US news

Subterms

    Latest story

    250 Shares25 Views

    Trump says ‘we’re only going to cut Democrat programs’ as Senate again fails to pass dueling funding bills – live

    by

    New York state attorney general Letitia James sent out this statement on the news that she has been indicted by a federal grand jury for bank fraud after one of Trump’s US attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, personally presented the case to the grand jury.She also posted a video of her statement on X:“This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State Attorney General.“These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties.“His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me – and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president – is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country. This is the time for leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak out against this blatant perversion of our system of justice.“I stand strongly behind my office’s litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two-year investigation based on the facts and evidence – not politics. Judges have upheld the trial court’s finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud.“I am a proud woman of faith, and I know that faith and fear cannot share the same space. And so today I am not fearful, I am fearless, and as my faith teaches me, no weapon formed against me shall prosper. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights. And I will continue to do my job.”New York governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has also made a statement in support of New York attorney general Letitia James, accusing Trump of weaponizing his Justice Department who “punish those who hold the powerful accountable.”The American Civil Liberties Union is calling the Trump Justice Department’s indictment of New York attorney general Letitia James “the latest in a long list of brazen abuses of power by President Trump” and a “stunning violation.” “He has continued to weaponize our nation’s judicial system to settle personal vendettas, attack his political opponents, and silence his critics,” the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.“President Trump’s open interference in the Department of Justice’s investigation – demanding charges, forcing out the prosecutor, and installing a loyalist – is a stunning violation of our country’s long tradition of an independent judicial system. The indictment of Letitia James makes it clearer than ever that President Trump has prioritized retaliation over the rule of law.“Whether it’s targeting Jimmy Kimmel, James Comey, Letitia James, or the millions of everyday people exercising their rights to free speech, this administration’s efforts to prosecute, bully, and intimidate will only strengthen the People’s resolve to exercise our freedoms and defend our democracy.”New York state attorney general Letitia James sent out this statement on the news that she has been indicted by a federal grand jury for bank fraud after one of Trump’s US attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, personally presented the case to the grand jury.She also posted a video of her statement on X:“This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State Attorney General.“These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties.“His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me – and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president – is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country. This is the time for leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak out against this blatant perversion of our system of justice.“I stand strongly behind my office’s litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two-year investigation based on the facts and evidence – not politics. Judges have upheld the trial court’s finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud.“I am a proud woman of faith, and I know that faith and fear cannot share the same space. And so today I am not fearful, I am fearless, and as my faith teaches me, no weapon formed against me shall prosper. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights. And I will continue to do my job.”Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings,” the Associated Press reported in 2023.That year, James appeared to be on the verged of disrupting Trump’s real estate empire after a judge ruled Tuesday that he defrauded banks, insurers and others by exaggerating the value of assets on paperwork used for deals and securing loans.Her civil fraud lawsuit against Trump was not her only legal battle against a powerful and prominent opponent:

    In 2021, James oversaw an investigation of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had been accused by multiple women of sexual harassment. The inquiry led to a remarkable downfall for the once-rising star in the Democratic party. Lawyers hired by James concluded that 11 women were telling the truth when they said Cuomo touched them inappropriately, commented on their appearance or made suggestive comments about their sex lives. Cuomo alleged that James used the investigation to further her own political aspirations.

    James also led a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association in a case that accuses its leaders of financial mismanagement, which led to the resignation of powerful NRA leader Wayne LaPierre
    Video made public in 2023 showed Donald Trump personally answering questions from New York attorney general Letitia James in the civil fraud case she brought against him, and pleading the fifth more than 400 times.Now, James, one of the attorneys who succeeded in holding Trump legally accountable for his behavior, has been indicted for bank fraud by a federal grand jury, in what appears to be president’s latest effort to weaponize the federal Department of Justice to punish his political rivals.Here’s more background on Letitia James, the New York state attorney general who went after Trump, and has now been indicted by Trump administration-appointed federal prosecutors.James filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump in 2022, which alleged that he inflated his net worth by billions of dollars on his financial statements and habitually misled banks and others about the value of prized assets, including golf courses, hotels, the Trump Tower skyscraper in Manhattan and his Mar-a-Lago estate in south Florida.In 2024, she won what she called a “tremendous victory” in the case, saying “Donald Trump is finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating and staggering fraud. Because no matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.”Judge Arthur Engoron ruled last year that James had proved Trump engaged in a years-long conspiracy with executives at his company to deceive banks and insurers.Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355m – payback of what the judge deemed “ill-gotten gains” from his puffed-up financial statements. That amount soared to more than $515m, including interest, by the time an appellate court ruled this year that the judgment was “excessive.”Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday night that Israel and Hamas had agreed the first phase of a new ceasefire deal in Gaza. We’ve been here before, but is it different this time? Has Trump proved the doubters wrong?Jonathan Freedland speaks to Julian Borger about the prospect for peace in the Middle East and the US president’s role in getting to this pointThe president also confirmed that he’ll head to the Middle East “sometime Sunday”.“Everybody I see is celebrating in Israel, but they’re celebrating in many other countries too. A lot of the Muslim and Arab countries, they’re celebrating,” he added.In response to a reporter’s question, Donald Trump also said that no one would be forced to leave Gaza as it’s being rebuilt. “It’s just the opposite. This is a great plan. This is a great peace plan,” he said. “We’re not looking to do that at all.”The president has called out Spain for not paying five per cent on defense spending that Donald Trump has urged.Spain is currently the only Nato member who has refused to pay more of its GDP on defense.”We had one laggard. It was Spain,” Trump said. “You have to call them and find why are they a laggard … they have no excuse not to do this. But that’s all right, maybe you should throw them Nato.”Trump said that he thought that brokering an end to the war in Ukraine would have been “one of the easier ones”, but is confident that a ceasefire will be on the horizon “hopefully soon”.“I think Russia is actually right now, both economically and militarily, not in a very strong place,” Stubb added, praising Donald Trump for pushing European allies to boycott sales of Russian oil and gas.Donald Trump and Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb, are meeting now in the Oval Office. Stubb congratulated Trump on the first phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire.
    If someone would have said a few weeks back that you and your team are able to push us to a position where there will be a cease fire, an exchange of prisoners, hostages, and then a pullback, I would not have believed it, but it’s this is what diplomacy is at its best.

