US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      NAACP sues Texas over congressional redistricting, saying it strips Black voters of political power

      by

      Texas’s redrawn congressional maps have drawn a lawsuit from the NAACP, accusing the state of committing a racial gerrymander with its maps that strip Black voters of their political power.The lawsuit, joined by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, names Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, and secretary of state, Jane Nelson, as defendants. It asks a federal judge for a preliminary injunction preventing the use of the redrawn maps, arguing that the redistricting violates the US constitution by improperly reducing the power of voters of color. It also argues that the maps violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.“We now see just how far extremist leaders are willing to go to push African Americans back toward a time when we were denied full personhood and equal rights,” the president of the Texas NAACP, Gary Bledsoe, said in a statement. “We call on Texans of every background to recognize the dangers of this moment. Our democracy depends on ensuring that every person is counted fully, valued equally and represented fairly. We are prepared to fight this injustice at every level. Our future depends on it.”Texas Republicans passed a redrawn map on Saturday, with the expected result of an increase in Republican representation by five seats in the next Congress. Democratic state legislators are a minority in both chambers of the Texas legislature, leaving them with few options to block it. A group of state house representatives spent nearly a month away from the state to deny Republicans a quorum. That maneuver ended last week, after California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and the state legislature began a process to counter the Republican gerrymander with a Democratic gerrymander of their own.“The state of Texas is only 40% white, but white voters control over 73% of the state’s congressional seats,” said Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP. “It’s quite obvious that Texas’s effort to redistrict mid-decade, before next year’s midterm elections, is racially motivated. The state’s intent here is to reduce the members of Congress who represent Black communities, and that, in and of itself, is unconstitutional.”Democrats in Texas promised lawsuits out of the gate.The League of United Latin American Citizens – a group of 13 Texas voters – filed suit within hours of the redistricting bill’s passage. The map “eviscerates minorities’ opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in four key areas of the state”, the filing states.Other challenges are likely to follow. Republicans, however, believe that they are operating on favorable legal ground, hoping to overturn key sections of the Voting Rights Act as the lawsuits work their way through the courts.The US supreme court will hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais in the term to come. In that case, the court will be asked to upend the core tenet of the Voting Rights Act and hold that the use of racially identifying voter data to prevent voters of color from being able to select a candidate of their choice is actually an act of racial discrimination.Without that protection, Republican state lawmakers across the country can be expected to redraw maps for increased partisan advantage by cutting Black-majority districts into ribbons.Meanwhile, Donald Trump said the Department of Justice would sue California for its redistricting. Last week, the Democratic-led legislature placed a measure to redraw the state’s district lines on the 4 November ballot.In a sharp break against longstanding progressive efforts to turn redistricting over to neutral commissions, the NAACP said today that it “is urging California, New York and all other states to act immediately by redistricting and passing new, lawful and constitutional electoral maps” to counter expected efforts in Texas and other states to redraw maps for midterm advantage. More

    • 163 Shares136 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says he wants ‘nothing less than $500m’ from Harvard as feud continues

      by

      Donald Trump said on Tuesday that his administration “wants nothing less than $500m from Harvard” as a condition for restoring billions of dollars in federal funding to the Ivy League university.“Don’t negotiate with them, they’ve been very bad,” Trump told his education secretary, Linda McMahon, in a cabinet meeting.Trump’s comments came amid reports that his administration and Harvard are moving toward a potential settlement that could bring an end to their months-long battle over the government’s allegations that Harvard has not done enough to crack down on antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests.In April, Harvard became the first – and so far only – university to sue the Trump administration over the funding cuts. It sued again the following month over the government’s efforts to block the school from enrolling international students.The university has argued that the administration unlawfully slashed $2.6bn in research funding from the university in retaliation for the school’s refusal to comply with a series of demands laid out in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism task force. Those demands related to campus protests, academic policies and admissions practices.A US district judge heard arguments from both Harvard and the Department of Justice last month.The Department of Justice has argued that the federal government has the authority to cancel grants when institutions violate presidential directives, and have cited Trump’s executive order purporting to combat antisemitism.The New York Times and the Associated Press have both reported that Harvard and the White House had made substantial progress toward a deal. Under the proposed agreement, according to the Times, Harvard would pay $500m in exchange for the restoration of billions in frozen federal research funds. However, key terms reportedly remain unresolved, with negotiations still continuing.The Harvard president, Alan Garber, has disputed the Times report, reportedly telling faculty that the article was inaccurate and alleged that the information had been leaked to the press by White House officials.According to Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper, Garber said the university remains committed to resolving the matter through the courts and that academic freedom was nonnegotiable in any deal.In July, it was also reported that Harvard agreed to comply with federal demands to turn over employment records for thousands of staff members.Since taking office in January, Trump and his administration have made unprecedented efforts to reshape higher education, targeting elite universities over their handling of the pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, DEI programs and more.Several other universities that have faced federal funding cuts – including Columbia, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania – have reached settlement agreements with the administration to restore research funding.Columbia University agreed to pay more than $220m and implement a series of reforms to settle allegations that it was not doing enough to combat antisemitism. However, some education advocates decried that deal as a blow to academic freedom. More

