US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares58 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration ousts FBI official who refused to name agents who investigated January 6

      by

      The Trump administration is forcing out a senior FBI official who resisted demands made earlier this year for the names of agents who investigated the January 6 insurrection, two people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.Brian Driscoll briefly served as acting FBI director in the first weeks of Donald Trump’s new term, and his final day at the bureau is Friday, the people told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to discuss the move. Further ousters were possible.The FBI declined to comment to the Guardian.The New York Times further reported that the FBI was forcing out Walter Giardina, a special agent who worked on cases involving Trump as well as Peter Navarro, a top trade adviser to the president who was convicted of contempt of Congress.The ousters were the latest under the FBI director, Kash Patel, and his deputy, Dan Bongino, who had repeatedly alleged that the bureau had become politicized under Joe Biden. Numerous senior officials, including top agents in charge of big-city field offices, have been pushed out of their jobs, and some agents have been subjected to polygraph exams, moves that former officials say have roiled the workforce and contributed to angst.The FBI Agents Association, which represents current and former bureau staff, issued a statement saying they were “deeply concerned” by reports that senior agents and leaders were going to be fired. “Agents are not given the option to pick and choose their cases, and these agents carried out their assignments with professionalism and integrity. Most importantly, they followed the law,” the organization said.“If these agents are fired without due process, it makes the American people less safe,” they added, noting that they were “actively reviewing all legal options to defend our members”.Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said: “The continued purging of experienced, non-partisan FBI agents by the Trump administration is nothing short of alarming. These are individuals who have dedicated their careers to protecting the American people, and their firings are part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation and politicization at an institution charged with safeguarding national security and the rule of law.“President Trump may believe he can manipulate the levers of power to serve his own ends, but history will not judge this recklessness kindly, and neither should Congress,” he added.Driscoll, a veteran agent who worked on international counter-terrorism investigations in New York and also had commanded the bureau’s Hostage Rescue Team, had most recently served as acting director in charge of the Critical Incident Response Group, which deploys people and resources to crisis situations.He was named acting director in January to replace Christopher Wray and served in the position as Patel’s nomination was pending.He made headlines after he and Rob Kissane, the then deputy director, resisted Trump administration demands for information about agents who had participated in investigations into the January 6 riot at the US Capitol by a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters.Emil Bove, the then senior justice department official who made the request and was last week confirmed for a seat on a federal appeals court, wrote a memo accusing the FBI’s top leaders of “insubordination”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionResponding to Bove’s request, the FBI ultimately provided personnel details about several thousand employees, identifying them by unique employee numbers rather than by names.The FBI has moved under Patel’s watch to aggressively demote, reassign or push out agents. In April, for instance, the bureau reassigned several agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in Washington that followed the 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, two people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.Numerous special agents in charge of field offices have been told to retire, resign or accept reassignment.Another agent, Michael Feinberg, has said publicly that he was told to resign or accept a demotion amid scrutiny from leadership of his friendship with Peter Strzok, a lead agent on the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation who was fired by the justice department in 2018 following revelations that he had exchanged negative text messages about Trump with an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. More

    • 138 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats slam Texas senator over alleged FBI role in locating lawmakers