    The Senate has rejected, for the seventh time, a House-passed bill to keep the government funded until 21 November – leaving no end in sight for shutdown as it enters its ninth day. The continuing resolution failed to pass the 60-vote threshold to advance. The upper chamber also failed to pass a Democratic alternative, replete with several health care provisions. Congressional lawmakers from both sides of the aisle continue to trade barbs, blaming the other party for the lapse in government funding.

    At his eight cabinet meeting, Donald Trump took a victory lap following the agreement of the first phase of a ceasefire deal by Israel and Hamas. The meeting lasted just over an hour, and the president said that the Gaza hostages should be released on Monday or Tuesday and that he hopes to attend a signing ceremony in Egypt. Trump also said that he had agreed to speak at the Knesset on his upcoming trip to the Middle East.

    Two federal courts heard arguments over the Trump administration’s deployment of national guard troops to Democratic-run cities. A three-panel judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals wrapped a hearing to decide whether to allow the president’s deployment of national guard troops to Portland, Oregon. Last week a lower court judge blocked the administration from federalizing troops. Meanwhile, in Chicago, April Perry, a district court judge, held a hearing in a very similar case, after protests erupted outside immigration facilities throughout the city and Trump deployed hundreds of national guard officers from Illinois and Texas to Chicago. After closing arguments, Perry asked lawyers to be back at the court in a few hours.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s homeland security secretary said that the department is buying buildings in Chicago and Portland where agents can operate. “We’re going to not back off,” Kristi Noem said at today’s cabinet meeting. “In fact, we’re doubling down, and we’re going to be in more parts of Chicago in response to the people there.”
    The president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, has arrived at the White House. Donald Trump will hold a bilateral meeting with the Finnish leader shortly. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Nearly half of FBI agents in major offices reassigned to immigration enforcement

      by

      Nearly half of the FBI agents working in the US’s major field offices have been reassigned to aid immigration enforcement, according to newly released data, a stunning shift in law enforcement priorities that has raised public safety concerns.Personnel data obtained by Mark Warner, a Democratic senator, and shared with the Guardian, suggests the Trump administration has moved 45% of FBI agents in the country’s 25 largest field offices to support the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration crackdown. Across all of the FBI’s offices, 23% of the roughly 13,000 total agents at the bureau are now working on immigration, according to Warner, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.Warner’s office said the FBI agents now deployed alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agent have been taken away from their work tackling cybercrimes, drug trafficking, terrorism, espionage, violent crimes, counterintelligence and other efforts that are part of the bureau’s mission – some areas that Trump has claimed are White House priorities.The data, first reported by the Washington Post, suggests the FBI is dramatically shifting its objectives in an effort to back Trump’s increasingly aggressive immigration raids, with the administration targeting 3,000 daily arrests and seeking to expand its detention capacity to detain more than 100,000 immigrants.The data is understating the scale of the reorganization, as the FBI only provided counts for agents who are now spending more than half of their job doing immigration enforcement, according to Warner. The senator’s office said it was likely that more than a quarter of FBI agents’ total hours were now dedicated to immigration, and that in some field offices, more than half of the agents had been redirected to DHS.“When you pull a quarter of the FBI’s top agents off the front lines of fighting terrorists, spies, drug traffickers, and violent criminals, the consequences are clear: critical national security work gets sidelined, and our country is put at greater risk,” Warner said in a statement.The transformation of the FBI has raised alarms about the potential consequences for communities targeted by immigration raids and the impact on the work the bureau is abandoning, experts said.Mike German, a former FBI agent and civil liberties advocate, said it was unprecedented for the bureau to redirect this many agents to a mission that is not part of the FBI’s mandate. Some agents might be eager to support the president’s immigration agenda while others likely oppose the redirection, he said: “Part of the reason FBI leadership would be doing this at such scale is to separate those two – to identify who are the loyalists and who are potential impediments to the administration’s goals.”The move is in line with FBI director Kash Patel’s efforts to purge the bureau of agents seen as disloyal to Trump, German said, noting reports of the termination of personnel involved in the January 6 investigation.FBI agents, he said, are generally trained as investigators who may make targeted arrests, a job that significantly differs from those of many immigration enforcement officers, which could lead to problems in the field during immigration raids. “Just jumping in an SUV with a bunch of armed men and rolling around the streets until you see someone running away is inherently a more dangerous type of activity they are not very well trained for,” German said.There has been extensive documentation of the violent and indiscriminate nature of the Ice raids, which have often been carried out by masked men and have at times led to the detention of US citizens, and adding FBI personnel to the mix could exacerbate the chaos and potential for abuses, the former agent said.The exact tasks and responsibilities of the FBI agents now working alongside Ice are unclear. Spokespeople for DHS, Ice, the FBI and the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.German, an FBI whistleblower who has spoken out about the civil rights abuses of the bureau’s intelligence work, said he was most concerned about the agency shifting away from public corruption and white-collar crime, offenses state and local agencies don’t have capacity to tackle: “That’s where the real harm will come.”Current and former FBI agents told the Washington Post there were growing concerns about low morale within the agency and that agents were stretched thin, which could hamper national security investigations and complex cases.Kenneth Gray, a former FBI agent and professor of practice in the University of New Haven’s criminal justice department, said the shift in priorities resembled the post-9/11 reorganization at the FBI, when counterterrorism became the central focus.“The bureau can withstand a temporary change in its priorities, but in the long-term, if agents are continuing to work immigration matters, as opposed to counterterrorism, foreign counterintelligence or cybercrimes, that may end up biting us big time,” said Gray, who worked at the bureau for 24 years, before leaving in 2012. “The next 9/11 might happen if agents who were working on counterterrorism have been diverted.”Gray, however, said he was not concerned about a temporary shift while DHS engages in rapid recruitment of new Ice officers.The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, defended the redirection of FBI resources toward immigration enforcement at a tense Senate hearing earlier this week when she was accused by Democrats of weaponizing the justice department. FBI agents, she said, were working daily with DHS on “keeping Americans safe and getting illegal aliens out of our country”. More

