US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Opt out: how to protect your data and privacy if you own a Tesla

      by

      Welcome to Opt Out, a semi-regular column in which we help you navigate your online privacy and show you how to say no to surveillance. The last column covered how to protect your phone and data privacy at the US border. If you’d like to skip to a section about a particular tip, click the “Jump to” menu at the top of this article.At the press of a button, your Tesla pulls itself out of parking spot with no one behind the wheel using a feature called Summon. It drives itself on highways using Autopilot. When you arrive at your destination, it can record nearby activity while parked with a feature called Sentry Mode.To effectively operate any of these features, your car needs to monitor and collect a large amount of data about you. Most Tesla vehicles come equipped with nine internal and external cameras. Information from your Tesla, delivered via location trackers, sensors and more, can paint an intricate picture of your life and movement.“Teslas are truly rolling surveillance platforms,” said John Davisson, a senior counsel and director of litigation at digital rights research group Electronic Privacy Information Center. “There are some privacy safeguards that Tesla offers that at least allow you, on the face of the settings, to opt out of data sharing … provided that Tesla is actually following through on those commitments.”Tesla isn’t alone in collecting a considerable amount of data to enable a suite of advanced features on your vehicle. Any connected car collects some level of information to operate. Some Tesla owners are newly concerned, given CEO Elon Musk’s role in Donald Trump’s administration.Those concerns are not entirely unfounded, according to Reem Suleiman, the director of advocacy at Mozilla Foundation, which gave Tesla a “privacy not included” grade in its assessment of the carmaker’s data security practices. For one, the company’s track record of protecting user data is shaky. In 2023, a Reuters investigation found that employees were sharing sensitive footage that vehicles captured in internal messaging forums. A Washington Post analysis of transparency reports published by Twitter and then X after Musk took over likewise showed that X acquiesced to 20% more government requests to remove content in just the first half of 2024 than Twitter did in all of 2021 – the last time the company published the transparency report.We spoke to privacy experts, consulted Tesla’s privacy policy and even asked Tesla’s own AI chatbot how to share the least amount of data with Tesla as possible. If you own a Tesla, there are some precautions you can and, in many cases, should take with regards to your vehicle. But be forewarned: adjusting these settings so that you share the least possible amount of data with Tesla will shut off access to many of your car’s functions.“They pretty much say that, if you choose to opt out of data collection, then your car is essentially a lemon,” Suleiman said. “They essentially say that your vehicle can have reduced functionality, serious damage or inoperability. So it’s kind of a non-choice, when you think about it.”Here’s what you need to know about your privacy in Tesla vehicles:What information is your Tesla collecting about you?Tesla’s privacy policy details a wide swath of data that its vehicles collect – most of which is stored locally but is also sent to the company unless you change your settings.According to Tesla’s AI chatbot, information collected on you includes: “location data (although Tesla doesn’t record or store vehicle-specific GPS information, except in the case of a crash); driving habits and behaviors (such as speed, braking patterns, and acceleration); diagnostic and vehicle usage data (to help improve Tesla’s products and services); infotainment system data (like browsing history and voice commands) and Autopilot data (camera recordings, sensor readings, and other inputs to support advanced safety features)”.The good news is that data can be collected and stored on your vehicle’s local drives if opt out of sharing information with the company. The bad news is that data can still be accessed if law enforcement somehow gets a hold of your vehicle during a traffic stop or other circumstance, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Davisson.And it’s not just your car that’s collecting information. The Tesla mobile app, from which you can activate Sentry Mode or Summon, also collects location, contact, browsing and device information. Read on for how to dial back how much your car monitors you.Who is Tesla sharing your data with?If you opt to share your data with Tesla, all of the data it collects on you may be shared with third parties, including law enforcement. According to the company’s privacy policy, in addition to sharing data with law enforcement when the company receives a valid court order, Tesla will also share data when it is “essential to protect national security or public safety”. Davisson says that language is vague and opens the door for video footage to be shared with law enforcement for any number of reasons. Recently, for instance, the FBI has categorized vandalism of Tesla vehicles and showrooms as “domestic terrorism”.