more than two decades, of exploiting “children’s vulnerabilities, language barriers and distance from family and loved ones” from 2015 through at least 2023, including President Trump’s first term.Attorney General Pam Bondi, in the statement, blamed the Biden administration’s immigration policies for enabling the abuses.“Under the border policies of the previous administration, bad actors were incentivized to exploit children and break our laws: this ends now,” Ms. Bondi said, adding, “securing our border and protecting children from abuse are among the most critical missions of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration.”Anais Biera Miracle, a spokeswoman for Southwest Key, maintained the nonprofit denied the claims of abuse. She said it was “pleased” that the Justice Department had dropped the case in its entirety, and that charges cannot be refiled.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump’s Tesla Showcase Mattered to Elon Musk

      by

      A lot has changed since former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. snubbed Elon Musk at an event in 2021.It wasn’t so long ago that Elon Musk couldn’t even get an invitation to the White House.The year was 2021, and President Joe Biden was announcing tighter pollution rules and promoting his electric vehicle policies.Behind him on the lawn were gleaming examples — a Ford F-150 Lightning, a Chevrolet Bolt EV, a Jeep Wrangler — as well as the chief executives of the companies that made them. But the nation’s biggest electric vehicle producer was nowhere to be seen.“Seems odd that Tesla wasn’t invited,” Musk tweeted before the event.The Biden White House explained the snub by noting that the automakers that had been invited were the nation’s three largest employers of the United Automobile Workers, a powerful union, and it suggested that the administration would find other ways to partner with Tesla. (Union animus toward electric vehicles later became a problem for Biden.) But today, the moment is seen as a turning point in a feud between Musk and Biden that some Democrats say they have come to regret deeply.“They left Elon out,” said Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist who is working to get his party to embrace electric vehicles, “and now he hates ’em.”It was hard not to think about that episode yesterday when Musk and Trump lined up Teslas, including Cybertrucks, on the White House driveway and proceeded to rattle off their benefits like denizens of a suburban showroom.“I love the product,” Trump said.“Try it,” Musk said. “You’ll like it!”Musk now has the White House attention and promotion that he wanted several years ago — and with it, a pile of potential benefits for some of his companies — but it’s come at a price. He donated some $300 million largely through his own super PAC to help Trump get elected. My colleagues Theodore Schleifer and Maggie Haberman reported yesterday that he’s signaled a willingness to put another $100 million into groups controlled by Trump’s political operation.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