    • 163 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump dreams of ‘everlasting peace’ as acolytes drop heavy hints to Nobel committee

      by

      So to peace in our time. And why not? The Nobel committee is meeting in Oslo to divvy up its annual gongs and Donald Trump, convening his cabinet – and the media – in the White House had a good story to tell.After two years of death, destruction, starvation and captivity for Israeli hostages in Gaza, peace at last was at hand. Israel and Hamas were on the brink of a historic deal, brokered by the man in the Oval Office, who has made no secret of his desire to be known as the president of peace.The stakes in Gaza are so gravely baleful that it would be churlish to ascribe selfish motives to the cabinet meeting’s main theme.Yet the timing was, shall we say, serendipitous.Today is Thursday, tomorrow Friday – by coincidence, the day the winner of the Nobel will be announced.But Trump, whose previous expressions of desire for the same prize awarded to Barack Obama have bordered on the avaricious, was all decorum and restraint – at least on that narrow issue alone.In the course of a 70-minute meeting, the N word went unmentioned – apart from by one journalist near the end, whose question about Trump’s views on the prize went unanswered.There was going to be “peace in the Middle East”, he said portentously.“I think it’s going to be a lasting peace, hopefully an everlasting peace,” he added, no ambition being too great.“It will be a day of joy,” the president said, when the remaining living Israeli hostages – believed to be 20 in number – are released on Monday or Tuesday.“They’re dancing in the streets. They’re so happy. Everybody’s happy. They’re dancing in the streets of Arab countries, Muslim countries, I’ve never seen anything like it.”Everyone around him deserved credit, the president said magnanimously. “JD [Vance], you were fantastic. And Pete [Hegseth], you were great. Marco [Rubio] was fantastic. I mean, some of you were very much involved. I think almost everybody in this room was involved. Susie [Wiles, the White House chief of staff], I want to thank you very much. You were incredible … and then you have Steve Witkoff [his personal envoy].”But it fell to Rubio, the secretary of state and acting national security adviser, to supply the heavy hint to the Nobel committee in Norway.“I don’t know if the one day perhaps the entire story will be told about the events of yesterday, but suffice it to say – it’s not an exaggeration – that none of it would have been possible without the president. Without the president of the United States being involved,” enthused the man once disparaged by Trump as “little Marco”.That drew a round of applause from the cabinet – the second of the meeting, the first being for Trump’s announcement at the beginning that a national holiday on the second Monday of October would henceforth be known as Columbus Day.Rubio warmed to his theme. The achievement transcended dry geopolitics to encapsulate the person of Trump himself.“Yesterday was a human story,” he said. “And because of the work you put in. And honestly, not only is there no other leader in the world that could have put this together, Mr President, but frankly, I don’t know of any American president in the modern era that could have made this possible because of the actions you have taken unrelated to this, and because of who you are, and what you’ve done, and how you’re viewed.”But this was still a Trump cabinet meeting, and it would not have been complete without some dissonant notes.They were duly supplied by the jarring contrast between the promise of peace and harmony in the Middle East and the darkening prospect of war, or at least civil disharmony, in America.Trump only had good words to say about countries in the Middle East who were he said were on board with his peace deal – even Iran, a country which he recently bombed but now said he wanted to see rebuilt.But here at home an “enemy from within” had to be confronted. Troops were to be deployed onto the streets of US cities to show elected local Democratic mayors and governors who was boss.Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, reported going to Portland and meeting the governor, mayor, chief of police and highway patrol superintendent.“They are all lying and disingenuous and dishonest people,” she declared, charitably, “because as soon as you leave the room, then they make the exact opposite response.” This presumably because the officials named depicted their city in somewhat more peaceful terms than the warzone of Noem et al’s fevered narrative.Yet taking the prize for low blows was JD Vance, who understood that the unifying theme of the meeting was Trump’s nascent success in ending bloodshed in the Middle East – yet failed to grasp that this call for a display of graciousness on his part.The vice-president has been known at cabinet gatherings to double up with contrived laughter at his boss’s jokes.This time he decided the best policy was to repurpose for his own use one of Trump’s tried-and-tested jibes – at the expense of Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate.“The one thing I would say is obviously the president of the United States, a New York real estate billionaire, one of the most famous New Yorkers in the world, has a lot of interaction with a lot of people who are very pro-Israel,” said Vance.Then, perhaps realizing that he could not reach the giddy heights of Rubio’s testimonial, he added: “He also, of course, knew one of the most famous Palestinians in the world, Chuck Schumer.”The crack provoked laughter. It is one of Trump’s cruelest taunts against Schumer, a fellow New Yorker who is proudly Jewish and a staunch supporter of Israel. Given the current backdrop, retreading it at this point struck a particularly discordant note.JD, it seems, has secret aspirations as a king of comedy. A calling missed, perhaps. But someone needs to tell him about timing – and context. More