“Especially now, when everything is apparently a national emergency, it’s a very short hop from that to considering immigration enforcement to be a safety issue that requires constant sharing of real-time footage to Ice or other law enforcement officials,” said Davisson. “And it’s a scary situation.”So how do you protect your data?Consider other vehiclesEveryone has a different risk profile when it comes to their privacy. Some people may be more concerned than others about who is gaining access to their personal information. It’s not just your own privacy you need to be cognizant of, however, as Tesla’s exterior cameras can collect footage of people around the vehicle as well.If you are concerned about information gathering and don’t already have a Tesla, privacy experts say you should opt for a different car. If you do have one and want to reclaim your privacy, sell it. Even Tesla’s AI chatbot gave similar advice.“If someone is deeply concerned about their privacy, they might consider alternatives, such as: 1 Opting for a vehicle manufacturer with more restrictive data collection practices (though this might come at the cost of reduced convenience features); 2 Exploring aftermarket solutions or modifications that could potentially reduce data sharing (though this might void warranties or introduce compatibility issues).”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFactory-reset your car before selling itSo you’ve already bought a Tesla, and you’ve decided to sell it. Suleiman and the Mozilla Foundation highly recommend factory-resetting the car before you do. That means your car will be wiped of all of its data as if it was just coming off the lot.“Just because you sell your car off doesn’t mean that you’ve scrubbed the data,” Suleiman said. “It requires a little bit of due diligence.”So before you take the vehicle off your Tesla account, you will need to factory-reset your car from your in-car settings. Sit in the driver’s seat and follow these steps:1 Go to Controls > Service > Factory Reset.2 Enter your Tesla account username and password to verify your credentials.3 Confirm that you want to perform a factory reset.“This will erase all personal data, including saved addresses, music favorites and imported contacts, and restore your car’s settings to their factory defaults,” according to Tesla’s AI chatbot. The company also recommends deleting your “HomeLink” devices – which can allow you to control things like your garage door, lights or home security system from your Tesla. Do that by clicking on the “HomeLink” icon at the top of the “Controls” screen then going to HomeLink settings, where you can remove connections to other devices.How to share the least amount of your data with TeslaIn the settings of your vehicle and the Tesla app, you can opt not to share your data with the company. But as we’ve said before, be prepared to lose some functionality of your car.Opting out of data-sharing in your car is fairly straightforward. In your vehicle, go to Settings > Software > Data sharing. Turn off “allow data sharing”. This will disable the sharing of analytics, road segment, diagnostic and vehicle usage data. Tesla’s AI chatbot also recommended turning off “allow Autopilot analytics” to stop sharing Autopilot-related data.Opt out of mobile app location and data sharing. In the Tesla app, go to Settings (the button will either look like three horizontal lines or a gear icon). Then scroll down to Security and Privacy. Then select turn off Location Services. Click Turn off Analytics to stop sharing app usage data to the company. Then revoke access to your camera, microphone and contacts.“By following these steps, you’ll be sharing the least amount of data with Tesla while still enjoying the core features and functionalities of your vehicle and mobile app,” according to the Tesla AI chatbot.But this will affect the functionality of your car. According to Tesla’s chatbot, data sharing will affect these features:“Remote vehicle monitoring and control through the mobile app (eg, checking your vehicle’s status, location, and surroundings); navigation and routing optimization (although basic navigation will still work); geofencing and smart preconditioning (your vehicle won’t be able to anticipate your arrival or departure); some Autopilot features, such as traffic-aware cruise control and automatic emergency braking, may not function optimally; over-the-air software updates might be delayed or unavailable; certain advanced safety features, like Emergency Services, may not work seamlessly.”“I don’t think it should be a trade-off,” Davisson said. “It is true that some of the collision avoidance systems and autonomous features on Teslas like other vehicles do rely on data collection and cameras. But it should not come at the cost of the privacy, certainly of the driver or passengers of the vehicle or for people that happen to be in the area surrounding the vehicle.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Finally, the Trump regime has met its match | Robert Reich

