Subterms
Archive: ABC News, Face the Nation, CBS News, CNN, PBS, NBC News, Fox News, WHAS11
Buy a ticket to the Guardian’s special event, looking at 100 days of Trump’s presidency, with Jonathan Freedland
Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More
Bill Maher has responded to Larry David’s satirical essay in the New York Times that compared Maher’s glowing account of having dinner with Donald Trump to dining with Adolf Hitler.Maher, a vocal critic of Trump in the past, had dinner with the US president and a group of his high-profile supporters, including their mutual friend Kid Rock, on 31 March. On an episode of his talkshow Real Time on 11 April, Maher described Trump as “gracious” and “much more self-aware than he lets on”, saying: “Everything I’ve ever not liked about him was – I swear to God – absent, at least on this night with this guy.”The New York Times then published a satirical piece written by the Curb Your Enthusiasm creator, a first-person account from a critic of Hitler who accepts a dinner invitation from the Führer and ends up deciding “we’re not that different, after all”.“I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, pretty much predicting everything he was going to do on the road to dictatorship,” David wrote.“But eventually I concluded that hate gets us nowhere. I knew I couldn’t change his views, but we need to talk to the other side – even if it has invaded and annexed other countries and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.”Appearing on Piers Morgan’s talkshow Uncensored on Thursday, Maher said: “First of all, it’s kind of insulting to 6 million dead Jews … It’s an argument you kind of lost just to start it. Look, maybe it’s not completely logically fair, but Hitler has really kind of got to stay in his own place. He is the GOAT of evil.”Maher told Morgan he considered David a friend, and didn’t know about the piece until his publicist told him it had been published. “This wasn’t my favourite moment of our friendship,” he said.“Nobody has been harder, and more prescient, I must say, about Donald Trump than me. I don’t need to be lectured on who Donald Trump is. Just the fact that I met him in person didn’t change that. The fact that I reported honestly is not a sin either.”Maher told Morgan he didn’t want to “make this constantly personal with me and Larry”, saying: “We might be friends again.”“I can take a shot and I can also take it when people disagree with me. That’s not exactly the way I would’ve done it.“Again, the irony: let’s go back to what my original thing was. There’s got to be a better way than hurling insults and not talking to people. If I can talk to Trump, I can talk to Larry David too.” More
The Trump administration cannot deny federal funds to cities and counties that have passed laws preventing or limiting cooperation with US immigration officials, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.The US district judge William Orrick issued a temporary injunction sought by San Francisco, Santa Clara county and and more than a dozen other municipalities with “sanctuary” policies, and declared that portions of Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.“The cities and counties have also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm,” Orrick wrote in his order. “The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the cities and counties and the communities they serve.”On his first day in office, the US president issued an order directing the attorney general and homeland security secretary to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions as part of his administration’s crackdown on immigration. In another order, he directed the federal government to ensure funds to state and local governments don’t “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation”.Meanwhile, on Thursday the US transportation department threatened states with the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with US immigration enforcement efforts.Under the judge’s order, the federal government is prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds”. The Trump administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.The plaintiffs have argued the orders amounted to overreach and that the Trump administration was attempting to force cities to participate in its “reckless and illegal mass deportation efforts”.“The federal administration is illegally asserting power it does not have, as courts already determined during the first Trump Administration,” David Chiu, the San Francisco city attorney, said in a statement.“They want to commandeer local police officers as federal Ice agents, while strong-arming local officials with threats of withholding federal funds that support our police department, our efforts to address homelessness, and our public health system.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe federal government has not yet attempted to withhold specific amounts or lay out conditions on specific grants, and during a hearing on Wednesday attorneys for the justice department argued it was too soon for the judge to issue an injunction for that reason.Orrick, who was nominated by Barack Obama, said government lawyers made the same argument during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote. He pointed to the executive orders and directives from Pam Bondi, other federal agencies and justice department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the ninth US circuit court of appeals agreed with the lower court that Trump exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities”.The cities and counties who sued to stop the administration’s most recent orders praised the judge’s decision.“At a time when we continue to see tremendous federal overreach, the court’s ruling affirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for,” said Tony LoPresti, counsel for Santa Clara county, in a statement.Associated Press contributed to this report More
