More stories

  • in

    Newsmax agrees to pay $40m to settle defamation suit over false election claims

    The conservative news outlet Newsmax agreed to pay the voting equipment company Smartmatic $40m last year as part of a settlement in a defamation suit over Newsmax’s decision to broadcast false claims about the 2020 election, a new filing revealed.The parties did not reveal details of the settlement when it was reached in September, but Newsmax disclosed the settlement amount in a public 7 March financial filing. The news outlet said it had also offered Smartmatic the option to buy stock in the company and that it had paid $20m of the settlement amount so far.A Newsmax spokesperson declined to comment beyond the statement the company issued after the settlement last year.Smartmatic voting equipment was only used in one jurisdiction in the United States during the 2020 election. Nonetheless, allies of Donald Trump and other conservative outlets repeated false claims that the company hacked votes and sent them overseas.Smartmatic sued Newsmax, the far-right network One America News and Fox for defamation, claiming they broadcast false claims about the company after the 2020 election. It previously settled with One America News and the case against Fox is ongoing. In January, A New York appellate judge said the company’s $2.7bn suit against Fox could proceed.Fox agreed to pay Dominion voting systems, another voting equipment company, $787.5m to settle a defamation suit over election claims in 2023.All of the cases are being closely watched by first amendment scholars as tests of whether libel law could be an effective tool for curbing misinformation. In the case between Dominion and Fox, for example, the legal process made public internal Fox messages showing prominent hosts and key personnel were aware the information about the company was false. More