      by

      It was bound to happen.Encouraged by the ease with which many big US institutions caved in to their demands, the Trump regime – that is, the small cadre of bottom-feeding fanatics around Donald Trump (JD Vance, Elon Musk, Russell Vought, Stephen Miller and RFK Jr) along with the child king himself – have overreached.They’ve dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink.But guess what? They’ve met their matches. None of them has blinked – and they won’t.China not only refused to back down when the Trump regime threatened it with huge tariffs, but also retaliated with huge tariffs of its own, plus a freeze on the export of rare-earth elements that the US’s high-tech and defense industries depend on.Harvard also pointedly defied the regime, issuing a clear rebuke to its attempt to interfere with academic freedom.The supreme court – in a rare unanimous decision – ordered Trump to facilitate the return of a legal US resident wrongly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, without any criminal charges.But the White House was defiant. On Monday, both Trump officials and El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, said they could not return Kilmar Ábrego García.“Of course, I’m not going to do it,” Bukele said when asked. Trump sat by his side with a smile on his face. The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, joined in the cruel imitation of justice: “That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him.”What’s next?I suspect the testosterone-poisoned lackeys around King Trump are urging him to hit back even harder, escalating their confrontations with China, Harvard and the supreme court. They view these showdowns as ultimate tests of the regime’s strength.Think of it – they must be telling themselves and their boss – what prizes! If they defeat China, they have brought the world’s other economic powerhouse to its knees!If they defeat Harvard University, they have been victorious over the world’s intellectual powerhouse!skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIf they defeat the supreme court, they have conquered the entire US government!Win these battles and no one will ever again doubt the power and resolve of the Trump regime!Hopefully, Trump is smarter than this. He knows these three institutions will not back down. They are rich and powerful enough to defy Trump’s escalating threats and demands. They cannot and will not cower.If Trump escalates his wars against them, they’ll become even stronger in the eyes of their supporters and constituents, and much of the world.The American people will see that Trump is actually a blowhard with no real power at all.So if he’s smart, Trump will try to de-escalate these three conflicts.He’s already hinted at an off-ramp with China. He will probably find some way to claim that Harvard has capitulated to his demands. He will avoid a showdown with the supreme court.But keep a watch on these three. They are Trump’s most formidable foes. If he doesn’t understand this and instead succumbs to the urges of his power-crazed lackeys, the Trump regime’s days will in effect be over before it even completes the first hundred of them.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-UK defence minister ‘disgusted’ by Trump’s attitude to Putin and Russia

      by

      Pronouncing himself “disgusted” by Donald Trump’s favorable attitude to Russia and Vladimir Putin, the former UK defence minister Grant Shapps said the US president calling a Russian missile strike that killed dozens in Ukraine last weekend a “mistake” was an example of “weasel language we used to hear … from the IRA” terrorist group.“All anybody needs Putin to do is get the hell out of a democratic neighboring country,” Shapps told the One Decision podcast, regarding attempts to end the war in Ukraine that has raged since Russia invaded in February 2022.“And I just have to [put] this on record: it disgusts me, I feel disgusted [by] the idea that the leader of the free world cannot tell the difference between the dictator who locks up and murders his opponents and invades innocent democratic countries and the country itself that has been invaded.“This lack of moral clarity is completely demoralizing for the rest of the democratic world.”Shapps, 56, filled numerous roles in Conservative cabinets before becoming minister of defence in August 2023, becoming a key player in maintaining international support for Ukraine. He lost his seat in parliament last July, as Labour won power in a landslide. This month, Shapps was given a knighthood.One Decision is a foreign policy focused podcast, with co-hosts including Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of the British MI6 intelligence service, and Leon Panetta, a former US defense secretary and CIA director.On the campaign trail last year, Trump repeatedly said he would secure peace in Ukraine in one day. Instead, he has angered allies by rebuking the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the Oval Office; sought to extract concessions from Kyiv over access to rare minerals; and deployed a negotiator, Steve Witkoff, whose effusive praise for Putin has attracted widespread scorn. On Monday, Trump repeated his incorrect claim that Zelenskyy started the war.Though talks have been held in Saudi Arabia, the war has continued. This month has seen devastating Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. First, nine children were among 19 people killed in Kryvyi Rih, Zelenskyy’s home town. In Sumy last Sunday, missiles killed at least 35 and injured more than 100.Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said of the Sumy strike: “I think it was terrible. And I was told they made a mistake. But I think it’s a horrible thing.”Shapps said: “It’s a sort of weasel language. We used to hear it from the IRA [the Irish Republican terrorist group, after attacks killed civilians]. I mean, it’s just appalling to hear this sort of thing. It’s appalling not to be able to condemn it properly.”Alluding to years of reporting on why Trump has such a favorable view of Putin, with theories ranging from admiration for autocrats to Russia holding compromising material, Shapps said: “I think I do know what hold Putin may have [over Trump] but I mean, it is not right.”Asked by co-host Kate McCann what he meant by “hold”, Shapps first noted that Trump’s first impeachment, in 2020, was for withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to get Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.Shapps also said that by appeasing Putin, Trump was offering encouragement to other autocrats with territorial ambitions.“Even if you are the Trump White House, surely you must understand that if you let one dictator get away with it, what do you think will happen when another dictator walks into a neighboring state or one maybe just over the water and takes it over? Do you think that people will believe the west when we say you can’t do that?” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: US senator blocked on El Salvador visit; Fed warns on tariffs