    • 188 Shares25 Views

      in US Politics

      News organizations hold out on signing Pentagon media policies ‘designed to stifle a free press’

      by

      With days left before journalists covering the Pentagon must sign on to a new set of guidelines to retain physical access to the department, major US news companies – and organizations representing their interests – remain concerned about specific policies they fear will stifle independent reporting on the Pentagon.The Trump administration has been accused of preparing to impose severe limitations on the ability of journalists to cover the Pentagon and publish information that had not been officially approved for release.An “in-brief for Media Members” that updated an earlier set of policies, released last month, drew strong condemnation from media companies and groups advocating for press freedom. On Monday, the Pentagon sent out a revised version.On Wednesday, the Pentagon Press Association, which said it has been “cautious” in communicating about the policy as it worked behind the scenes, said the changes made – including an acknowledgment that signees may not “agree” with the policies – are not sufficient.In particular, the revised policy still prohibits journalists from the “solicitation” of information from Pentagon employees, “such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging [Department of War] employees to share non-public [Department of War] information”. Journalists fear that policy could infringe on their ability to seek information about the agency from employees.Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to change the name of the defense department to the Department of War. This would require approval from Congress to become official.“We acknowledge and appreciate that the Pentagon is no longer requiring reporters to express agreement with the new policy as a condition for obtaining press credentials,” the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement. “But the Pentagon is still asking us to affirm in writing our ‘understanding’ of policies that appear designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs.”The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), which has worked behind the scenes to relax the policies, said the changes don’t go far enough.“The fact is we still have concerns with the updated language of the policy and expect that it will pose a significant impediment as journalists weigh with their employers whether or not to sign this revised version,” Gabe Rottman, the RCFP vice-president of policy said on Wednesday.PEN America, an organization that advocates for free expression, also said Thursday that the Pentagon should “revisit” its policies. “National security is strengthened, not threatened, when journalists can investigate and report without fear,” Tim Richardson, PEN America journalism and disinformation program director said.With the exception of CNN, which does not plan to sign the policy, most news organizations have been tight-lipped when asked whether they plan to sign by next week’s deadline or risk losing access to the Pentagon compound.The New York Times said in a statement that it “appreciates the Pentagon’s engagement, but problems remain with the policy and we and other news organizations believe further changes are needed”.A spokesperson for the Atlantic also said that it “[continues] to oppose the Pentagon’s proposed press policy”.Pentagon representatives have been steadfast in rebuffing the protests of media organizations.“Access to the Pentagon is a privilege, not a right and the Department is not only legally permitted, but morally obligated to impose reasonable regulations on the exercise of that privilege,” chief spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a post on X, denying that journalists will be forced to “clear stories” with the agency before publication.Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon press secretary, said in her own post that “reporters would rather clutch their pearls on social media than stop trying to get warfighters and [Department of War] civilians to commit a crime by violating Department-wide policy.”In its statement on Wednesday, the Pentagon Press Association called on the agency to reconsider the policies in the remaining days before journalists are asked to sign them.“Limiting the media’s ability to report on the US military fails to honor the American families who have entrusted their sons and daughters to serve in it, or the taxpayers responsible for giving the department hundreds of billions of dollars a year,” the group said. “The American people deserve to know how their military is being run. They deserve more information from this administration, not less.” More

    • 163 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      National guard remains in Chicago area as judge to rule on Trump deployment