The Republican president is taking aim at a Democratic fundraising platform, issuing a presidential memorandum to crack down on supposed foreign contributions to elections, an unsubstantiated claim from the right..Donald Trump announced the memo on Thursday, directing the attorney general to investigate, and report to the president, “concerning allegations regarding the use of online fundraising platforms to make ‘straw’ or ‘dummy’ contributions and to make foreign contributions to US political candidates and committees, all of which break the law”.ActBlue, the largest online donation platform on the left, has anticipated the presidential action. Its CEO and president, Regina Wallace-Jones, sent an email this week saying the organization expected an executive order targeting it, and that the threat of these investigations had “caused many in the ecosystem anxiety and distress”.“If we look past rumors and innuendo, here is what we know to be true: Nothing will deter or interrupt ActBlue’s mission and work to enable millions of Americans to participate in our democracy,” she wrote. “There is an ongoing and persistent effort to weaken the confidence of the American people in what’s possible. This is the next version of ‘the big lie.’”ActBlue is the main platform used to collect donations for Democratic candidates and causes. The move is among several actions the Trump administration has taken to “cripple the left”, the New York Times has reported, part of a “series of highly partisan official actions that, if successful, will threaten to hobble Democrats’ ability to compete in elections for years to come”.The memo comes amid ongoing unsubstantiated claims on the right about the fundraising platform. Elon Musk has tweeted about ActBlue multiple times since Trump took office. “Something stinks about ActBlue,” he said in one post.Republican lawmakers have called on the treasury department to investigate ActBlue. Representative Darrell Issa wrote to the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, in March, saying the department should investigate whether ActBlue facilitated donations from “terror-linked organizations and non-profits”, based on reporting in rightwing media that the platform had cut ties with a Palestinian organization that advocates for divestment in Israel.Congressman Bryan Steil, the chair of the Committee on House Administration, requested documents from ActBlue in October “related to the platform’s donor verification policies and potential vulnerabilities that foreign actors may exploit to illegally participate in the US political process”. Those documents showed that the platform had updated its policies to automatically reject certain donations from gift cards and other avenues, Steil said.The organization has seen internal strife, the New York Times reported, leading to departures of senior officials. Republicans demanded more documents from ActBlue based on the departures, the paper reported.The attack on the fundraising platform comes as Democrats prepare efforts to win back majorities in Washington in the midterms. On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee announced a plan to revitalize state Democratic parties by sending monthly donations from the national party to the states, with more funding going to red states. More
California’s economy has surpassed Japan’s, making the Golden state the fourth largest economy in the world, governor Gavin Newsom announced on Thursday.The state’s nominal GDP reached $4.1tn, according to data from the International Monetary Fund and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, edging out Japan’s $4.02tn nominal GDP. California now ranks behind the US at $29.18tn, China at $18.74tn and Germany at $4.65tn.Along with the tech and entertainment industry capitals, the state, which has a population of nearly 40 million people, is the center for US manufacturing output and is the country’s largest agricultural producer.“California isn’t just keeping pace with the world – we’re setting the pace. Our economy is thriving because we invest in people, prioritize sustainability, and believe in the power of innovation,” Newsom said in a statement.The state has outperformed the world’s top economies with a growth rate in 2024 of 6% compared with the US’s 5.3%, China’s 2.6% and Germany’s 2.9%. This week’s new rankings come six years after California surpassed the United Kingdom and became the world’s fifth largest economy.Newsom noted, however, that the Trump administration’s agenda endangers California’s economic interests.“And, while we celebrate this success, we recognize that our progress is threatened by the reckless tariff policies of the current federal administration. California’s economy powers the nation, and it must be protected.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCalifornia last week became the first state to sue the federal government over Donald Trump’s tariff policies, and has argued that the president’s actions are unlawful and that constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose tariffs.“No state is poised to lose more than the state of California,” Newsom said during a press conference announcing the lawsuit. “It’s a serious and sober moment, and I’d be … lying to you if I said it can be quickly undone.”California is a major contributor to economic growth nationally, with the money it sends to the federal government outpacing what it receives in federal funding by $83bn, according to a statement from Newsom’s office.Despite an enormous shortage of affordable housing that has fueled a homelessness crisis in the state, the population has grown in recent years. Meanwhile, last year the state reported its tourism spending had hit an all-time high – though California has seen a drop in some areas.Canadian tourism in California was down 12% in February compared with the same month last year amid Trump’s tariff war. In response, the state has announced a new campaign to draw Canadians back, while one city has put up pro-Canada signs across its downtown. More
Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, has announced a proposal requiring party officials to remain neutral in primary elections, challenging activist David Hogg to choose between his vice-chair post and his pledge to unseat “asleep-at-the-wheel” incumbents.As Democrats scramble to rebuild their tarnished brand after a devastating loss to Donald Trump in 2024, party officials are escalating a confrontation with the 25-year-old progressive activist who was elected to serve as a vice-chair in February.“If you want to challenge incumbents, you’re more than free to do that, but just not as an officer of the DNC, because our job is to be neutral arbiters,” Martin said on a call with reporters on Thursday. “We can’t be both the referee and also the player at the same time. You have to make a decision.”Martin officially presented the neutrality pledge on Thursday, days after Hogg announced plans to spend $20m to primary “out-of-touch” and “ineffective” Democratic incumbents through his grassroots organization Leaders We Deserve – an unprecedented move for a high-ranking party official.The effort has put Hogg on a collision course with his own party, which has traditionally not opposed incumbents, preferring instead to use its resources against Republicans.Martin emphasized that he had “great respect” for Hogg, who became an outspoken gun safety advocate after surviving the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. “But it’s important for us to maintain the trust that we have built with Democratic voters and to keep our thumb off the scale as party officers,” he added.“We hope that he realizes that he got elected to be an officer of the DNC, which means that we remain neutral,” Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska Democratic party chair and president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, said on the call. She said many state parties already forbid officials from “putting our thumb on the scale” in Democratic primaries.“Voters get to decide who our candidates are, not party officials,” she said.If approved by DNC members at the party’s August meeting, the resolution would in effect force Hogg to choose between remaining a national party vice-chair or step aside from Leaders We Deserve, which he co-founded.The standoff comes as Democrats’ popularity has fallen dramatically, even as approval of the president drops. Since Trump’s return to power, liberal voters have swarmed town halls, rallies and protests to vent their disapproval of the Trump administration – but also a pent-up desire for generational change in Democratic leadership.“Anybody who believes our country is in an existential moment, and who sees the sole opposition party at a record low approval with the public, should want to both change the face of our party in primaries and fix the party from the inside,” Adam Green, the co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement after the DNC call, calling Hogg one of the few national party leaders who are “meeting this important moment with boldness”.On Thursday’s call, Martin outlined a plan to ramp up its financial contributions to state parties, especially in traditionally Republican corners of the electoral map. He said all state parties would receive a baseline rate of $17,500 a month, a $5,000-a-month increase over the current DNC contribution. Parties in red states would receive an additional investment of $5,000 a month through the DNC’s Red State Fund, he said.“I’m done with Democrats myopically focusing on just a few battleground states every few years,” Martin said. “We are not simply a presidential campaign committee, the DNC is now the primary hub for building out a permanent political organizing movement across every part of the country.” More
Employees from Barnard College received text messages this week from the federally run Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on their personal phones linking to a voluntary survey asking recipients if they are Jewish or Israeli and whether they have been subjected to harassment or antisemitism.The text, which was reviewed by the Guardian, states that the civil rights agency is “currently reviewing the employment practices at Barnard College” and invites current and former employees to complete the linked survey. It is not clear how many college employees received the survey, but it appears to have been sent to a sizable portion of the faculty and other staff.The survey, which appeared to be part of the Trump administration’s aggressive investigations into American colleges and universities over antisemitism allegations stemming from pro-Palestinian protests, sparked anxiety among some recipients.View image in fullscreen“Regardless of the stated intent, this survey in effect creates a list of Jewish faculty, staff and students at Barnard,” said Elizabeth Bauer, a Barnard professor and chair of the college’s biology department, who said she was alarmed by the message.“The government is also now requiring undocumented immigrants, including children, to register with DHS. I’ve seen this movie before and I’m horrified.”The survey asked whether the respondent currently works at Barnard or has ever been employed there and prompted respondents to select all that apply of the choices: “I am Jewish”, “I am Israeli”, “I have shared Jewish/Israeli ancestry”, “I practice Judaism” and “Other”.Another question asked: “While working at Barnard College, were you subjected to any of the following because you practice Judaism, have Jewish ancestry, are Israeli, and/or are associated with an individual(s) who is Jewish and/or Israeli?”Respondents could select from options including, “unwelcome comments, jokes or discussions”, “harassment, intimidation”, “pressure to abandon, change or adopt a practice or religious belief” and “antisemitic or anti-Israeli protests, gatherings or demonstrations that made you feel threatened, harassed or were otherwise disruptive to your working environment”.Other questions asked the respondents’ employment details, supervisor name, date of hire and more.Elizabeth Hutchinson, an associate professor of American Art History at Barnard, a women’s college affiliated with Columbia University, said when she received the message on her personal phone at 5.39pm ET on Monday, her initial reaction was: “This must be some kind of scam, because, how could the EEOC have my contact information.”The message addressed her by name and, initially, Hutchinson said, she didn’t open the links.“I was frightened, and wasn’t sure what it entailed,” she said.Celia Naylor, a professor in the Africana studies department at Barnard College, also received the message on Monday. She quickly discovered that “a lot of people I know – faculty and even some staff – also received it”.View image in fullscreenAs many faculty and staff tried to verify the message’s legitimacy in group chats on Monday evening, Barnard’s general counsel, Serena Longley, sent an email about the messages.Longley explained in the email, which was viewed by the Guardian, that the college had “received multiple reports that some employees have received text messages from the EEOC inviting them to complete a voluntary survey”. She also said Barnard, Longley “was not given advance notice of this outreach”.