United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      A Musk Lawsuit in Wisconsin Is the Backdrop to the State’s Supreme Court Race

      by

      A legal battle over Tesla sales in Wisconsin is the quiet backdrop to a big State Supreme Court race.I was driving from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis last week when I saw the sign.A Tesla sign.Soon after I crossed the St. Croix River, which divides Wisconsin and Minnesota, a brick-and-steel tower visible from Interstate 94 advertised the Tesla store and service center in Lake Elmo, Minn.The dealership’s proximity to the state line is probably no accident: Wisconsin law prohibits vehicle manufacturers from selling cars directly to customers there, the way Tesla usually does. Instead, companies need to work through local franchisees — think Hank’s Ford or Jimmy’s Subaru, that sort of thing.This means that, in Wisconsin, you can’t actually stroll into a dealership and leave with a Tesla. You can look at one — the company has showrooms in Madison and Milwaukee — but if you want one, you’ll generally have to buy it online and pick it up somewhere like Lake Elmo or Northern Illinois, or have it delivered.Tesla sued Wisconsin over this law in January. Now, Tesla’s owner, Elon Musk, is spending big money on the state’s Supreme Court race.The lawsuit has become a major focus for Democrats, who are accusing Musk of trying to buy a justice and swing the very court that might at some point consider his lawsuit. My colleagues Reid Epstein, who writes about national politics, and Neal Boudette, who covers the auto industry, teamed up to explore the relationship between the lawsuit and Musk’s $20 million investment — so far — in the judicial election, which will be held on April 1.The politics of Tesla’s fight with Wisconsin are, like so much involving Musk, kind of topsy-turvy. It pits car dealers, who tend to be Republican, against Musk supporters, who these days also tend to be Republican.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Seek Answers on Firing of Justice Dept. Official

      by

      After a disagreement about giving gun rights back to the actor Mel Gibson, a pardon attorney was fired. Senate Democrats are asking for details, including records or emails, that relate to the decision.Senate Democrats pressed Justice Department officials on Wednesday to explain the firing of the pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, who was dismissed amid a disagreement with her superiors about whether to restore the actor Mel Gibson’s right to own guns.Ms. Oyer was one of a number of senior career officials at the Justice Department who were abruptly ousted this month. No reason was cited for the dismissals, but Ms. Oyer told The New York Times that senior department officials pressured her to add Mr. Gibson, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, to a list of people with past convictions who could nevertheless have their gun rights returned to them.The campaign, she said, incited fears that she could be fired over it. Senior Justice Department officials have said the dispute was not the reason for her dismissal.Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking answers about Ms. Oyer’s firing. Her dismissal, they added, was “particularly troubling in light of the Trump administration’s purge of public servants, seemingly based on whether they are willing to carry out the president’s agenda of political retribution against his perceived enemies.”Senate Democrats are now asking Ms. Bondi to provide an explanation for Ms. Oyer’s firing, the names of the people involved in the move and any records or emails that relate to the decision.“It is vitally important that D.O.J. attorneys be permitted to pursue justice for the United States of America and the American people,” the Democrats wrote, “not serve as the personal law firm to President Trump, handing out legal favors to his rich and famous friends.”Mr. Gibson has not been able to buy a firearm since he pleaded no contest in 2011 to misdemeanor battery against a former girlfriend.The Trump administration has decided that the Justice Department should create a path for gun rights to be restored to some people with convictions. During internal department conversations on the subject, Ms. Oyer said she was particularly worried about giving gun rights to people with domestic violence convictions.“This isn’t political,” she said. “This is a safety issue.”Last week, the department moved forward with its plan to restore gun rights to some convicts, publishing a notice in the Federal Register about the initiative. Still unclear is exactly what criteria will be used to decide who is eligible. A senior Justice Department official has suggested this is only the first of a number of steps the administration plans to make on guns, including making it easier for people to buy silencers, also known as suppressors. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Elon Musk and Tesla Have a Legal Bone to Pick With Wisconsin

      by

      As the billionaire and his allied groups pour more than $20 million into a race for the state’s top court, his car company is suing Wisconsin over a law restricting vehicle sales.Elon Musk is far and away the biggest spender in this year’s race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, throwing his fortune behind a conservative candidate aiming to topple the court’s 4-to-3 liberal majority.The deluge of cash — $20 million and counting from Mr. Musk and groups tied to him — comes as his electric car company, Tesla, is suing Wisconsin over its law prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from selling cars directly to consumers. The law requires a franchisee to act as a middleman.Tesla filed the lawsuit in January, days before Mr. Musk began spending on the race. He has not publicly mentioned the litigation, but for weeks it has served as a backdrop of the April 1 election. The case is now before a court in Milwaukee County, but it could proceed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the coming months.The conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County judge who has declined to discuss the Tesla case, appeared with Mr. Musk on a social media livestream on Saturday and drew President Trump’s endorsement late last week. He faces Susan Crawford, a liberal Dane County judge backed by Wisconsin Democrats.Since Mr. Musk began spending to help Judge Schimel, Judge Crawford and Wisconsin Democrats have built their public messaging around the idea that she is in a battle with the billionaire leading Mr. Trump’s destruction of the federal government.“It is no coincidence that Elon Musk started spending that money within days of Tesla filing a lawsuit in Wisconsin,” Judge Crawford said during a televised debate this month.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. to End Vaccine Funds for Poor Countries