      by

      A Democratic senator who says El Salvador’s government refused to allow him to visit his constituent wrongly deported to the country has condemned an “unjust situation”. Chris Van Hollen said its vice-president told him it would not be possible for him to speak with Kilmar Ábrego García in person or on the phoneThe senator’s visit came as Democrats have seized on the deportation and the Trump administration’s refusal to take any steps to return him, in apparent defiance of the supreme court, to argue that the president is plunging the US into a constitutional crisis.A federal judge, meanwhile, threatened contempt proceedings against Trump officials for violating his injunction over the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The judge also warned that he could name an independent prosecutor if the White House stonewalled contempt proceedings.And the Federal Reserve chair warned that Donald Trump’s tariffs were likely to worsen inflation, while US stocks slid further and the value of Nvidia dropped by billions after the president imposed new restrictions on the chip giant.Here are the key stories at a glance:El Salvador denies senator’s request to meet Ábrego GarcíaMaryland Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen says the government of El Salvador has turned down his request to visit Kilmar Ábrego García, his constituent who was wrongly deported to the Central American country last month.Read the full storyJudge finds probable cause to hold Trump officials in contemptA federal judge ruled on Wednesday there was probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction that barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.Read the full storyFed chair says Trump tariffs could make inflation worseJerome Powell, the US Federal Reserve chair, warned that Trump’s tariffs were generating a “challenging scenario” for the central bank and were likely to worsen inflation. His comments on Wednesday came as US stock markets had already been rattled by a new trade restriction on the chip designer Nvidia.Read the full storyMore universities back Harvard as Trump doubles downNumerous Democratic politicians and top universities across the country have rallied in support of Harvard, but the Trump administration has doubled down, threatening to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status and insisting that the university apologize.Read the full storyUK labels trade documents ‘secret’ to shield from US eyesUK officials are tightening security when handling sensitive trade documents to prevent them from falling into US hands amid Trump’s tariff war, the Guardian can reveal. In an indication of the strains on the “special relationship”, British civil servants have changed document-handling guidance, adding higher classifications to some trade negotiation documents in order to better shield them from American eyes, sources said.Read the full storyRFK Jr contradicts experts on autismThe US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, said in his first press conference that the significant and recent rise in autism diagnoses was evidence of an “epidemic” caused by an “environmental toxin”, which would be rooted out by September. However, autism advocates and health experts have repeatedly stated the rise in diagnoses is related to better recognition of the condition, changing diagnostic criteria and better access to screening.Read the full storyDoge tried to embed staffers in criminal justice non-profit, says groupStaff at Elon Musk’s so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) demanded to meet with an independent non-profit to discuss embedding a team within their organization, according to the non-profit, stating that refusal to take the meeting would mean a violation of Trump’s executive order empowering Doge.Read the full storyCalifornia launches legal challenge against Trump’s ‘illegal’ tariffsCalifornia is preparing to ask a court to block Trump’s “illegal” tariffs, accusing the president of overstepping his authority and causing “immediate and irreparable harm” to the world’s fifth-largest economy. The lawsuit, which was to be filed in federal court on Wednesday by California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and attorney general, Rob Bonta, is the most significant challenge yet to Trump’s flurry of on-again-off-again tariffs.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      The Trump administration is shuttering the state department’s last remaining bastion to monitor foreign disinformation campaigns.