  • in

    Why I quit my homestead dream just as farmer tradwives became mainstream

    Our homesteading experiment began before tradwives, before Donald Trump, before Covid-19. It was the summer of 2015 when we were all sure no one would vote for a former reality TV star. I was 25 years old and desperate for a security blanket, working a sales job and looking for excuses not to return to college.My husband, Patrick, and I had talked about farming since our first date. We wanted goats. At his 2-acre property in a quiet suburb of Portland, Maine, we kept a few chickens and a scrawny vegetable garden.One morning, Patrick texted me: “I found the place. You’re going to love it. It’s uber cute.”Ninety-three acres in midcoast Maine, with an abandoned farmhouse and huge barn. Overgrown fields, alders encroaching across a pool of fetid swamp water to scratch against the door, no floor in the kitchen, and a single pipe gravity-feeding spring water from the mountain side. A three-hole outhouse was the extent of the plumbing.It was perfect.View image in fullscreen“What’s your end goal, man?” asked Patrick’s old college roommate. “What are you imagining in five years? Her barefoot and pregnant in the garden?”It was 2015 and you could still buy a piece of rural heaven for less than a small fortune – if you were willing to put in some sweat equity. We put a deposit down on some goats and signed our mortgage.Back-to-the-land wasn’t a political statement then. Sure, your urban friends would think you’d lost it, but not in an anti-vax, don’t-tread-on-me way. I had no desire to be barefoot, nor pregnant. But we were still in the honeymoon phase of our relationship, and building a life together from scratch had its romantic draw.I told myself I was sucking the marrow out of life, as Henry David Thoreau had once done. I even wore a T-shirt that said “Resistance is Fertile”. I thought of homesteading as an overtly political – even rebellious – act.Homesteading was in my blood. My mother had gone back-to-the-land with her first husband in the early 1970s, inspired by Helen and Scott Nearing, hippie icons who taught a generation to “live simply and sanely in a troubled world” with their book, Living the Good Life (1954). Scott Nearing was an outspoken pacifist, communist and protester. He and his wife, Helen, ate raw foods, tended their own land and railed against capitalism long before there were TikTok trends on the subject.Before my mother moved to Maine, she went to her grandparents to share the news of her move. They had grown up on a hardscrabble Missouri farm during the dust bowl. They had moved to town for a reliable job and to give their deaf daughter, my grandmother, the opportunity to study.When my mother told Daddy Kays, as she knew him, about her plans to go rural, he was horrified. Why do you want to do that? he asked. Why would anyone choose to go back to subsistence living? Why did my mother insist on denying what my great grandfather saw as progress?My mother left her homestead in the late 1980s. She moved to town to provide a better education for her young daughters, to seek more stable employment, and to leave a Sisyphean list of chores. By this time, many homesteaders were joining her in shifting back to a less isolated existence.The few who remained largely credited not a deeper sense of political motivation, but a strong community. Where homesteaders had gathered in groups, they seemed to remain. The Nearings had cultivated a following of interns and volunteers who showed up each year and had gradually settled around their homestead in Harborside, Maine. To this day, that area remains a haven for self-sufficient living.It could never be said that Patrick and I did things halfway. For two years, we showered outside in the negative temperatures and biting winds of a Maine winter. We preserved our harvests, bottle fed baby goats, raised pigs and chickens and geese and sheep. Patrick rebuilt our entire home from the studs. Fields were cleared and hayed to feed our animals. All of our equipment came from barters, trades and Craigslist. For what we couldn’t find a good deal on, we made do. Our lives revolved around the movement of firewood, without which we would freeze in winter.View image in fullscreenI wrote a book on our lifestyle – So You Want to Be a Modern Homesteader? – and shared our journey on social media. Through this outreach we connected with others making a similar leap, a community that was tiny and fringe before the interest in rural living sparked during the pandemic and ensuing lockdowns. We greeted each other, in person and online, with the excitement of people into some shared niche hobby. We troubleshot problems, speculated on livestock choices and traded sourdough starters.Even before terms such as “tradwife” became popular, I noticed remarkable consistency in our homesteading friends. When a couple would show up at our farm to buy a goat or lamb, they’d bundle out of their unblemished Volvos with a snot-nosed toddler swaddled in one car seat in the back, the other car seat occupied by a sleeping infant. The mother would have kind, slightly confused eyes and an instant attraction to animals. The men were bearded, in lumberjack plaid.It got to the point I would joke that I could not tell my friends’ husbands apart, so uniform was their charcoal facial hair. The men always knew what they were doing: brimming with the self confidence of someone who recently read Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, possessed of at least one scheme to provide for his family while living off the land.After five years, our routine was set. The farmhouse had electricity and running water. We’d cleared the fields and put in a farm pond. Every spring we welcomed a new batch of goat kids and lambs that we sold, we milked our goats and sheared our sheep. We turned over our land sustainably using pigs, and we collected dozens upon dozens of eggs every day from the chickens, ducks and geese.View image in fullscreenWe were also very tired. We fell into bed every night exhausted, and woke up and did it again. There was little time for hobbies outside of running the farm, and less for intimacy. There was no time for travel – even going down the coast to see our parents had to be planned and limited to a few hours out of the day. When we did have time to sit together, we bickered about chores and finances strained by hungry animals. The addition of an indoor shower did little to remove the grime that stuck in our emotions.Faced with exhaustion and burnout, for a few years we tried to downsize, to reverse out of our headlong rush into self-sufficiency. To make time for occasional date nights and rest, we tried to sell a few animals here and there, but the chores still piled up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThen in late 2019, Patrick’s son died unexpectedly. In the onslaught of grief, we had to manage feeding dozens of animals and moving firewood in for the winter. Have you ever had to make sure that a funeral would be over in time for evening chores?Soon after, Covid arrived. Within the online homesteading community, jokes made the rounds about how well positioned for a pandemic we were: we did not need supply chains or contact with the outside world to thrive. And yet there is a difference between choosing to stay at home on the farm and having to, particularly when the farm is wrapped in a thick cloak of sorrow.By the end of the first year of the pandemic, we were ready to get off the farm. And then our entire flock of more than a hundred birds succumbed to bird flu, which at the time was a new avian disaster. Our abundant flock of friends and entertainers disappeared overnight, culled in the wake of a burgeoning pandemic.Community can save a homestead from failing under this kind of stress. But as we tended to our tragedies, the community around us had shifted.People had started making careers out of being influencers and content creators. The homesteading world was no less full of social media personalities than the rest of the internet. And when Covid lockdowns hit in 2020, anyone who was online talking about self-sufficiency had an opportunity. Those of us who had shared our homesteading journeys since we first shot up on Instagram’s algorithm in 2013 were getting phone calls from places including the New York Times asking us about our lifestyle. Our follower counts had exploded. We – the fringes, the freaks – were the popular kids now.Leaning in to the popularity of from-scratch living was a recipe for success. Hannah Neeleman’s Ballerina Farm, once home to rough-and-ready farm life and now curated to a perfect prairie-wife aesthetic, has 10 million followers. All of my other contacts who leaned into the buzz around self-sufficiency in 2020-2021 now have hundreds of thousands of followers.Unfortunately for my pocketbook, I was wrapped up in several blankets worth of troubles at that time, forgetting to reply to emails and sometimes forgetting to just get out of bed.Not all of my friends went full “tradwife”. Some simply began to prothetize more about organic methods, no till gardens, and permaculture practices. They DIYed themselves crazy. How many of them had outside help to manage a menagerie of animals and a list of home improvement projects? Far more than ever mentioned help.Thoreau had brought his laundry into town for his mother. Now, today’s homestead influencers have perfected promoting a from scratch lifestyle while utilizing invisible helping hands at every turn.A less welcoming community grew around these very online homesteaders. When a follower would realize my political views swung left, they’d pepper my pictures with comments about how they’d thought they liked me until they found out I was a radical lefty. Several new homesteading festivals have sprung up around the country, including the popular Homesteaders of America Conference, which draws almost 10,000 homesteaders annually and welcomes speakers such as Joel Salatin, an outspoken libertarian linked to possible roles in the Trump administration and Nick Freitas, a far-right state delegate from Virginia who has referred to the Affordable Care Act as a “cancer”.View image in fullscreenFor those reasons, the embrace of traditional living gave me pause. In between the grief and the daily grind, my community – online and in real life – was becoming more hostile. There were subjects that could not be talked about, loud unfollows when opinions became known, and a lifestyle that had been fun and alternative was warped by ugly exclusion.It felt as if a curtain had been pulled back from my lifestyle choice. I had enjoyed the connection to my food and the land through sustainable living, but I had never thought of my lifestyle as a step backwards in time. I had laughed at the idea I might someday be barefoot and pregnant in the garden. But, with a never ending list of homestead to-dos, I was as tied to the wood stove and the milking routine as an 1800s woman before me.The happiest “homesteaders” I know continue to thrive in semi-urban environments, with neighbors who stop by to check on the ducks if they want a break from the farm. Most of them are minimally online, disengaged from the performative fetishization of the lifestyle. They keep one foot in the garden, and one on the pavement of society.Today, Patrick and I keep a few goats and a garden in the backyard. We have the ability to leave the farm now and then for a trip, and we’re in the process of moving closer to family and culture. We are taking steps to ensure that our hard work is preserved, working with a land conservation group to keep the property in farmland long after we are gone.We have no aspirations towards self-sufficiency, but a desire to experience varied aspects of life while remaining connected to our food sources. I now have a set of skills I can draw on if I find myself in the kind of calamitous situation that sections of the homesteader community are prepping for. I feel a deep appreciation for the labor of food production. I’ve also learned to embrace the freedom of progress. Today, I run, I read, I write, I take the time to walk in nature and sit and converse with my husband.Today, I am able to slow down and live. More