    • 125 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      Court tosses Trump lawsuit against Maryland judges over US deportations

      by

      A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit filed by the Trump administration earlier in the summer against all 15 judges serving on Maryland’s federal district court – a case that opposed pausing some deportations from the state.In a 37-page ruling, US district judge Thomas Cullen of Virginia’s western district – who was nominated and confirmed to his position during Donald Trump’s first presidency – wrote that “any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss”.“To hold otherwise,” Cullen added, “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”The Trump administration had challenged an order issued by Maryland’s chief district judge that temporarily barred the government from deporting undocumented immigrants for two business days if they filed challenges to their detention. Trump’s justice department argued that the order exceeded the court’s authority and violated federal law.But Cullen, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020 and was assigned the case because all Maryland district judges were named as defendants, wrote that the judges were “absolutely immune” from lawsuits over their judicial actions. And Cullen said that instead of suing, the administration should have challenged the order though other legal channels, such as appealing against the order.“As much as the executive fights the characterization, a lawsuit by the executive branch of government against the judicial branch for the exercise of judicial power is not ordinary,” Cullen wrote.“In their wisdom, the constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the judiciary’s constitutional role.”He added that if the administrations’s arguments “were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction”. But he said that “as events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times – at least regarding the interplay between the executive and this coordinate branch of government”.It was “no surprise that the executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely”, Cullen’s ruling said.“Instead of appealing any one of the affected … cases or filing a rules challenge with the judicial Council, the executive decided to sue – in a big way.”In a footnote, Cullen also criticized the Trump administration’s attacks on judges across the country throughout his second presidency, which began in January.“Over the past several months,” he said, Trump administration officials had described federal district judges around the country as “left-wing”, “liberal” “activists”, “radical”, “politically minded”, “rogue”, “unhinged”, “outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional”, “[c]rooked,” and worse.“Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate,” Cullen wrote.Among the judges named in the lawsuit was US district judge Paula Xinis, who ruled in April that the Trump administration had unlawfully deported Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador and ordered the US to return him. More

    • 200 Shares161 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is out to end the Fed’s autonomy. Here’s how he’s trying to get his way