      by

      Hundreds of national guard troops remained in the Chicago area as city and Illinois officials awaited a judge’s decision to stop Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the nation’s third-largest city.It was still unclear where specifically the Trump administration would send the troops who reported to an army training site south-west of Chicago, which was laden with extra fencing and tarps put up to block the public’s view of the facility late on Wednesday evening.As they arrived this week, trucks marked Emergency Disaster Services pulled in and out, dropping off portable toilets and other supplies. Trailers were set up in rows.“The federal government has not communicated with us in any way about their troop movements,” the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, told reporters. “I can’t believe I have to say ‘troop movements’ in an American city, but that is what we’re talking about here.”Roughly 500 soldiers – 200 from the Texas national guard and 300 from the Illinois national guard – were mobilized to the city for an “initial period of 60 days”, according to statement issued from US Northern Command, part of the defense department, which called the operation a “federal protection mission”.The guard members are in the city to protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) buildings and other federal facilities and law enforcement personnel, according to Northern Command.A small number of troops have started protecting federal property in the Chicago area, officials told the Associated Press.Footage of uniformed troops arriving early on Thursday morning at an Ice processing facility in the suburban community of Broadview, which has become a focal point of protests. They carried shields and what appeared to be luggage.In a statement, the village of Broadview said three vans carrying 45 members of the Texas national guard had arrived at the federal building.“During their patrols, Broadview police officers observed the vans parked in the rear of 2000 25th Ave and all of the guards were sleeping. We let them sleep undisturbed. We hope that they will extend the same courtesy in the coming days to Broadview residents who deserve a good night’s sleep, too,” the statement said.While the deployment came as part of a crackdown threatened by Trump, in response to unsubstantiated claims that big cities run by Democrats are overwhelmed with crime, the stated mission says military would be “performing ground activities to protect federal functions, personnel, and property”.It marks Trump’s fourth deployment of national guard troops on to the streets of a major US city in as many months, following deployments in Los Angeles, Washington DC and Memphis. In all cases except Memphis, it has been against the wishes of state and city leaders.Trump repeatedly has described Chicago in hostile terms, calling it a “hellhole” of crime, although police statistics show significant drops in most crimes, including homicides.A judge will also have a role in determining how many boots are on the streets: a court hearing was being held on Thursday after a request by Illinois and Chicago to declare the guard deployment illegal.The state of Illinois urged April Perry, a federal judge, to order the national guard to stand down, calling the deployment a constitutional crisis. The government “plowed ahead anyway”, attorney Christopher Wells said. “Now, troops are here.”Wells’ arguments opened an extraordinary hearing where heavy public turnout at the downtown Chicago courthouse caused officials to open an overflow room with a video feed of the hearing.Eric Hamilton, a justice department lawyer, said the Chicago area was rife with “tragic lawlessness”. He discussed an incident last weekend in which a Border Patrol vehicle was reportedly boxed in and an agent shot a woman in response.But in a court filing, the city and state lawyers say protests at the Ice building in Broadview have “never come close to stopping federal immigration enforcement”.“The president is using the Broadview protests as a pretext,” they wrote. “The impending federal troop deployment in Illinois is the latest episode in a broader campaign by the president’s administration to target jurisdictions the president dislikes.”It’s one of several major court fights on the deployment of federal troops to American cities.Also Thursday, a federal appeals court heard arguments over whether Trump had the authority to take control of 200 Oregon national guard troops. The president had planned to deploy them in Portland, where there have been mostly small nightly protests outside an Ice building.US district judge Karin Immergut on Saturday granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon troops’ deployment, and on Sunday blocked the deployment of any national guard troops to the city.The case at the heart of Sunday’s decision was brought by the states of Oregon and California, whose national troops Trump had sent to Portland. Two dozen other states with a Democratic attorney general or governor signed a court filing in support of the legal challenge by California and Oregon. Twenty others, led by Iowa, backed the Trump administration.The case centers around the nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.“This is about authoritarianism. It’s about stoking fear,” Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, said. “It’s about breaking the constitution that would give him that much more control over our American cities.”Trump, meanwhile, sent barbs from Washington, saying on social media that Pritzker and Johnson, both Democrats, “should be in jail” for failing to protect federal agents during immigration enforcement crackdowns.Asked about Trump’s wish to jail him, Pritzker extended his arms and told MSNBC: “If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me.”Meanwhile, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, said the department was “doubling down” by buying buildings in Chicago – and also Portland – for Ice personnel to operate from.“We’re purchasing more buildings in Chicago to operate out of. We’re going to not back off,” she said. “In fact, we’re doubling down, and we’re going to be in more parts of Chicago in response to the people there.”At the same time in Memphis, a small group of troops were helping on Wednesday with the Memphis Safe Task Force, said a state military department spokesperson who did not specify the exact role or number of the guard members. The taskforce is a collection of about a dozen federal law enforcement agencies ordered by Trump to fight crime.Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Lee, who has welcomed the guard, has said previously that he would not expect more than 150 guard members to be sent to the city.The Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 163 Shares15 Views

      in Elections

      Dominion, voting firm targeted by false 2020 election claims, sold to new owner

      by

      Dominion Voting Systems, the company that makes widely used voting equipment in the United States that became synonymous with election conspiracies and Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, has been sold.The company was purchased by Scott Leiendecker, a former Republican Missouri election official who founded KnowInk, which makes electronic pollbooks used at voting sites across the country. Leindecker purchased Dominion under a new company called Liberty Vote. Leiendecker, served as the elections director in St Louis from 2005 until 2012, according to his LinkedIn, a period during which he would have overlapped with Ed Martin, a staunch Trump ally at the justice department who served as chairman of the St Louis board of elections from 2005 to 2006.Leiendecker said in a press release the acquisition represented “a new chapter for American elections – one where trust is rebuilt from the ground up”, pledging to deliver election technology that prioritizes “paper-based transparency, security, and simplicity so that voters can be assured that every ballot is filled-in accurately and fairly counted”.“As of today, Dominion is gone. Liberty Vote assumes full ownership and operational control,” the company said in a statement.The sale comes after Dominion spent years in court defending its reputation and pursuing damages against news outlets and Trump allies who baselessly said the company’s equipment had flipped votes in 2020. In 2023, it reached a landmark $787.5m settlement with Fox over false claims about the election. The private equity firm Staple Street capital bought a 76% stake in Dominion for $38m in 2018.Newsmax, another far-right network, agreed to pay $67m to settle a libel lawsuit against Dominion earlier this year. Dominion has also reached settlements with One America News, Sidney Powell, and Rudy Giuliani over false claims over the 2020 election.Dominion was founded and headquartered in Toronto, and also operated from Denver, Colorado. The company developed software in offices across the United States, Canada, and Serbia. Its systems were used in over half the United States during the 2024 election.Financial terms of the sale were not disclosed.The newly renamed Liberty Vote said it would use hand-marked paper ballots, maintain 100% American ownership with domestic staffing and software development, and implement rigorous third-party auditing standards.The company said its approach would ensure “compliance with President Trump’s executive order” on election security, though specific details were not provided. A 25 March executive order demands states to use voting systems that have a “voter verifiable paper record” (every state except Louisiana already uses paper ballots and paper records, according to the non-profit verified voting). The order also seeks to ban equipment in which a voter’s choices are encoded in a QR code.KnowInk is “highly regarded” in the election community, said Jennifer Morrell, CEO of the elections group and a widely-respected election administration consultant.“I’m confident they would not be buying Dominion if there was any possibility they could not offer the same great services and support that they currently provide election officials with their e-pollbook and voter registration systems,” she said. More