  • in

    Trump’s student loan changes leave borrowers facing soaring repayments

    Many of the nearly 43 million Americans who have federal student loan debt are seeing their carefully budgeted monthly payments soar amid Donald Trump’s overhaul of education in the United States.In the last few weeks, the Trump administration closed applications for all income-driven repayment plans (even ones not blocked by courts) and limited those eligible for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF). That program forgives the loans of government and select nonprofit workers after completing 10 years of service and making 10 years of minimum payments.“The student loan system was broken when President Biden was responsible for it. All we’ve seen since President Trump has come in as an effort to provide fewer rights and fewer resources for working people that have student debt, making the cost of living go up,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center.“Things are worse now than they’ve ever been, and nothing is on the table that will make life better for people with student loans.”Jordan, a public high-school English teacher in Redding, California, and his wife, who also works in public education, have student loans totaling $200,000. The couple, who recently welcomed a second child, just bought a house to accommodate their growing family. An even higher student loan payment each month wasn’t a consideration when they took out a mortgage, he said.“We’re going from making $600 in payments – that’s what Save (saving on a valuable education) is supposed to do, which we can absorb to an extent. But if we go off of income-based payments, I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Jordan, 37, said.“Today I tried to calculate what’s going to happen, and the calculators don’t work on the webpage. I couldn’t even tell you real numbers if I wanted.”With a new mortgage and childcare exceeding $15,000 on a teacher’s salary, Jordan and his family are stretched thin.He said: “It’s been alarming, but I’ve tried to enter into zen mode. I’ll just move my money and I guess wait until they figure out how to garnish my wages, if I even have money. I don’t know. What am I supposed to do?”Aaron, a pharmacist in Ohio, started looking for a second job when Trump got elected in preparation for higher monthly payments.“I’m nervous about it. I basically knew on election night what was going to happen to the Save Plan. It was going to go away. I did a second pharmacist job filling in some [pro re nata] hours,” Aaron, 47, said. “I’m still looking for additional hours to try to pick up.”Aaron took out around $180,000 in loans to cover pharmacy school tuition and living expenses for him and his family. With the Save plan and PSLF, he expected to pay $700 a month and have his loan forgiven after 10 years since he works for the state. Without an income driven repayment plan as an option, he fears a possible monthly payment of $1,800 for the next 30 years on a standard extended repayment plan with no chance of forgiveness.“The more that you go to school, have an advanced degree, you earn more over your lifetime. You pay more in taxes. Not just income taxes, but property taxes, sales taxes, everything else. So it’s actually a pretty good deal to invest in somebody to go to school,” he said. “I don’t see [loan forgiveness] as a handout, which is what people try to say ‘well, you know, I didn’t go to school, so I shouldn’t pay for anything.’ Yeah, but if I told you about all the stuff that I shouldn’t be paying for, you could play that game all day.”Reina Chilton-Mayer is a homemaker and caregiver for her disabled teenage son. Despite her husband having a master’s degree and stable income for many years, the unstable rental market alongside the cost of caretaking has left them with few choices, she said. She and her husband’s combined $140,000 worth of student loans has left them so burdened that they are considering defaulting on their debt for the first time.“I hate defaulting on something. It could have career impacts for my husband,” Chilton-Mayer, 44, said. “If you wanted to change jobs, of course there are going to be financial background checks. So we’re not 100% on whether or not we’re going to do that, but at the end of the day, it just comes down to making ends meet every month.”Ebrahim Ghazali, the chief of pediatrics at a clinic in Springfield, Massachusetts, has just one year left of payments until the rest of his loans would be forgiven under PSLF. The recent changes to federal student loans have paused his payments and left him unsure about the future of his debt.“With these giant student loans, my payments were initially close to $2,000 a month. When I got on the Save plan, it brought it down to between $600 and $700 a month, which I can budget a lot better,” Ghazali, 41, said.But now, with the application websites down, he said he is “unable to progress towards forgiveness and with the application site down. I can’t restart them on a different repayment plan. I’m not even sure if my current employment is going to count towards repayment at this point.”As the potential shuttering of the department of education looms, Pierce noted that “the worst things that could happen are already happening right now, and we don’t need to wait for the education department to shuffle the deck chairs around on the Titanic”.“Borrowers have a right to make payments based on their income,” he said. “They have a right to have their debt canceled that they work in public service, and those rights have been shut down by President Trump.” More