      by

      When Donald Trump stepped up his campaign to influence the US Federal Reserve, he traveled less than a mile from the White House, to tour the central bank’s headquarters. But as the administration considers how to actually get what it wants, one of the US president’s acolytes looked about 500 miles south.A condominium above the Four Seasons hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, is at the heart of an extraordinary battle over the future of the Fed, and the independence of its power of the world’s largest economy.For a generation, presidents have respected the Fed’s autonomy. They might disagree with its decisions. But they allowed it to make long-term calls in the best interest of the economy, even if they caused short-term political discomfort.Trump has ignored this precedent.Since returning to office in January, he has lambasted the Fed publicly and relentlessly – calling its chairperson, Jerome Powell, a “moron”, a “numbskull” and a “disaster” – and accused the central bank of damaging the US economy by failing to cut interest rates.As the Fed declined to lower rates at five consecutive meetings, Trump escalated his attacks, even suggesting (without evidence) that multi-billion dollar renovations of its Washington headquarters were tantamount to fraud.But policymakers held the line. With most rate-setting officials wanting to wait and see the impact of Trump’s policies – from trade wars to deportations – on the economy, they sat on their hands.While the Fed might be on the cusp of resuming rate cuts, Powell has made clear rates are unlikely to fall as drastically as the president wants.So how does Trump actually get what he wants?Back to that condo in Atlanta. It was allegedly bought by Lisa Cook, a respected economist appointed by Joe Biden to serve on the Fed’s board of governors, in July 2021. Trump’s officials claim she took out a mortgage which listed the property as her primary residence – two weeks after taking out another mortgage, which listed a property in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as her principal residence.The allegations – similar to those that the administration has leveled against other opponents – are unconfirmed. But that didn’t stop Trump from immediately demanding Cook’s resignation.When Cook refused to be “bullied”, he tried to fire her. Cook has insisted Trump has no authority to do so, and her attorney has pledged to sue the administration over its bid to remove her from her post.The Fed’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is in Trump’s sights. There are 12 seats around the table, filled by five representatives of local reserve banks and seven governors.Fed governors, once appointed, are hard to replace. A full term lasts 14 years, enabling them – in theory – to take a longer view on the economy than, say, presidential administrations working on four-year cycles.Cook’s term is not due to expire until 2038. It now appears likely that her future at the Fed will be settled in court. But Trump’s bid to exert control over the central bank, and its rate-setting committee, does not end there.He has already nominated one ally to sit on the Fed’s board of governors, following the exit of Adriana Kugler, another Biden appointee, earlier this month. Two other governors have already publicly sided with the president on rate cuts, and reportedly made the administration’s shortlist of potential successors to Powell.Powell’s term as Fed chair is due to end in May. His term as a governor is not due to expire until January 2028, but departing chairs have typically left the board at the same time.The Fed has so far defied Trump’s demands. But each departure enables him to build his influence over its policy committee – with view to obtaining an outright majority. Like the supreme court, these nominations have implications for years to come.The administration is arguing a mortgage on a condo in Atlanta should allow it handpick another official to join the Fed’s board. Who knows what the next purported reason will be, should it have another go.Trump has made no secret of this plan. “We’ll have a majority very shortly,” he claimed to reporters at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “So that’ll be great.”Of course, receiving his backing today does not guarantee his support tomorrow.Eight years ago, when he tapped Powell to lead the Fed, the president delivered a strikingly different verdict to the ones he now routinely publishes on social media. “He’s strong, he’s committed and he’s smart,” said Trump. More

    • 150 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk’s Doge put sensitive social security data at risk, whistleblower says