    • 188 Shares18 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is the US House speaker refusing to seat an elected Democrat? | Moira Donegan

      by

      The people of Arizona’s seventh congressional district – a vast territory extending across the state’s south, along the Mexican border – have been denied representation in Congress for weeks. That’s because Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, has refused to swear in Adelita Grijalva, their representative-elect, who won a special election to fill the seat vacated by her father, the late Raúl Grijalva, in a landslide late last month. Grijalva, a Democrat, has been largely ignored by the speaker. Unlike sworn representatives, she has to go around the Capitol with an escort. There’s an office with her name on the door, but she hasn’t been allowed inside, and has worked instead out of a conference room on another floor.It is an unprecedented abuse of procedural power on the part of the speaker, one that has had the effect of silencing a political opponent and denying representation to the citizens of her district. In refusing to seat Grijalva, Johnson has defied the will of Arizona’s voters, and effectively nullified, at least for the time being, a legitimate congressional election. He has persisted in this even in defiance of his own promises, after saying on Friday he would seat her this week once the House returned to session – and then telling lawmakers they wouldn’t reconvene this week after all. Last week, Grijalva showed up to a three-and-a-half-minute pro forma session, hoping to be sworn in then. (Johnson has sworn in other representatives at pro forma sessions in the past.) But the Republican presiding over the session, Morgan Griffith, ignored the effort. On a weekend talkshow, Grijalva said she had heard “absolutely nothing” from the speaker about the timing of her swearing in.Grijalva thinks she knows why. There is no political calculation that could justify Mike Johnson’s refusal to seat a duly elected member of the House: Grijalva won her race, and both his oath to the constitution and his responsibilities to the body that he leads require Johnson to seat her. But in lieu of deference to these higher aims, Grijalva suspects that Johnson is pursuing a much more cynical one: in refusing to swear her in and allow her to take up the office to which she has been elected, Johnson, Grijalva thinks, is aiming to stop her becoming the final member of Congress whose signature is needed to force a vote on the release of confidential files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Currently, the petition has 217 signatures; it needs only 218. Grijalva has pledged to support it. “Why the rules are different for me – the only thing that I can think of is the Epstein files,” Grijalva told the New York Times.The Epstein scandal, and the ensuing fallout from new and resurfaced revelations about Donald Trump’s deep and longstanding friendship with the deceased child sex trafficker and financier, has long plagued the Trump administration. One of the few genuine threats to Trump’s grip over his coalition came a few months ago, when his justice department refused to release files relating to the case, causing outrage among a group of rightwing podcasters, media personalities and conspiracy theorists who had long traded on speculation about the case and accusations that powerful Democrats were involved in a cover-up.The discharge petition, if passed, would not be likely to result in the actual release of the documents. The move has little support in the Republican-backed Senate; there is no chance that Donald Trump, who has opposed the release of the Epstein files, calling them a “waste” of “time and energy”, would sign a bill into law making them public. But what the move would accomplish is forcing a full chamber vote on the matter, requiring every member of the Republican caucus to go on the record either endorsing the release of the files – and thereby displeasing Trump – or opposing it – thereby displeasing their voters. The Times has reported that Johnson’s delay is giving the White House more time to pressure Republicans who have already signed on to the discharge petition to remove their signatures before the Grijalva is sworn in.And so it seems that Johnson is ignoring the constitution and subverting the will of the voters in order to buy time, in an effort to spare his party embarrassment over their president’s one-time close confidence with a pedophile.But the refusal to seat Grijalva has broader implications. In using his procedural control over the functioning of Congress to deny a seat to an elected Democrat, Johnson is setting a dangerous precedent and raising questions about future transfers of power. If a Democratic majority is elected in 2026, will the outgoing Republican speaker duly swear in its members? Or will he use his procedural powers to delay one, several or many of them from taking their oaths of office – either under the pretext of election fraud or personal ineligibility, or out of sheer, bald unwillingness to hand over power to members of a party that the president and his allies have repeatedly described as illegitimate?These are no longer fanciful questions; they are ones that must be asked. The Republicans who refused to subvert the law for Trump’s benefit on January 6 are now largely gone; the ones who have replaced them appear much more willing to place party before country. Every day that Grijalva is not sworn in, the shadow they cast over 2026 darkens.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares14 Views