  • in

    Deporting speakers over supposed ‘propaganda’ is a stock authoritarian move | Sarah McLaughlin

    The dust is starting to settle on the conflicting reports emerging after immigration officers’ arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University protest leader and green card holder, last weekend – and Americans should be alarmed by the similarities to authoritarian regimes’ speech policing.The White House has confirmed the arrest took place under a law granting the secretary of state unilateral power to act when given “reasonable ground to believe” an immigrant’s “presence or activities in the United States … would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the country.The Trump administration has not been shy in asserting that Khalil’s political expression is at the root of efforts to deport him. The press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, claimed Khalil distributed “pro-Hamas propaganda”. A White House officially reportedly added that the “allegation here is not that he was breaking the law”. Their actions are not about conduct, but speech.Trump himself claimed Khalil’s arrest was “the first of many to come” against students engaging in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity”.Americans must ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with our government wielding its power to deport speakers for what it claims is pro-terrorist propaganda. If your answer is “yes”, you should know this method is often employed by authoritarian governments with significantly weaker national commitments to free expression than our own.In recent years, India has increasingly canceled or failed to renew the work visas of journalists in the country whose writing has challenged the government, including one whose reporting “crossed the line” and another, married to an Indian citizen, who created a “biased negative perception about India” through her journalism. Officials are also targeting the overseas citizenship of India (OCI) status, available to certain individuals of Indian origin or married to Indian citizens, while it takes aim at those it accuses of “tarnishing the image” of India.These denials serve multiple purposes: they not only diminish government critics’ ability to speak but they also limit the viewpoints that citizens of those countries can access – and warn everyone else to shut up.Similar efforts are under way elsewhere.Russia’s targeting of the press, especially after its invasion of Ukraine, has included the expulsion of foreign journalists including Politico’s Eva Hartog and El Mundo’s Xavier Colas. Hong Kong authorities refused to renew the visa of Rowena He, a scholar and Tiananmen massacre researcher, resulting in her removal from the city and her job at Chinese University of Hong Kong. Kuwait revoked citizenship from the blogger and critic Salman al-Khalidi and has since in absentia convicted him for social media posts and extradited him from Iraq. The list goes on.Governments retain significant authority over who can enter and reside within their borders. But that authority should not be used as a weapon to reflect the government’s preferred political opinions or sift out their critics. Unfortunately, in many places, it is, often on the basis of spurious national security-related claims.The question at hand today is not whether Khalil’s views are popular or beloved among American citizens or politicians. That should never be the question we ask in our most challenging questions about our speech rights. What we must ask instead is: should we approve of the use of government power to expel speakers whose political views the government loathes?Because, through its many comments about Khalil’s case, that is the question the Trump administration has undoubtedly posed to us. If constitutionally protected speech “adversarial” to the political positions of the US and allies can make Khalil eligible for deportation, this administration is ultimately threatening the authority to revoke the status of any lawful immigrants whose views it dislikes. You don’t need to hold any sympathy for Khalil’s views to see why this is an immense threat to free expression.Here in the United States, I advocate for the rights of international students originating from authoritarian regimes who study on our nation’s campuses and carry fear that research or political activity challenging their governments will create consequences at home. Now, immigrants legally in the United States on either a green card or a student visa may be forced to make some of the same calculations as those who live or work in authoritarian states abroad – but about our own government.Is it safe for me to speak my mind? Is it worth the risk? Is the government going to target me for my views?America’s immigration holding cells should not become detention centers for speech the government intends to target.

    Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech More

  • in

    The threat of Trump is vast. But don’t underestimate incremental change | Michael Brownstein

    Donald Trump is attempting to dismantle American constitutional democracy before our eyes. For the past six weeks, many of us have been telling ourselves we have to do something about this before it’s too late. And yet many people who feel this way – no matter how outraged they are or how genuinely worried they are about our country’s future – are doing very little but handwringing and doomscrolling.Elected leaders in the Democratic party are mostly failing to provide inspiration for people who are alarmed about the president’s actions. The protest paddles they held up at Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress underscored the fact that they’re flailing more than they’re leading. Meanwhile, for most of us, the chance to vote again is almost two years away.The problem is not that there aren’t meaningful things ordinary people can do. There is strong evidence that protesting, calling our elected representatives and even just talking with people about our political concerns can create change. Fighting back against Trump’s naked power grab requires a whole “ecosystem of resistance”, as Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor and former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, recently put it. Each bit of that ecosystem adds up to more than the sum of its parts.The question isn’t whether there are meaningful steps to take. It’s why we don’t take them more often.The work of making change is difficult. Most of it is boring, unsexy and, at best, modestly incremental from day to day. But if asked to describe a success story of political change – for example, the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which is widely credited with paving the way for the 1964 Civil Rights Act – what comes to mind is an image of hundreds of thousands of people gathered together in a triumphant, decisive moment. Images like these can be inspiring, but they can also cloud the imagination. What doesn’t always come to mind are the thousand small steps that led to that moment and carried the work forward the day after.An anti-incrementalism bias keeps many of us from taking action. As the economist Albert Hirschman put it: “It is the poverty of our imagination that paradoxically produces images of ‘total’ change in lieu of more modest expectations.” The thing about modest expectations, though, is that they have a way of being met. Then they can grow a little. Then grow a little more. And before you know it, diseases such as smallpox are eradicated, global poverty has plunged and the average human lifespan has doubled.One reason we resist incrementalism is because we mistakenly think it requires tolerating injustice, such as moderating on an issue like transgender rights in an effort to court swing state voters. But embracing incrementalism doesn’t determine whether you are a moderate, a liberal, a progressive or a radical. Incrementalism is about the means with which we achieve change, not the ends we seek. No matter one’s goals – growing local support for clean energy projects, persuading elected representatives to consider proportional representation or even amending the constitution – change requires small steps, each one pushing a bit further beyond the status quo.Activists, organizers and other social change entrepreneurs are frequently incrementalists, even if they don’t say so. For example, members of the Black Panther party were no milquetoast moderates, yet they were serving breakfast to kids each morning in Oakland starting in 1969. Their work expanded to similar programs across the nation, which eventually inspired the federal school breakfast program, which now feeds millions of kids. Love or hate the Panthers, they showed up day after day, knocking on doors, gathering signatures, planning budgets, making the coffee.The same is true for successful public policy. In most cases, incremental steps – such as ratcheting up social security through successive revisions over decades – are the most efficient path to transformative change. Whatever one’s goals, there’s no avoiding “doing the work”.Another barrier to incrementalism is how easy social media makes it to put off doing the work while simultaneously helping us feel as if we’re actually doing it. In a survey from 2018, the political scientist Eitan Hersh found that one-third of respondents reported spending at least two hours a day reading, discussing and thinking about political news. Yet virtually none of these people spent any time working or volunteering for a political organization. Hersh worries that too many of us, especially on the left, misunderstand what politics is – or, at least, what it’s actually for. As he wrote in a 2020 essay for the Times: “Politics is about getting power to enact an agenda. It’s about working in groups to turn one vote into more than one vote, one voice into more than one voice, by getting others on board with you. If you aren’t doing that, you aren’t doing politics. But hey, congratulations on your interesting hobby.”Other barriers to embracing incremental change run deeper: imagine two city governments, each of which sets a goal for policing reform. Their goals are basically identical, but government A gets much closer than government B to the target, even though neither of them reaches it. In a 2022 paper titled Losing Sight of Piecemeal Progress, the psychologist Ed O’Brien shows that, once a threshold for success is clear, people often lump nearly complete failures together with partial successes as “all the same”. Even though government A made real progress compared with government B, we’re liable to discount its efforts if they don’t result in total success. Worse, O’Brien shows that when we chalk up partial progress as failure, we lose motivation to keep working for change.Some climate activists worry that we’ll apply the same logic to the goal of keeping global warming under 1.5C. Indeed, the climate crisis demonstrates what is perhaps the greatest barrier to incrementalism: if we don’t know about progress, why would we doggedly keep working for it? Per capita, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are currently down to 1920s levels. Annually, our country now emits about what we did in the 1980s. But as Hannah Ritchie discusses in her book Not the End of the World, when asked whether emissions have increased, decreased or stayed the same in the US over the past 15 years, only one out of five people correctly say they’ve decreased. This lack of awareness of partial victories can breed cynicism and despair.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAmerican conservatives have often been successful incrementalists, perhaps most notably in their decades-long assault on reproductive rights that culminated in the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even as progressives recoil at this rollback of rights, they should learn from how this political goal was accomplished.Acknowledging partial success isn’t tantamount to complacency. While the United States and other countries have made important progress on the climate crisis, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, paving the way for a tremendous amount of suffering. Yet not acknowledging partial success is a recipe for inaction. It leaves us with the idle hope for a moment of liberation, delivered on the wings of a social change angel who doesn’t exist.What’s giving me hope nowWhat gives me hope is the unoriginal, even banal thought that most people are trying to be decent, most of the time. Of course, that leaves a lot of room for bad things to happen. We can do terrible things to one another under the misapprehension that we’re doing good. We’re biased about how, and to whom, we extend our decency. And the indecent few can manipulate the many to look away while they steal and plunder. But justice wouldn’t be possible if most of us didn’t care about it, however fallibly we pursue it. And most of us do, I think.