“Participation is entirely voluntary. If you choose to respond, please know that both federal law and Barnard policy strictly prohibit any form of retaliation,” she continued.Longley sent a follow-up email to Barnard employees on Wednesday, which was also reviewed by the Guardian, explaining that the EEOC launched an investigation last summer against Barnard “concerning whether or not the College discriminated against Jewish employees on the basis of their national origin, religion and/or race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”.“Barnard prides itself on being an inclusive and respectful workplace for all people, including our Jewish employees, and has been robustly defending the College against this EEOC inquiry,” Longley wrote, adding that the EEOC was “legally entitled to obtain the contact information of Barnard employees so that it could offer employees the option to voluntarily participate in their investigation”.“Barnard complied with this lawful request,” she said.The college heard from current and former employees in recent days who asked to be notified in advance before their contact information is shared, the email also noted.“Going forward,” she said, “if and when we are required to provide information about staff in connection with an investigation or litigation, we will provide you with advance notice unless we are subject to a court order that prohibits us from doing so.”Longley also emphasized that participation in the EEOC survey was voluntary.A spokesperson for the EEOC said: “Per federal law, we cannot comment on investigations, nor can we confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.” Barnard did not respond to a request for comment.After hearing others discuss its content, Hutchinson finally opened the survey on Wednesday and found it “utterly shocking”.“It’s very clearly a fishing expedition,” she said, before noting that the survey “is clearly presuming guilt and looking for very specific kinds of evidence for their case”.Hutchinson also said that while she was grateful for the information provided in Barnard’s emails this week, she felt that they did not “acknowledge the reality that the faculty are experiencing a heightened surveillance of our campus that is now intruding into our personal devices on our personal time”.To Hutchinson, the message on Monday was “unprecedented” has “really ramped up the unease on campus”, with faculty now feeling vulnerable both in their classrooms and now in their private spaces too.Naylor echoed that faculty, students and staff were concerned about how their personal information was being used by Barnard, and shared with federal agencies. They are unsure of what other personal details have been provided.Debbie Becher, a Barnard sociology professor who is Jewish, spoke to the New York Times this week about the text message and survey, saying that she found it “a bit terrifying” that the federal government “wants to know who the Jews are through some text message and Microsoft Office form”.Bauer said that not all of the Barnard faculty and staff received the message, adding that it was “unclear” why some did not receive it and others did.“It was obvious that the survey was a fishing expedition by the EEOC to find Title VII violations,” Bauer said.Colin Wayne Leach, a professor of psychology and Africana Studies at Barnard College, said that “as a dean focused on supporting our faculty”, he had been hearing from many colleagues this week who are upset about the messages.They were “surprised” that the EEOC “would choose this informal, unannounced, and intrusive way to ask employees to complete a survey on their experiences of such an important topic as anti-semitism at their place of work”.The Spectator, Columbia’s University paper, reported on Wednesday that several members of Columbia’s faculty also received the text message from EEOC.Rebecca Kobrin, co-director of the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies (IIJS), told the Spectator that she and other members of IIJS received the message. More
A federal judge on Thursday blocked Donald Trump’s efforts to add a proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form, a change that voting rights advocates warned would have disenfranchised millions of voters.The president sought to unilaterally add the requirement in a 25 March executive orders. The Democratic party, as well as a slew of civil rights groups, challenged that order, arguing the president does not have the power to set the rules for federal elections.US district judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the federal district court in Washington, agreed with that argument on Thursday.“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections,” she wrote in a 120-page opinion. “No statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.”Kollar-Kotelly also blocked a portion of the executive order that required federal agencies to assess the citizenship of individuals applying to vote at a public assistance agency before they offered them a chance to vote.The order would have made it significantly harder to register to vote, even for eligible voters. Nearly 10% of eligible voters lack easy access to documents, such as a US passport or birth certificate, that would be required to prove their citizenship, a 2024 survey found.“No president has the authority to dictate our election systems and processes,” Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. “The Constitution gives the states and Congress the express power to regulate our elections. We are happy to see that the Constitution’s core principle of separation of powers has been upheld in this instance, and we look forward to continuing our challenge so everyday Americans can make their voices heard without unnecessary barriers.”Republicans in the US House have passed a similar bill that would require proof of citizenship to vote, but it almost certainly will not pass in the US Senate. Several states have also passed statutes to require proof of citizenship to vote.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionKollar-Kotelly left in place, for now, portions of the order that instructed the Department of Homeland Security to share information with states and to work with the so-called “department of government efficiency” to find non-citizens on the rolls. She also left in place a portion of the order that sought to punish states that allow mail-in ballots to arrive after election day, saying the plaintiffs had not established legal harm. She left the door open to the challengers returning to court later to bring claims against those portions. More