      in US Politics

      Democratic candidates can win Rust Belt voters by … attacking the Democratic party | Jared Abbott and Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      If anyone could have broken through as a progressive in red America, it was Sherrod Brown. For decades, the Ohio senator railed against corporations for shipping good-paying jobs overseas and pleaded with Democrats to take the struggles of deindustrialized communities seriously. Yet in 2024, even Brown, a model economic populist, fell to a Republican challenger.Does that prove, as writers such as Jonathan Chait have argued, that the idea of winning back the working class with progressive economic policies has been tried and has failed?We wanted to know why Democrats keep losing working-class support in the Rust belt, and what could turn things around. So, with colleagues at the Center for Working-Class Politics, the Labor Institute and Rutgers University, we surveyed 3,000 voters across Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. The research suggests the story is more complicated – and that Democrats’ problems in the Rust belt are real, but solvable.We found a consistent pattern we call the “Democratic penalty”. In a randomized, controlled trial, respondents were shown hypothetical candidates with identical economic populist platforms. The only difference was that some were labeled Democrats, while others were labeled independents. Across the four states, the Democratic candidates fared eight points worse.In Ohio the gap was nearly 16 points; in Michigan, 13; in Wisconsin, 11. The voters most alienated by the party label were the very groups Democrats most need to win back: Latinos, working-class Americans, and others in rural and small-town communities.This pattern helps explain why figures like Brown can run as tough economic populists and still struggle, while independents like Dan Osborne in Nebraska dramatically overperformed expectations on nearly identical platforms. It’s the Democratic brand that’s unpopular, not the populism.What’s at the root of the mistrust? After the 2024 election, many commentators pointed to “wokeness” as the culprit. But our research tells a different story. When we asked voters to write a sentence about what first came to mind when they thought of Democrats, 70% offered negative views. Yet only a small minority mentioned “wokeness” or ideological extremism – 3% of Democrats, 11% of independents, 19% of Republicans. The dominant complaints weren’t about social liberalism but about competence, honesty and connection. Democrats were seen as out of touch, corrupt or simply ineffective: “falling behind on what’s important” and having not “represented their constituents in a long time”. While some of these critiques bled into broader claims that Democrats are focused on the wrong priorities, the responses suggest cultural issues are not voters’ dominant concern.This should be a wake-up call. Rust belt voters aren’t gullibly distracted by culture wars but, rather, are frustrated that Democrats haven’t delivered. What does resonate with them is a tougher, more credible economic message.Even if the Democratic label is a serious drag in red and purple states, our results show that full-throated economic populism that speaks directly to workers’ sense that the system is rigged can substantially boost candidates’ appeal, particularly in areas that have lost millions of high-quality jobs over the past 40 years. Standard “bread-and-butter” Democratic messaging performed over 11 points better when paired with strong anti-corporate rhetoric (condemning companies for cutting good jobs) than with a “populist-lite” frame that merely knocks a few price-gougers while acknowledging that most businesses play by the rules.When we forced respondents to choose tradeoffs among 25 economic policy proposals, the results were even clearer. Across partisan and class divides, voters consistently prioritized concrete measures framed in terms of fairness and accountability for elites: capping prescription drug prices, eliminating taxes on social security income, and raising taxes on the super-wealthy and large corporations. These policies polled far ahead of flashy ideas such as $1,000 monthly cash payments or trillion-dollar green industrial plans, and well ahead of traditional conservative staples such as corporate tax cuts and deregulation.Even on immigration, Rust belt voters proved more open than expected. Nearly two-thirds supported legalization for long-settled undocumented workers who had played by the rules. Despite years of rightwing fearmongering, a progressive position carried the day.So what’s the path forward? Not every candidate can reinvent themselves as an independent populist. In many districts, doing so would simply split the anti-Republican vote. But Democrats can blunt the “Democratic penalty” by speaking against their own party establishment and making a populist case that neither major party has delivered for working people. Candidates who take this approach appeal more effectively to the very voters Democrats have been losing.The electoral map itself makes the stakes plain. Without states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, Democrats cannot hold national power. Sherrod Brown’s defeat underlined that even the most credible economic populists can only run so far ahead of the party’s damaged brand.If Democrats remain seen as out of touch with working-class concerns, more Browns will fall, and Republicans will keep gaining ground in once-reliable Democratic strongholds. But if Democrats take on corporate elites, level with voters about their own party’s failures, and fight for policies that put working families first, they might finally chart a path back to the working class – and to the future.

      Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics. Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation magazine and the founding editor of Jacobin More