    Michael Brownstein is professor and chair of philosophy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and professor of philosophy at the Graduate Center, Cuny. He is the author, along with Alex Madva and Daniel Kelly, of the forthcoming Somebody Should Do Something: How Anyone Can Help Create Social Change. More

  • in

    Schumer decision to vote for Republican funding bill a ‘huge slap in the face’, says AOC – US politics live

    The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) has warned Congress has a funding shortfall of $2bn for this fiscal year, Axios reported on Friday, citing two people familiar with the matter.The European Union has the resources to respond to president Donald Trump’s threats to levy more tariffs on the European Union, French central bank governor and European Central Bank (ECB) board member François Villeroy de Galhau said on Friday.According to Reuters, he added that he wanted to see the escalations in a possible spiraling trade war cease. Villeroy de Galhau added that Trump’s view of the economy is a “losing” view.The Trump administration has called on the Pentagon to provide military options to ensure the country has full access to the Panama canal, two US officials told Reuters on Thursday.Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants to “take back” the Panama canal, which is located at the narrowest part of the isthmus between North and South America and is considered one of the world’s most strategically important waterways, but he has not offered specifics about how he would do so, or if military action might be required.One US official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a document, described as interim national security guidance by the new administration, asked the military to look at options to ensure “unfettered” access to the Panama canal.A second official said the US military had a wide array of potential options to guarantee access, including ensuring a close partnership with Panama’s military.The Pentagon last published a national defense strategy in 2022, laying out the priorities for the military. An interim document sets out broad policy guidance, much like Trump’s executive orders and public remarks, before a more considered policy document like a formal NDS.The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.BMW said it does not expect newly imposed US tariffs to remain in place until the end of the year, adding that if the situation changed, so would its outlook, reports Reuters.BMW forecast a 5-7% earnings margin for its automotive segment in 2025, but that calculation was based on the assumption that the tariffs imposed so far would remain in place until the end of the year, which the carmaker does not expect to be the case, executives Oliver Zipse and Walter Mertl said. “If the situation changes, we will need to adjust the outlook,” chief financial officer Mertl added.This week on the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Heather Boushey, an economist and former adviser to Joe Biden, about what Donald Trump’s long game is with his trade war, and how voters will view his handling of the economy should there be a “Trumpcession”. You can listen to the podcast at the link below:Here’s a little more on the comments to reporters by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to a post on X by Kadia Goba, political reporter at Semafor, Ocasio-Cortez said:
    There are members of Congress who have won Trump held districts in some of the most difficult territories in the United States; who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people … just to see some Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk. I think it is a huge slap in the face, and I think that there’s a wide sense of betrayal.”
    The Senate finds itself on Friday in a familiar position, working to avoid a partial government shutdown with just hours to spare as Democrats confront two painful options: allowing passage of a bill they believe gives president Donald Trump vast discretion on spending decisions or voting no and letting a funding lapse ensue.Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer gave members of his caucus days to vent their frustration about the options before them, but late on Thursday made clear he will not allow a government shutdown. His move gives Democrats room to side with Republicans and allow the continuing resolution, often described as a CR, to come up for a vote as soon as Friday, reports the Associated Press. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters that Senator Chuck Schumer’s statement was “a huge slap in the face, and I think that there’s a wide sense of betrayal.”A procedural vote on Friday will provide a first test of whether the package has the 60 votes needed to advance, before final voting likely later in the day. At least eight Democrats will need to join with Republicans to move the funding package forward.“While the CR still is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse,” Schumer said.Senate majority leader John Thune and others used their floor time on Thursday to make the case that any blame for a shutdown would fall squarely on Democrats.Schumer said Trump would seize more power during a shutdown, because it would give the administration the ability to deem whole agencies, programmess and personnel non-essential, furloughing staff with no promise they would ever be rehired.“A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country,” Schumer said.More on that in a moment, but first, here are some other key developments:

    Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, said that he will vote to allow the deeply partisan Republican spending bill become law because a government shutdown would do more harm.

    Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters that Senator Chuck Schumer’s statement was “a huge slap in the face, and I think that there’s a wide sense of betrayal.”

    Stocks plunged again after Trump’s threat to impose a 200% tariff “on all wines, Champagnes, and alcoholic products” from European Union countries if the trading bloc makes good on its threat to retaliate for steel and aluminum tariffs announced by the US president by adding a 50% tariff on American products, including Kentucky bourbon.

    In a letter sent to the president of Columbia University and the co-chairs of its board of trustees on Thursday, the Trump administration’s antisemitism taskforce demanded nine specific changes to university policies and structures before negotiations over federal funding would begin.

    Columbia announced the same day it received the letter that it had complied with item one on the list of demands: expelling and suspending pro-Palestinian student protesters who occupied a campus building last year or took part in a Gaza Solidarity encampment.

    Representative Raúl Grijalva died after a long battle with cancer, his office announced on Thursday. His seat will remain vacant until at least September.

    In 1996 a federal judge found the legal provision now being used to target Mahmoud Khalil unconstitutional. She was Donald Trump’s sister.

    The Trump administration has appealed to the supreme court to uphold the president’s executive order curtailing birthright citizenship.

    The US Postal Service will reduce its staff by 10,000 through early retirements, and has signed an agreement with Elon Musk’s department of government efficiency (Doge) to streamline its operations, postmaster general Louis DeJoy announced. More

  • in

    Tesla tells US government Trump trade war could ‘harm’ EV companies

    Elon Musk’s Tesla has warned that Donald Trump’s trade war could expose the electric carmaker to retaliatory tariffs that would also impact other automotive manufacturers in the US.In an unsigned letter to Jamieson Greer, the US trade representative, Tesla said that it “supports fair trade” but that the US administration should ensure that it did not “inadvertently harm US companies”.Tesla said in the letter: “As a US manufacturer and exporter, Tesla encourages the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to consider the downstream impacts of certain proposed actions taken to address unfair trade practices.”The company, led by Musk, a close ally of Trump who is leading efforts to downsize the federal government, said it wanted to avoid a similar impact to previous trade disputes which resulted in increased tariffs on electric vehicles imported into countries targeted by the US.Tesla said: “US exporters are inherently exposed to disproportionate impacts when other countries respond to US trade actions. The assessment undertaken by USTR of potential actions to rectify unfair trade should also take into account exports from the United States.“For example, past trade actions by the United States have resulted in immediate reactions by the targeted countries, including increased tariffs on electric vehicles imported into those countries.”Trump has imposed significant tariffs that will affect vehicles and parts made around the world.The EU and Canada have announced large-scale retaliations for tariffs on steel and aluminium imports into the US, while the UK has so far held off on announcing any countermeasures.Tesla’s share price has fallen by more than a third over the last month over concerns about a potential buyer backlash against Musk, who has shown support for Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland party, theatrically brandished a chainsaw at a conservative conference, and accused Keir Starmer and other senior politicians of covering up a scandal over grooming gangs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis week Trump said said he was buying a “brand new Tesla” and blamed “radical left lunatics” for “illegally” boycotting the EV company – a day after Tesla’s worst share price fall in nearly five years.Tesla said: “As USTR continues to evaluate possible trade actions to rectify unfair trade practices, consideration should also be given to the timeline of implementation. US companies will benefit from a phased approach that enables them to prepare accordingly and ensure appropriate supply chain and compliance measures are taken.” More