      by

      Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) copied and uploaded sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) data to a vulnerable cloud server, potentially risking the safety of hundreds of millions of Americans and violating federal privacy laws, according to a whistleblower complaint filed on Tuesday.The complaint from Charles Borges, the chief data officer at the SSA, alleges that Doge staffers effectively created a live copy of the entire country’s social security data from its numerical identification system database. The information is a goldmine for bad actors, the complaint alleges, and was placed on a server without independent oversight that only Doge officials could access.“These actions constitute violations of laws, rules, and regulations, abuse of authority, gross mismanagement, and creation of a substantial and specific threat to public health and safety,” the complaint states.The whistleblower complaint, first reported by the New York Times, is one of the most high-profile insider accounts of how Doge staffers have allegedly taken confidential government information and used it for their own ends, at great risk to the public. The database that Doge officials allegedly uploaded to the cloud contains highly personal information about hundreds of millions of US citizens and residents. It includes details such as names, place and date of birth, race and ethnicity, names of family members, phone numbers, addresses and social security numbers.The Social Security Administration denied that the sensitive data had been compromised and stated that it takes all whistleblower complaints seriously.“SSA stores all personal data in secure environments that have robust safeguards in place to protect vital information. The data referenced in the complaint is stored in a longstanding environment used by SSA and walled off from the internet,” an SSA spokesperson said. “We are not aware of any compromise to this environment and remain dedicated to protecting sensitive personal data.”The non-profit Government Accountability Project whistleblower organization is providing Borges legal counsel in the case and filed his complaint with the US Office of Special Counsel, as well as members of Congress. The complaint calls on lawmakers to swiftly take action to safeguard public data and provide more oversight.“Placing a live copy of Americans’ social security data in a cloud environment without independent oversight puts everyone with a social security number and their families at real risk of identity theft, interrupted benefits, and tax or medical fraud that can follow them for years,” said Andrea Meza, director of advocacy and strategy at the Government Accountability Project and the legal counsel on the case.Borges is a career civil servant and navy veteran who joined the SSA in late January, and was previously chief data officer for naval air systems command. His complaint alleges that he repeatedly raised concerns with his superiors about Doge officials improperly accessing data but that no action was taken.“Mr Borges spent weeks pressing for fixes inside SSA; when nothing changed, he used the protected channels federal whistleblower law provides,” Maza said. “We’re calling for immediate oversight and an independent audit to investigate these violations, prevent future problems, and restore required safeguards.”Lawmakers and ethics watchdog groups, as well as former and current federal employees, have long accused Doge of accessing government data with a wanton disregard for security protocols and transparency. A separate whistleblower disclosure in April raised concerns that Doge employees had potentially exposed sensitive National Labor Relations Board information, and alleged it appeared that Doge employees attempted to cover up documentation of what data they accessed.As Doge rapidly embedded its staffers across federal agencies earlier this year, it gained access to troves of information from a wide swath of government databases. Although reports have detailed how the agency is using some of that data to further the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, there has not been a full accounting of why Doge has accessed the public’s data. More

    • 138 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Who is Lisa Cook, the Fed governor facing removal by Trump?

      by

      Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, is now facing removal by Donald Trump, another obstacle in a long line she has faced and written about during her experiences as one of a small number of Black women in the field of economics.Cook was nominated to the Fed in 2022 by then president Joe Biden after building a career that spanned both government and academia, including work at the treasury department, service in the White House, and a long record of scholarly contributions.But her path to confirmation wasn’t without hostility. Republicans opposed her nomination, forcing Vice-President Kamala Harris to break a 50–50 Senate deadlock. That narrow vote made Cook the first, and so far the only, Black woman to serve as a Fed governor.Her potential dismissal comes just days after federal housing finance agency director Bill Pulte alleged on social media that she falsified records and other documents to obtain favorable mortgage terms prior to her appointment. Cook has not been charged with a crime or found guilty of misconduct.By law, governors on the Fed’s board are appointed to 14-year terms and can only be removed for “cause”, generally understood to mean corruption or serious wrongdoing. Cook has continued to push back. Last week, she declared she had “no intention of being bullied” and promised to gather “accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts”.In a statement on Tuesday, she insisted that “no cause exists under the law, and he [Trump] has no authority” to strip her of the seat she has held since 2022. Her attorney has said they intend to sue.Since joining the board, Cook has consistently voted in line with chair Jerome Powell, supporting last year’s decision to cut interest rates and this year’s decision to hold them steady. She is sometimes described as a “dove”, a label economists use for officials who lean toward lower rates.Cook was born in Georgia, where she was raised by a hospital chaplain and a nursing professor. She and her sisters were among the first Black students to integrate their schools.She went on to study at Spelman College, then Oxford University as a Marshall scholar, before earning her PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1997.Her academic work often linked economics with the realities of race and discrimination. One of her most recognized works, Violence and economic activity: evidence from African American patents, described how lynchings and other acts of racial violence in the late 1800s and early 1900s drastically reduced patent activity among Black inventors.Cook has also written candidly about the challenges she has faced in her profession. In a 2019 opinion piece in the New York Times, she and a co-author argued that “economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women”.She added: “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.” More