    • 125 Shares21 Views

      in US Politics

      Mocktails for Maga: why the US right is turning sober

      by

      Butterworth’s, an eclectically decorated restaurant in Washington DC, is an unofficial lounge of the Maga elite. A nameplate on one table declares it the official “nook” of Raheem Kassam, the former adviser to the rightwing British politician Nigel Farage and a co-owner of the restaurant. Steve Bannon is also frequently sighted holding court over Carolina gold rice – though the signature dish is bone-marrow escargot, which some young Maga politicos swear is good for your collagen.When he opened the farm-to-table brasserie in 2024, Bart Hutchins, Butterworth’s chef and one of its partners, was determined to resist what he sees as “the new puritanism” of wellness and sobriety culture. Hutchins finds non-alcoholic “mocktails” annoying on principle. “I did this edict, where I was like, ‘I’m not stocking that stuff,’” he said. “If you want to drink a glass of juice, just ask for a glass of juice; I’m not gonna pretend it’s a cocktail.”Hutchins has never felt teetotalism’s temptation, he told me, and his memory of drinks marketed as alcohol alternatives, like the near-beer O’Doul’s, was that they were “terrible”. But lately, as more Republican staffers, pundits and politicians patronize Butterworth’s antler-bedecked environs, a fifth column of non-drinkers has quietly undermined his anti-mocktail edict.It’s not just at Butterworth’s where rightwingers are drinking less. A Gallup poll in August found that the share of Americans of any political stripe who say they consume alcohol is at its lowest in nearly 90 years – though by only one percentage point. More strikingly, Republicans are the group, of the many demographic cohorts measured, that has turned most aggressively to sobriety.Gallup, which has asked Americans about their alcohol use since the 1930s, found in 2023 that 65% of Republicans said they drink alcohol – about the same as Democrats and independents. Just two years later, in 2025, that number has plunged a staggering 19 points to 46%. Democrats and independents also report drinking less, but each only by single digits. (All the results are self-reported; Gallup took participants at their word.)The decline is surprising and “statistically significant”, Lydia Saad, the director of US social research at Gallup, told me – though she has “no real hypothesis” for the sudden rise of Republican teetotalism.View image in fullscreenLaurence Whyatt, an analyst at Barclays who covers the beverage industry, “can’t explain it” either. He suspects the broader US decline in drinking may have to do with pandemic-era inflation and belt-tightening and may not last. “But there’s no obvious reason why Republicans would be drinking less,” he said. “Of course, I’m aware that some prominent Republicans don’t drink. Could that be the reason?”Yet theories abound. Perhaps this is another manifestation of the cult of personality around Donald Trump, a Diet Coke enthusiast. Maybe the rising tide of Christian nationalism has revived an old-fashioned Protestant temperance. Or perhaps red-blooded rightwingers, eager to “Make America healthy again”, are eschewing beer, barbecues and bourbon to become the sort of smoothie-drinking health nuts they might once have mocked.Prominent rightwing or right-adjacent abstainers include Trump himself, whose older brother died of alcoholism-related heart attack; Robert F Kennedy Jr (who has spoken about his own substance problems); Tucker Carlson (a recovering alcoholic); and the activist Charlie Kirk (for health reasons). JD Vance drinks, but his predecessor Mike Pence, a devout born-again Christian, did not. Joe Rogan, the podcaster and gym-bro whisperer who endorsed Trump in 2024, quit drinking this year for health reasons.“None of my core team [of colleagues] under 30 drinks,” Bannon, who hosts the podcast War Room, said in a text message.The War Room’s 24-year-old White House correspondent, Natalie Winters, does not drink for health reasons – nor wear perfume, consume seed oils or drink fluoridated tap water. Earlier this year a friend of hers told the Times of London that elective sobriety had become common and accepted in rightwing political circles. “Here you don’t second-guess,” the friend said. “In London if someone isn’t drinking, you think they have an alcohol problem. Here it’s either that, or they’re Mormon, or because they’re focused on health.”Carlson, speaking to me by phone as he returned from grouse hunting with his dogs, said he had noticed that young conservatives, particularly men, were far more health-conscious than they once were. When he came up as a journalist, he said, the milieu was awash in booze and cigarette smoke. “I’m just from a different world. When I was 25, the health question was ‘filter or non-filter?’” he said. “And I always went with non-filter.”Carlson quit drinking in 2002, after a spiral whose nadir saw him having two double screwdrivers for breakfast. He said he was surprised – but happy – to see people today, even those who are not problem drinkers, quitting or moderating their consumption. The Athletic Brewing Company’s alcohol-free beers are popular, he has noticed, and not just among “sad rehab cases like me. I think it’s normal young people.”Carlson – who has recently offered a range of unorthodox health advice including using nicotine to improve focus and testicle tanning to improve testosterone levels – says political professionals and journalists today also inhabit a 24/7 news cycle in which “there’s just, substantively, a lot more going on; the world is reshaping in front of our eyes,” he said. “I think there’s an incentive to pay attention in a way that there wasn’t before. It’s just kind of hard to imagine spending three hours away from your phone – or three hours, like, getting loaded midday.”View image in fullscreenHutchins, Butterworth’s chef, noticed when diners, including those he considered “reasonable people, and not insufferable”, kept asking for non-alcoholic options. The restaurant was gradually “brought over to the dark side”, he said, ruefully. He tested a few zero-proof drinks that he deemed respectable enough to serve beside marrow without shame.Many patrons still drink enthusiastically, and by 10pm most nights the atmosphere is “pretty bacchanalian”, he said. But Butterworth’s now offers a pre-packaged alcohol-free Negroni, verjus (a wine alternative made from unripe grapes) and non-alcoholic Guinness (“super popular”, Hutchins said).Changing health attitudes are probably a factor in the broader decline in US alcohol consumption. Recent research has cast doubt on the idea that even moderate drinking is an acceptable health risk. In January, the US surgeon general suggested that alcohol bottles should carry warnings that drinking can contribute to cancer.Malcolm Purinton, a beer historian at Northeastern University, noted that many young people learned adult socialization during Covid lockdowns, meaning their relationship with alcohol may differ from that of their parents or older siblings. People turning 21, the legal drinking age, do not necessarily see drinking as cool.“There’s always some form of rebellion between generations,” he said. Thanks to the cruel march of time, for instance, craft beer – which millennials once embraced as a sophisticated alternative to their fathers’ Miller Lites – is now itself a “dad drink”.Yet none of this explains the dramatic shift among Republicans. Nor does it explain another odd anomaly: the same Gallup poll found that Republicans, despite reporting drinking less than other groups, were less likely than Democrats or independents to say they viewed moderate drinking as dangerous.Some observers suggest the shift may have more to do with who now identifies as Republican. “Republicans made a big push in toss-up states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania in 2024 to register more Republicans, especially among far-right Christians, Mormons and Amish,” Mark Will-Weber, the author of a book on US presidents’ drinking habits, told the Financial Times in August. “These religious groups abstain from alcohol.”Saad is not sure. Republican respondents report drinking less regardless of other factors such as religiosity, she noted. “We’re not seeing anything that would tell us, you know, ‘It’s religious Republicans,’ ‘It’s pro-Trump Republicans,’ ‘It’s Republicans paying attention to the news.’ It’s really across the board.”It’s also difficult to determine the ideological correlation with sobriety. Although rightwing parties have gained ground in many other countries in recent years, Whyatt said, those places have not typically seen the same “aggressive decline in consumption”. The phenomenon seems specific to conservative Americans.The best guess may be that Republicans have turned against alcohol for the same economic and health reasons that Americans in general have – but amplified by “Make America healthy again” politics (with its hostility to vaccines and chemicals, and its faint granola paranoia) and a self-help podcast culture popular on the right that extols wellness, discipline, and treating your body like a temple.Months before his death, Charlie Kirk spoke on his podcast about the reasons he had quit drinking. He said he had done so “four or five” years earlier to improve his sleep and general health. Sobriety was “becoming trendier”, he argued, listing Trump, Carlson, Elon Musk and the Christian pundit Dennis Prager among prominent conservatives who don’t drink – or, in Musk’s case, don’t often.“The top-performing people I’ve ever been around,” Kirk said, “are very against alcohol, against substances. They’ll tell you they perform better, think clearer, have better memory, better recall, more energy, more pace. And I [also] find that some of the people who drink the most, they’re hiding something, they’re masking something.”Most experts acknowledged that it is too soon to tell whether this new sobriety will stick. “You can tie yourself in knots trying to solve those puzzles,” said Saad, the Gallup pollster. “We’re going to just have to wait and see if this holds up next year … maybe by then we’ll see other groups catch up.”Hutchins said Butterworth’s will continue to cater to drinkers and non-drinkers, just as it caters to diners of all political persuasions. But one group of patrons, he added, seems particularly unsettled by the sight of conservatives – or anyone – succumbing to the vice of sobriety.“We have a lot of British clientele, for some reason,” he said. “As soon as some new [British] journalist or diplomat type moves to DC, they come here. And they all say: ‘Nobody drinks here. Nobody even has martinis at lunch. What is happening in this country?’” More