      The Trump administration sued Maine for allowing transgender girls to compete in school sports.

      Seth Rogen’s pointed criticism of Trump’s policies on science was edited out of the filmed coverage of an annual science awards show, it has emerged.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 16 April 2025. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Doge tried to embed staffers in criminal justice non-profit, says group

      by

      Staff at Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) demanded to meet with an independent non-profit to discuss embedding a team within their organization, according to the non-profit, stating that refusal to take the meeting would mean a violation of Donald Trump’s executive order empowering Doge.Doge staff member Nate Cavanaugh emailed the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice reform non-profit that is independent from the government, on 11 April to demand the meeting, according to a copy of the email. Vera’s staff was confused by the request, as its government funding had been canceled a week prior, but agreed to a call which they said took place on Tuesday.The demand to meet with an independent non-profit organization and potentially embed its staffers there represents an expansion of Doge’s already sprawling reach and coincides with Musk issuing public attacks against non-governmental organizations. Doge has previously gutted government institutions such as USAID and congressionally funded non-profit USIP, but its meeting with Vera marks a new targeting of a wholly independent organization.“We have watched this administration try to kneecap academia, law firms, media, and now they are coming for the non-profit sector,” said Insha Rahman, Vera’s vice-president of advocacy and partnerships.Vera’s programs focus on a variety of criminal justice issues and improving conditions for incarcerated people, as well as supporting mental health and crisis services. Its annual budget of around $45m comes primarily from private donors – although as is common with non-profits, it has also received federal grants. Vera has also been a repeated target for rightwing media outlets that attack its approach to criminal justice reform, which Rahman believes is one of the reasons that Doge staffers may have targeted the organization.When Vera’s legal counsel then held a 20-minute phone call with two members of Doge this week, Rahman says they informed the Doge staffers that the organization had already stopped receiving government funding. The Department of Justice had abruptly canceled $5m in contracts for the non-profit earlier that month. The Doge staffers did not know Vera’s funding had been canceled, according to Rahman, and took back their request for information on Vera’s contracts while refusing to answer questions on what gave them the authority to investigate Vera in the first place.“Doge staffers Nick Cavanaugh and Justin Aimonetti informed us of its plan to assign a Doge team to the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) as part of its larger plan to assign Doge teams to ‘every institute or agency that has congressional monies appropriated to it’,” Vera said in a statement. “When asked about the legal standing for Doge to investigate an independent nonprofit, Aimonetti, who is an attorney, deferred.”Musk has claimed without evidence that there is widespread, pervasive fraud among NGOs receiving government contracts and that leaders of “fake NGOs” should be thrown in prison. Vera stated that it is going public with the incident out of concern that the Trump administration and Doge is planning to target other non-profits that do not conform to their ideology.“The Democrat government-funded NGO scam might be the biggest theft of taxpayer money ever,” Musk posted on X last month.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlthough Doge walked back its attempt to question and potentially embed staffers in Vera after learning that its funding had been cut, the organization is warning other non-profits that receive funding to prepare for similar incursions into their operations.“We are sharing this information broadly with other nonprofits that receive federal funding – so they can be aware of Doge’s plan to assign teams to investigate their operations,” Vera’s statement said. “We also are exposing this latest intimidation tactic targeting private, independent mission-driven organizations and undermining civil society.”The White House denied that Doge plans to embed within non-profits, according to a statement given to the Washington Post, which first reported Doge’s meeting with Vera. Instead, a White House spokesperson told the Post that Doge plans to “specifically look” at non-profits that receive large amounts of federal funding. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      California launches legal challenge against Trump’s ‘illegal’ tariffs