    • 175 Shares161 Views

      in US Politics

      What the Democrats can learn from Gavin Newsom’s Trump mockery | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      Gavin Newsom’s recent mockery of Donald Trump proves that imitation isn’t always the sincerest form of flattery. Amid the ongoing battle over congressional redistricting, Newsom’s pitch-perfect posts about Trump’s “TINY HANDS” and California’s “PERFECT MAPS” have been wildly entertaining, and, at least by one measure, wildly successful – the posts have garnered millions of views and counting.While it’s refreshing to see a prominent Democrat unapologetically standing up to the current administration, Newsom’s jabs also reinforce the staying power of Trump’s blustery and incoherent style. And they reveal the degree to which the attention economy has disrupted our focus and degraded our language.Trump continues to benefit from the steady decline in the American attention span driven by social media. His style of short, punchy, inflammatory language – and his strategy of flooding the zone with a new federal freak show day after day – is engineered to succeed in this chaotic environment. But some recent online victories seem to indicate that progressives can also win on this battlefield if they deploy the right combination of profane style and policy substance.It’s possible the Trump era would never have been inaugurated without the concurrent smartphone era reshaping attention spans and media habits. One survey has found that Americans check their phones an astonishing 144 times daily, and about 40% of adults report being “almost constantly online”. As a result, Americans are reading less. In 2024, less than half of adults said they had picked up a book in the past year, continuing a consistent downward trend.The MSNBC journalist Chris Hayes has analyzed this regression in his book, The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource (a story that millions of Americans could benefit from understanding, if only they were still reading). He argues that the relentless competition for attention erodes thoughtful discourse while incentivizing the most thoughtless voices. It has contributed to mental health crises, the decline of journalism, and political polarization. It also fueled the rise of Donald Trump, who long ago proved himself to be a malignant savant of attention manipulation.Trump’s understanding of the new media ecosystem propelled all three of his presidential campaigns. In 2016, he received an estimated $5.6bn worth of free media. By that September, the word Americans associated the most with Hillary Clinton was “email”, while they connected Trump with “speech”, “president” and “immigration”.Fast forward to 2024, and he kept courting online attention with stunts such as working a choreographed 30-minute “shift” at McDonald’s. He dominated news media with mendacity which demanded journalistic coverage, such as his promotion of the xenophobic falsehood that Haitian migrants were eating Ohio pets. As Hayes wrote, Trump’s approach to politics over the last decade has been the “equivalent of running naked through the neighborhood: repellent but transfixing”.Now, Trump is not just benefiting from but intentionally accelerating these reversals. He has defunded and harassed leading research universities, censored historical exhibits at museums, and created Truth Social – an imitation of Twitter that has emerged as a playground for conspiracy theorists.He is attempting the governmental equivalent of a lobotomy.These setbacks have led progressives to increasingly understand that electoral victory requires digital dominance. And squaring up with Trump on social media appears a prerequisite for rallying the public around any political vision. As one strategist put it while praising Newsom’s Trump impersonation: “Democrats are over being the ‘nice guy’ party.”Already, there is some delightful needling of the right easily found in the proverbial social media haystack. The streamer Hasan Piker has been described as a “gateway drug” for progressive politics, while his engaging brand of explicit quips led GQ to name him “the hottest left-wing political commentator online”. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez streamed herself playing the game Among Us with Piker before the 2020 election, she almost broke a livestreaming record on the Twitch platform, drawing about 440,000 concurrent viewers.Elected Democrats are also taking off their virtual gloves. The Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, responded to Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by threatening to rechristen Lake Michigan “Lake Illinois”. In an example of game respecting game, Zohran Mamdani’s strategy of speaking directly to voters through social media received unlikely praise from Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene is less a fan of the Texas representative Jasmine Crockett, who went viral for describing Greene as having a “bleach blond, bad-built, butch body”. And in Maine, the oysterman and Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner is drawing headlines for a pugnacious campaign launch video in which he declares: “The difference between Susan Collins and Ted Cruz is at least Ted Cruz is honest about selling us out and not giving a damn.”Still, talking the talk also requires walking the walk by implementing bold, authentically progressive initiatives. One of Newsom’s Trump-mocking posts announced an aggressive redistricting plan to counter Republican gerrymandering in Texas. Bernie Sanders has endorsed that move, just as he endorsed Mamdani, whose affordability agenda represents another ambitious stance to match pugilistic rhetoric.Otherwise, adhering to the philosophy of “when they go low, we go high” risks failing to meet voters where they are. It seems Americans seek a fighter on their behalf and at their side.“THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.” More

