United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Hegseth Closes Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars

      by

      Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the shuttering of the Office of Net Assessment, a small, often secretive and sometimes opaque office that for more than 50 years has helped the Pentagon’s most senior leaders think about the future of war.The office costs about $10 million to $20 million a year — a fraction of the Pentagon’s $850 billion annual budget — but its work and staff of about a dozen civilians and military officers has often had an outsize impact on how the Pentagon prepares for possible conflicts.In a short note posted on Thursday, the Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell suggested that the office would be restructured and then reopened with a new focus on the country’s most “pressing national security challenges.” He did not explain how the office’s new mission would differ from its previous approach.For most of its history, the Office of Net Assessment was run by Andy Marshall, its founder, who pioneered an innovative and somewhat mysterious approach to comparing the strength of U.S. forces with that of its potential enemies. The office also developed inventive ways of fighting adversaries. Jim Baker, a retired Air Force colonel, succeeded Mr. Marshall in 2015.The office’s influence often depended on the defense secretary’s priorities and personal relationship with its director. In the early 2000s, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld relied heavily on Mr. Marshall to develop ways of fighting that relied on speed, precision munitions and rapidly improving surveillance capabilities to quickly defeat adversaries.More recently, the office focused on developing concepts for a possible war with China. It championed a concept called Air-Sea Battle, which envisioned an initial “blinding campaign” by stealthy U.S. bombers and submarines that would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar followed by a larger naval assault.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Andy Beshear Slams Gavin Newsom for Having Steve Bannon on Podcast

      by

      “I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform — ever, anywhere,” the Democratic governor of Kentucky said of President Trump’s former chief strategist.Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky sharply disagreed with a decision by Gov. Gavin Newsom of California to host Steve Bannon, one of the architects of the MAGA movement, on Mr. Newsom’s new podcast this week, saying Mr. Bannon’s voice should not be elevated “on any platform ever, anywhere.”Mr. Beshear, a Democrat who was vetted to be former Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024 and who is considered a possible candidate for president in 2028, made his comments on Thursday, shortly before speaking to House Democrats gathered for a planning retreat in Northern Virginia this week.“I think that Governor Newsom bringing on different voices is great,” Mr. Beshear told a small group of reporters. “We shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone. But Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform — ever, anywhere.”Mr. Beshear was speaking to the conference along with two other Democratic governors who are considered possible 2028 contenders: Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.Mr. Newsom is also considered a potential 2028 candidate. He started a podcast this month, bringing on big-name conservatives including Mr. Bannon, a fierce Trump loyalist, and Charlie Kirk, who leads Turning Point USA, the conservative network.Mr. Newsom’s decision to host Mr. Kirk and especially Mr. Bannon has received some blowback. Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman who did not run for re-election in 2022 after becoming a vocal Trump critic, said in a video that hosting them was “insane.”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

      Postal Service Reaches Deal With Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency

      by

      The leader of the U.S. Postal Service said in a letter to lawmakers on Thursday that he had reached an agreement with Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team allowing it to help in “identifying and achieving further efficiencies.”The Postal Service has long struggled with its finances, and Mr. Musk and President Trump have both suggested it should be privatized. But Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting group, the Department of Government Efficiency, has not targeted the Postal Service’s roughly 635,000 workers.Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who took his position during the first Trump presidency and moved to shrink the agency’s ranks during the Biden administration, said he had signed an agreement with Mr. Musk’s group on Wednesday.Mr. DeJoy, a Republican megadonor, wrote in the letter that Mr. Musk’s initiative was “an effort aligned” with his efforts.He said that the Postal Service’s work force had shrunk by 30,000 since the 2021 fiscal year, and that the agency planned to complete a “further reduction of another 10,000 people in the next 30 days” through a previously established voluntary-retirement program.Last week, Mr. Musk said at a tech conference organized by the bank Morgan Stanley that the Postal Service should be privatized, declaring, “We should privatize anything that can reasonably be privatized.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      JD Vance Is Booed at a Kennedy Center Concert After Trump’s Takeover

      by

      It was supposed to be a moment of celebration: Vice President JD Vance was attending a concert at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington on Thursday evening for the first time since President Trump’s stunning takeover of the institution.Instead, as Mr. Vance took his seat in the box tier with the second lady, Usha Vance, loud boos broke out in the auditorium, lasting roughly 30 seconds, according to audience members and a video posted on social media. Mr. Vance was shown in the video waving to the audience as he settled into his seat.The incident put on display the outcry over Mr. Trump’s decision last month to purge the Kennedy Center’s once-bipartisan board of its Biden appointees and have himself elected its chairman. (The president, who broke with tradition during his first term by not attending the Kennedy Center Honors after some of the artists being celebrated criticized him, complained that the center had become too “wokey.”)Mr. Vance attended Thursday’s performance by the National Symphony Orchestra, one of the Kennedy Center’s flagship groups. The ensemble, under the baton of its music director, Gianandrea Noseda, performed Shostakovich’s Violin Concerto No. 2, with Leonidas Kavakos as the soloist. After an intermission, the orchestra played Stravinsky’s “Petrushka.”The Vances stayed for the entire concert, audience members said. Ms. Vance was recently appointed by Mr. Trump to serve as a board member at the Kennedy Center, alongside other Trump allies like Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host.The concert started about 20 minutes late because of added security measures, audience members said.Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy Center, said she had no comment on the episode.A White House spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.In February, President Trump ousted the Kennedy Center’s longtime chairman, the financier David M. Rubenstein, the center’s largest donor. His new board of loyalists elected him chairman and fired Deborah F. Rutter, the center’s president for more than a decade. At least three other top staff members were also dismissed.Performers, including the actress Issa Rae and the musician Rhiannon Giddens, have dropped out in protest amid fears that Mr. Trump’s calls to rid the center of “woke” influences, drag shows and “anti-American propaganda” would result in a reshaping of programming. The musical “Hamilton” recently scrapped a planned tour there next year.While Mr. Trump has not yet articulated his vision for the center, his appointees have provided some hints. Richard Grenell, whom Mr. Trump named as the center’s new president, recently said that the center planned “a big, huge celebration of the birth of Christ at Christmas.” More

    • 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