      by

      California is preparing to ask a court to block Donald Trump’s “illegal” tariffs, accusing the president of overstepping his authority and causing “immediate and irreparable harm” to the world’s fifth-largest economy.The lawsuit, to be filed in federal court on Wednesday by California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and attorney general, Rob Bonta, is the most significant challenge yet to Trump’s flurry of on-again-off-again tariffs.In the complaint, California officials argue that the US constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose tariffs and that the president’s invocation of emergency powers to unilaterally escalate a global trade war, which has rattled stock markets and raised fears of recession, is unlawful.“No state is poised to lose more than the state of California,” Newsom said, formally unveiling the lawsuit during a press conference at an almond farm in the Central valley on Wednesday. “It’s a serious and sober moment, and I’d be … lying to you if I said it can be quickly undone.”Invoking a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), Trump has issued a series of declarations imposing, reversing, delaying, restarting and modifying tariffs on US trading partners.The complaint argues that the law does not give the US president the authority to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. It asks the court to declare Trump’s tariff orders “unlawful and void” and to order the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection to stop enforcing them.“The president is yet again acting as if he’s above the law. He isn’t,” Bonta said at the press conference on Wednesday, noting that it was the state’s 14th lawsuit against the Trump administration in less than 14 weeks. “Bottom line: Trump doesn’t have the singular power to radically upend the country’s economic landscape. That’s not how our democracy works.”Trump has said tariffs are necessary to ensure “fair trade”, protect American workers and turn the US into an “industrial powerhouse”.In a statement responding to the lawsuit, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the administration was “committed” to the president’s trade strategy. “Instead of focusing on California’s rampant crime, homelessness and unaffordability, Gavin Newsom is spending his time trying to block President Trump’s historic efforts to finally address the national emergency of our country’s persistent goods trade deficits,” he said.Newsom said his office had informed the White House in advance that it was bringing this lawsuit, but that the governor has not spoken to the president directly about it.Earlier this month, on what he called “liberation day”, the president imposed a sweeping 10% tariff on nearly all imported goods and higher tariffs for a host of countries, most of which he later paused for 90 days.A 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, the US’s largest trading partners, remains in effect, while Trump’s actions have provoked a trade war with China, its third-largest trading partner, subject to US tariffs of 145%.California, the US’s largest importer and second-largest exporter with an economy larger than most countries, relies heavily on trade with Mexico, Canada and China, the state’s top trading partners. The complaint says the economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs on the state will be “significant”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCalifornia is the first US state to bring a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s tariff policies. Earlier this week, a legal advocacy group filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the levies, asking the US court of international trade to block Trump’s tariffs.Newsom said said the economic consequences of the tariffs would be reflected in a revised budget proposal he will submit next month. “Across the spectrum, the impacts are off the charts.”“Regardless of all the scientific and engineering advances, farming is still hard work, and the weather makes every year a gamble,” said Christine Gemperle, who hosted the governor and attorney at her almond farm. “The last thing we need is more uncertainty and not knowing whether we can ride this one out.”California is the nation’s top agricultural exporter, shipping nuts, tomatoes, wine and rice around the world. California’s agricultural exports totalled nearly $24bn in 2022.After Trump’s announcement of across-the-board levies, Newsom said his administration would pursue new trade deals with international partners to exempt California from retaliatory tariffs. It also launched a campaign to encourage Canadian tourism to California, which has fallen dramatically in response to the Trump administration’s policies. Newsom called the effort a “sign of the times”.“We talk about own goals. We talk about stupidity,” he said of Trump’s pursuit of a global trade war. “This needs to be updated in the next Wikipedia or the next encyclopedia as a poster child for that.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Bad for democracy’: North Carolina could throw out valid ballots in tight election