    • 225 Shares153 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom is taking the fight to Trump – but for whom is he fighting? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Every time you think US politics could not possibly get any stupider, it does. Today’s instalment of “we live in hell, where politicians are passing around the last remaining brain cell” comes via New York and the latest shenanigans of the city’s mayor, Eric Adams. Desperate to distract voters from a steady stream of scandals, the latest of which involves a former aide giving a reporter a crisp packet filled with cash after an Adams mayoral campaign event, he is trying hard to flex his social media muscles.This weekend, Adams joined Andrew Cuomo, the former governor who is running as an independent in November’s election, and others in mocking Zohran Mamdani, the charismatic Democratic candidate and frontrunner, for his weightlifting efforts at a community event. Adams posted a side-by-side video on X of himself and Mamdani bench-pressing with the caption: “67 vs. 33 … The weight of the job is too heavy for ‘Mamscrawny.’ The only thing he can lift is your taxes.” This post was quickly deleted and replaced with one that got Adams’s age right: he is 64.Inventing childish nicknames for your rivals? Classic Donald Trump. Getting basic facts embarrassingly wrong? Super Trumpy. Obsessing over your manliness, rather than focusing on issues voters care about? Trumpy to the max.Adams isn’t the only politician emulating the president’s idiosyncratic communication style. Across the globe, we are witnessing the seemingly unstoppable rise of the trollitician. From the Australian senator Ralph Babet tweeting tirades about “woke ass clowns” to the US vice-president, JD Vance, insulting the IQs of his detractors, an increasing number of politicos seem to be operating like attention-seeking edgelords rather than dignified statespeople. If it worked for Trump, their reasoning seems to go, they too may have a shot at shitposting their way to the top.Playing Trump’s social media game rather better than anyone else at the moment is Gavin Newsom. In recent weeks, the governor of California, clearly readying himself for a 2028 presidential run, has been giving his caps lock key quite the pounding to troll Trump by adopting his social media vernacular. “TRUMP JUST FLED THE PODIUM WITH PUTIN … THE MAN LOOKED LIKE HE’D JUST EATEN 3 BUCKETS OF KFC WITH VLAD,” reads one mocking tweet from the governor’s press office this month.Newsom has also opened an online “Patriot shop”, poking fun at Trump’s tasteless merchandise. There are red-and-white baseball caps emblazoned with “NEWSOM WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!” and tank tops proclaiming “Trump is not hot”. There is also a Bible priced at $100 (£74). It’s sold out, but if God is good, and supply chains oblige, it will be back in stock soon.Some of Newsom’s posts have been very amusing; they have certainly generated a lot of publicity for him and delighted many liberals. I am no Newsom fan – he has flip-flopped opportunistically on transgender issues and taken a questionable stand on pro-Palestine campus protests – but it’s refreshing to see energy from the opposition. The Democrats are losing voters at a staggering rate and the party’s out-of-touch leaders can’t seem to pull themselves together to challenge Trump effectively. By contrast, Newsom seems ready for a fight.This isn’t to suggest that snarky tweets are the way to defeat Maga. Newsom has said his bombastic posts are meant to shine a light on Trump’s unpresidential behaviour: “If you’ve got issues with what I’m putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he’s putting out as president.” But it doesn’t matter if you shine a stadium’s worth of floodlights on a problem if people wilfully avoid looking. You can’t shame many of Trump’s supporters because they have no shame; you can’t use logic with people in a personality cult.Crucially, however, Newsom isn’t stopping at mean tweets. He has shown that he will not just sit down and whine as the Republicans use dirty tricks such as redrawing the voting map in Texas; he will try to use the same redistricting tactics in California. Newsom has grasped what so many other Democrats are loth to admit: you can’t keep playing by the same old rules when the other side has ripped up the rulebook.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUltimately, though, being willing to fight isn’t enough. To win, Democrats need to show normal people that they will fight for them. People don’t want silly tweets and underhand tactics; they want politicians who will lower the cost of living and direct taxes towards healthcare and infrastructure rather than bombing starving children in Gaza. Running on popular policies and seemingly authentic empathy is what has made Mamdani – who is still being shunned by Democratic leadership – such an effective candidate. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More