      by

      A 281-page spreadsheet obtained by The Times lists the Trump administration’s plans for thousands of foreign aid programs.The Trump administration intends to terminate the United States’ financial support for Gavi, the organization that has helped purchase critical vaccines for children in developing countries, saving millions of lives over the past quarter century, and to significantly scale back support for efforts to combat malaria, one of the biggest killers globally.The administration has decided to continue some key grants for medications to treat H.I.V. and tuberculosis, and food aid to countries facing civil wars and natural disasters.Those decisions are included in a 281-page spreadsheet that the United States Agency for International Development sent to Congress Monday night, listing the foreign aid projects it plans to continue and to terminate. The New York Times obtained a copy of the spreadsheet and other documents describing the plans.The documents provide a sweeping overview of the extraordinary scale of the administration’s retreat from a half-century-long effort to present the United States to the developing world as a compassionate ally and to lead the fight against infectious diseases that kill millions of people annually.The cover letter details the skeletal remains of U.S.A.I.D. after the cuts, with most of its funding eliminated, and only 869 of more than 6,000 employees still on active duty.In all, the administration has decided to continue 898 U.S.A.I.D. awards and to end 5,341, the letter says. It says the remaining programs are worth up to $78 billion. But only $8.3 billion of that is unobligated funds — money still available to disburse. Because that amount covers awards that run several years into the future, the figure suggests a massive reduction in the $40 billion that U.S.A.I.D. used to spend annually.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Could Run Out of Cash by May, Budget Office Predicts

      by

      The Congressional Budget Office said that the so-called X-date could occur as early as spring if Congress does not lift or suspend the nation’s debt limit.The U.S. could run out of money to pay its bills by late May if Congress does not raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.The forecast puts added pressure on Congress and the Trump administration to address the borrowing cap, which restricts the total amount of money that the United States is authorized to borrow to fund the government and meet its financial obligations. A protracted standoff later this year could rattle markets and complicate President Trump’s plans to enact more tax cuts.The C.B.O. noted that its forecast is subject to uncertainty over how much tax revenue the federal government will collect this year. It expects that the United States will have sufficient funds to keep paying bills through August or September. However, it said that if borrowing needs exceed its projections, the U.S. could run out of cash by late May or sometime in June.“The projected exhaustion date is uncertain because the timing and amount of revenue collections and outlays over the intervening months could differ from C.B.O.’s projections,” the budget office said in a report.The so-called X-date is the moment when the United States is unable to pay its bills, including interest payments to investors who hold government debt. Failure to meet those obligations could result in the United States defaulting on its debt. The U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, which is considered one of the safest investments in the world, and brinkmanship over missed payments could be economically damaging.The national debt is now approaching $37 trillion. Lawmakers agreed in June 2023 to suspend the $31.4 trillion debt limit until Jan. 1, 2025.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Annotated Text From Leaked Signal Group Chat With Top Trump Officials

      by

      <!–> [–><!–>Excerpts of a Signal chat published Monday by The Atlantic provide a rare and revealing look at the private conversations of top Trump administration officials as they weighed plans for U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> Thursday, March 13 [–> Michael Waltz 4:28 p.m. […] More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Adds Export Restrictions to More Chinese Tech Firms Over Security Concerns

      by

      The additions included companies that are customers of Intel and Nvidia, and one firm that was the focus of a New York Times investigation last year.The Trump administration on Tuesday added 80 companies and organizations to a list of companies that are barred from buying American technology and other exports because of national security concerns.The move, which targeted primarily Chinese firms, cracks down on companies that have been big buyers of American chips from Nvidia, Intel and AMD. It also closed loopholes that Trump administration officials have long criticized as allowing Chinese firms to continue to advance technologically despite U.S. restrictions.One company added to the list, Nettrix Information Industry, was the focus of a 2024 investigation by The New York Times that showed how some Chinese executives had bypassed U.S. restrictions aimed at cutting China off from advanced chips to make artificial intelligence.Nettrix, one of China’s largest makers of computer servers that are used to produce artificial intelligence, was started by a group of former executives from Sugon, a firm that provided advanced computing to the Chinese military and built a system the government used to surveil persecuted minorities in the western Xinjiang region.In 2019, the United States added Sugon to its “entity list,” restricting exports over national security concerns. The Times investigation found that, six months later, the executives formed Nettrix, using Sugon’s technology and inheriting some of its customers. Times reporters also found that Nettrix’s owners shared a complex in eastern China with Sugon and other related companies.After Sugon was singled out and restricted by the United States, its longtime partners — Nvidia, Intel and Microsoft — quickly formed ties with Nettrix, the investigation found.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      After the Signal Leak, How Well Do You Know Your Own Group Chats?

      by

      A journalist’s inclusion in a national security discussion served as a reminder that you might not know every number in the chat — and that could be a big problem.Hey, are you sure you want to send that to your group chat? Like, one thousand percent sure?Just checking. Because it’s been a strange week in the history of the group chat, those seemingly intimate text conversations that ping back and forth among friends and family members and, apparently, national security personnel.On Monday, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote that he had accidentally been added to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal. He followed along as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out attack plans against Houthi strongholds in Yemen and watched other national security officials post celebratory emoji after the strikes had taken place.As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle condemned the security breach, Americans with their own unruly group chats watched with recognition and disbelief: How had some of the country’s most powerful officials managed to so badly bungle using technology that millions of people rely on every day?“Obviously it’s a very relatable screw-up,” Mr. Goldberg said during an interview with Tim Miller of The Bulwark on Tuesday. “We’ve all sent texts to the wrong people,” he added.Those inadvertent texts, however, don’t typically contain high-stakes national security information that is being shared outside secure government channels.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