      by

      More than five months after the 2024 election, a swath of voters in North Carolina are still unsure whether their votes will count in an unprecedented effort to overturn a valid US election.Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin in a contest for the state supreme court. But after the election, Griffin challenged the eligibility of tens of thousands of voters. A ruling from the North Carolina supreme court on Friday paved the way for as many as 1,675 voters to have their ballots thrown out in the election – more than double Riggs’s margin of victory.The challenged voters include someone who grew up in the state, a professor who was there for two decades, a lifelong resident studying abroad, and someone who still owns a home there and plans to move back, according to Guardian interviews.But Griffin claims they are “never-residents”, people who voted in North Carolina who had no previous residency in or attachments to the state.The Guardian spoke with several voters, first identified by the publication Anderson Alerts with their list later expanded upon by Popular Information, who were all living overseas when they cast their ballots in the North Carolina state supreme court race.At risk are two groups: 1,409 overseas voters from Guilford county, a Democratic-leaning area, who voted without showing photo ID – something that the law allows. Then, there are 266 overseas voters whom Griffin alleges have never lived in North Carolina, according to the North Carolina state board of elections.View image in fullscreenThe court gave 30 days for elections officials to get more information from the overseas voters. It said that the 266 voters suspected of never being residents in the state should have their ballots thrown out.That would mean that the vote cast by Josey Wright, a 25-year-old PhD student studying in the UK, wouldn’t count.Wright lived in North Carolina from early childhood until age 18. Her parents still live there, and she visits most years, typically spending summers there. She voted from abroad using a web portal available to US citizens who now live overseas, as she has done in several local and national elections since she moved to the UK to study.She found out her vote may not be counted after a reporter contacted her in recent days.“It’s a bit frustrating because it’s already a bit more difficult, I think, to vote as an overseas voter,” Wright said. “You have to be paying attention to US elections and also submit quite a bit of paperwork in order to get your ballot and to sign up for the portal. It’s a bit disheartening that, after all that effort, my vote actually might not be counted.”The legal battle has drawn attention nationwide and protests locally because the courts could potentially overturn Riggs’s victory by changing the rules of election procedure after the election happened. It’s a road map that election challengers in other states, and in much bigger contests, could use in the future, if it’s successful. If Trump had lost North Carolina, he was expected to make similar arguments.The ruling also set off a scramble to figure out next steps for the unprecedented election challenge. There’s confusion over how to find these voters, how to cure their ballots, and what next steps will look like.The state board of elections said in a court filing yesterday that these voters would be reviewed by elections officials to see whether they have claims of residency in North Carolina, and whether, if they were found to be one-time residents and otherwise valid, their ballots would count.Multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court to stop the ruling from taking effect. Plaintiffs in one of the cases include a military spouse living in Italy who was born and raised in North Carolina; a lifelong resident who moved to Switzerland for her husband’s PhD program who is in the process of moving back to the state; a North Carolinian teaching English abroad on a one-year contract and a teacher at an air force base in Japan who lived in the state until last year.A federal court in North Carolina said elections officials should begin the ballot curing process but otherwise hold off on certifying any results pending the court process. The judge in that case, a Trump appointee, would not issue a stay of the case.State law has long allowed overseas voters who claim North Carolina residency to vote in the state.But in interviews, several of those voters said they actually had lived in the US and were confused about the challenge to their eligibility and unsure how, or whether, they could fix it.Josiah Young, 20, was studying abroad in Spain when he cast an absentee ballot online, voting in his first presidential election. He is a freshman at American University in Washington DC, but a lifelong North Carolinian. He voted in his home state, which he still has listed as his permanent residence.Young found out his vote had been challenged a couple of months ago, after one of his father’s colleagues shared a PDF that included voters challenged by Jefferson Griffin in a lawsuit. “Lo and behold, at the bottom of the list is a couple pages dedicated just to me. I was definitely surprised,” he said.“It’s pretty disappointing. As a first-time voter, I feel like I pretty much did everything that I was supposed to do. I cast my ballot legally, and then just to find out that someone, or anyone, is challenging my vote is pretty disappointing,” Young said.He believes he accidentally checked a box that said he had never lived in the US and didn’t plan on returning. He’s not sure there’s any way to remedy the situation and get his vote counted. He has not been notified about his inclusion on the list by any elections officials or challengers, he said. He could have remedied the problem quickly, as he voted early, so he wishes he had known.One North Carolina voter who requested to speak anonymously said they believed they had accidentally checked the wrong box on the form to request a ballot. Instead of saying that they intended to return to the US or were uncertain whether they would return, the voter said they had never lived in the US.The voter, who was abroad for six years but has since returned to the US, first learned about the challenge last fall and tried to notify their local election office, but never heard back. “I’m really upset that he would try to change the rules after losing the election,” the voter said. “I think that’s just very bad form for democracy.”Another challenged voter, Neil McWilliam, taught at Duke University for two decades before moving to France with his family in 2023. Originally from the UK, McWilliam, his wife and his son were naturalized in 2013, and he has voted in every state and federal election since. He is a Democrat, and his wife is registered as an independent. His vote was challenged, and hers was not.“Political operatives like Griffin hope to instill cynicism and hopelessness in those who oppose them,” McWilliam said. “The answer is not to reject voting as a waste of time, but to redouble efforts to ensure that everybody who is eligible can and does vote in fair elections free from partisan manipulation.”David Eberhard, also challenged by Griffin, is a former North Carolina resident who moved to Italy for his son’s education but still owns his home in the state and intends to return. He voted while living in Italy in 2024 using the online forms provided by local officials, he said. He found out he had been challenged in January, has no idea why, and updated his information with North Carolina local officials. He’s unsure of exactly what he’s supposed to do.“If I am supposed to present my credentials to a local official in person, I will have to travel at considerable expense and inconvenience, just because Griffin couldn’t bother with the inconvenience of ensuring that the names on his list were in fact improperly registered,” he said. More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge finds probable cause to hold Trump officials in contempt over alien act deportations