  • in

    Musk’s entitlement remarks show Trumpworld can’t keep its story straight | Austin Sarat

    The Trump administration is setting records and shattering norms in many ways, including in its almost daily policy flip-flops and rhetorical missteps. The latest started on Monday, when Elon Musk torched Trumpism by trumpeting the need to make cuts in federal entitlement programs.He did not clearly say whether or how those cuts would affect Medicaid, Medicare and social security benefits. But he was clear that those programs will be on his target list.Entitlements are “the big one to eliminate,” he told Larry Kudlow, an economic adviser during Donald Trump’s first term, on Fox Business Network. “Maybe half a trillion or $600, $700bn a year.”Throughout the 2024 campaign, the president promised not to cut social security and Medicare benefits. Even so, Musk appeared to tee up changes to those programs.He called entitlements “a mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants by essentially paying them to come here and then turning them into voters”.“That’s why,” he continued, “Democrats are so upset about this situation. If we turn off this gigantic money magnet for illegal immigrants, then they will leave and they will lose voters.”As the AP notes in its report on the Musk-Kudlow interview: “The allegation echoed the ‘great replacement’ theory which claims that politicians are trying to expand their power by reshaping the country’s racial demographics.” Pinning the blame for entitlement cuts on undocumented immigrants is a Trumpist way of stoking the base, even as Musk lays the groundwork for making the lives of many Maga loyalists more difficult.The red meat Musk tossed to hardcore, anti-immigrant voters will not long be satisfactory if he follows through on cuts to programs on which many of them depend. In addition, Musk’s musings about entitlements will drive home the widening split between its plutocratic and populist wings.Last month, Steve Bannon, representing the populist wing of the Maga movement, gave a taste of what is to come in Trumpland when he warned that Republicans making cuts to Medicaid would affect members of Trump’s fan club.As the New Republic puts it: “On the Thursday episode of War Room, while gushing over massive government spending cuts, Bannon warned that cutting Medicaid specifically would prove unpopular among the working-class members of Trump’s base, who make up some of the 80 million people who get their healthcare through that program.”“Medicaid,” Bannon warned, “you got to be careful, because a lot of Maga’s on Medicaid. I’m telling you, if you don’t think so, you are deeeeeead wrong. Medicaid is going to be a complicated one. Just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.”And it is not just Medicaid that has strong support. Polls have “consistently shown that the American public strongly supports social security, across party and demographic lines”, per the National Academy of Social Insurance.A 2024 survey found “87 percent of Americans agree that social security should remain a priority for the nation no matter the state of budget deficits, and this support holds strong across party affiliation. Ninety per cent of Democrats, 86% of Republicans, and 88% of independents support keeping social security a priority.”In the wake of the November election, a Pew survey reported: “Republicans and Democrats have long differed over the size and scope of government, and that continued that continued in this election cycle.” But “large majorities of Trump (77%) and Harris supporters (83%) opposed any reductions in the social security program.”The president prepared the way for Musk’s remarks during his recent address to Congress when he delivered a litany of false claims about people receiving social security benefits well beyond anyone’s capacity to live. Musk followed suit with what he said about undocumented immigrants getting federal entitlement benefits.The fact is that if they work, they pay into the social security system, but they are not eligible to receive benefits. As KFF, a health policy research, polling and news organization, explains: “Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in federally funded coverage including Medicaid, Chip, or Medicare.”We got a glimpse of the trouble that Musk caused in Magaworld when, the day after his remarks, the White House tried to clean up the mess. It issued a press release saying: “The Trump administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again).”Then, never missing a chance to bash the media, the White House insisted: “Elon Musk didn’t say that, either. The press is lying again.” The press release also insisted that Musk was only talking about plans to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.The Musk-led assault on the federal government may talk a lot about doing so, but that is a cover for a bigger project. As professor Jack Schneider observes: “We all know that there are ways our government could become more efficient or more effective. But this project isn’t really about trimming the fat – it’s about cutting you loose.”The Trump-Musk project is also designed to cripple government agencies, deprive government of the funds it needs to deliver necessary services, and further erode the public’s trust in government.That is why Musk has not been shy about denigrating the entire social security system, calling it a “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all times”. The White House effort to whitewash Musk’s faux pas is another example of the continuing saga of its baffling inability to get its story straight.The president may think that he gets more than he loses from his “billionaire in a china-shop” sidekick. But, in the end, while Trump may survive his association with the Musk, Trumpism may not.

    Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 hundred books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More