      by

      A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that there was probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction that barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.In a scathing 46-page opinion, James Boasberg, the chief US district judge for Washington, wrote that senior Trump officials could either return the people who were supposed to have been protected by his injunction, or face contempt proceedings.The judge also warned that if the administration tried to stonewall his contempt proceedings or instructed the justice department to decline to file contempt charges against the most responsible officials, he would appoint an independent prosecutor himself.“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily,” Boasberg wrote. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory.”The threat of contempt proceedings marked a major escalation in the showdown over Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, without normal due process, in his expansive interpretation of his executive power.It came one day after another federal judge, in a separate case involving the wrongful deportation of a man to El Salvador, said she would force the administration to detail what steps it had taken to comply with a US supreme court order compelling his return.In that case, US district judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to answer questions in depositions and in writing about whether it had actually sought to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was protected from being sent to El Salvador.Taken together, the decisions represented a developing effort by the federal judiciary to hold the White House accountable for its apparent willingness to flout adverse court orders and test the limits of the legal system.At issue in the case overseen by Boasberg is the Trump administration’s apparent violation of his temporary restraining order last month blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act – and crucially to recall planes that had already departed.The administration never recalled the planes and argued, after the fact, that they did not follow Boasberg’s order to recall the planes because he gave that instruction verbally and it was not included in his later written order.In subsequent hearings, lawyers for the Trump administration also suggested that even if Boasberg had included the directive in his written order, by the time he had granted the temporary restraining order, the deportation flights were outside US airspace and therefore beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.Boasberg excoriated that excuse and others in his opinion, writing that under the so-called collateral-bar rule, if a party is charged with acting in contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the possible legal invalidity of the order as a defense.“If Defendants believed – correctly or not – that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense,” Boasberg wrote.Boasberg also rejected the administration’s claim that his authority over the planes disappeared the moment they left US airspace, finding that federal courts regularly restrain executive branch conduct abroad, even when it touches on national security matters.“That courts can enjoin US officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction … binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the ‘situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance,’” Boasberg wrote.Boasberg added he was unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s efforts to stonewall his attempts to date to establish whether it knew it had deliberately flouted his injunction, including by invoking the state secrets doctrine to withhold basic information about when and what times the planes departed.“The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks,” Boasberg wrote. More