      by

      Democrats harshly criticized Donald Trump and fellow Republicans on Thursday after a US senator said the FBI had agreed to assist in returning Texas Democratic lawmakers who left the state to stop a Republican effort to redistrict.Senator John Cornyn’s claim that the FBI would assist Republicans’ effort could not be independently confirmed. The FBI declined to comment. An administration official told NBC News this week the government did not plan on using federal agents to arrest Texas lawmakers and a federal law enforcement official told the outlet that as of Thursday morning, the agency had not assisted with trying to locate the lawmakers.The Texas lawmakers who fled the state earlier this week to block Republicans’ effort to add five more seats to the state maps are currently staying at a hotel in suburban Chicago. Speaking to reporters at the Illinois state fair on Thursday, the Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, said he welcomed the FBI to the state.“I hope they take in the state fair, I hope they go see the beauty of Lake Michigan. But they won’t be arresting anyone because there is no US federal law that prohibits those Texas house Democrats from being here in the state,” he told reporters.Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the US House, called it an effort to intimidate Democrats.“Shouldn’t the FBI be tracking down terrorists, drug traffickers and child predators? The Trump administration continues to weaponize law enforcement to target political adversaries. These extremists don’t give a damn about public safety. We will not be intimidated,” he said in a post on X.Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, also accused Cornyn, who is locked in a primary battle against Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, of grandstanding. “John Cornyn is desperately swinging for the fences, asking Kash Patel to take a break from covering up for Donald Trump to instead pull this political stunt. They both know damn well that legally, there’s nothing they can do,” he said.Legal experts have questioned how the federal law enforcement agency could play a role in returning the lawmakers.“Federal government intrusion into a state’s process of self-government should only occur when there is a clear constitutional warrant. In this situation, the federal government has no authority to intervene and no legitimate role to play,” said David Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Houston.In his request for assistance to the FBI earlier this week, Cornyn said he was “concerned that legislators who solicited or accepted funds to aid in their efforts to avoid their legislative duties may be guilty of bribery or other public corruption offenses”. Trump also suggested earlier this week that the FBI might have to get involved in the matter.Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, has also launched a long-shot legal effort to get the top Democrat who left, Gene Wu, removed from office.Paxton, the Texas attorney general, also announced on Wednesday he had launched an investigation into a group run by former congressman Beto O’Rourke that has been covering the costs of Texas lawmakers as they remain in Illinois. Each lawmaker that breaks quorum is fined $500 per day.Also on Thursday, JD Vance met with Republican lawmakers in Indiana to encourage them to redraw the state’s congressional map to be more favorable to the GOP, the latest in a brazen nationwide push to reconfigure district lines ahead of next year’s midterm elections.Republicans already control seven of Indiana’s nine congressional seats, but the party has complete control of state government, which could allow them to redraw the map to pick up more seats. Donald Trump is also pushing Missouri to redraw its congressional map to add more GOP seats and Republicans in Ohio, where Republicans already control 10 of 15 districts, are also likely to reconfigure their map later this year to add more Republican seats.Vance met with Indiana’s Republican governor, Mike Braun, and state legislative leaders on Thursday. To redraw the maps in Indiana, Braun would need to call a special session.Republicans have an extremely slim margin in the US House and Democrats need to net just three seats to flip control of Congress next year. The president’s party typically loses US House seats in a midterm election, which is why Republicans are pushing to redraw districts in their favor.During a conference call on Thursday, two of four Texas lawmakers who had been scheduled to speak were delayed by taking a security briefing in light of the report of FBI involvement in the quorum break. Legislators deflected questions about the risk of a conflict between state and federal law enforcement, redirecting questions toward flooding relief and Abbott’s legislative and executive priorities.“We wouldn’t need to have a quorum break and wouldn’t need to be scared of the constitutional breakdown of states’ rights, and Illinois law enforcement versus the FBI, if we were focusing on the things that matter,” said the Texas representative Mary Gonzalez. “To me, the thing that matters most is that over 100 people died and that the homes are still destroyed and that people are still living in unsafe communities because there is debris.”The governors of California and New York, where Democrats have complete control of state government, have pledged to retaliate against Republicans’ redistricting efforts by adding Democratic seats, though both states face legal requirements that make aggressive gerrymandering more difficult.Additional reporting by George Chidi More

    • 163 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      Fort Bliss army base on US southern border to take 1,000 Ice detainees

      by

      Fort Bliss is preparing to accept 1,000 immigrant detainees as the Trump administration moves to use military bases for its unprecedented mass deportation operation and immigration crackdown.The facility, named Camp East Montana, is set to begin operations on 17 August at the US army post near El Paso, Texas. Ice (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) said in a statement that the facility will initially house up to 1,000 detainees, with plans to expand to a capacity of 5,000 beds.If the center reaches full capacity, the El Paso Times reports that it would become the largest immigration detention facility in the US.An Ice spokesperson said the agency is using the facility to help “decompress Ice detention facilities in other regions” and will serve as a short-term processing center. The statement adds that deportations carried out via “Ice air operations” will also take place at the facility.According to Ice, the facility will house undocumented immigrants who “are in removal proceedings or who have final orders of removal”.The site is being constructed under a Department of Defense contract, Ice said, and is funded “as part of the essential whole-of-government approach to protecting public safety and preserving national security”.In July, administration officials announced that Acquisition Logistics LLC, a Virginia-based contractor, was awarded a $231.8m firm-fixed-price contract to “establish and operate” the “5,000 capacity, single adult, short-term detention facility”.Bloomberg reported that Acquisition Logistics has no prior experience operating detention facilities.View image in fullscreenIn the statement from Ice, the agency said that Ice personnel “will be responsible for the management and operational authority” at the facility, and that the establishment of the center is being “carried out with contracted support and according to Ice detention standards”.The agency described the facility as “soft-sided” and said that it will offer “everything a traditional Ice detention facility offers”, which Ice said includes access to legal representation, a law library and space for visitation, recreation and medical treatment, as well as “necessary accommodations for disabilities, diet and religious belief”.In a statement to the Guardian, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin also confirmed the use of Fort Bliss to house immigration detainees.“Ice is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity” McLaughlin said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”In March, the Guardian reported that Fort Bliss has been used under multiple administrations for immigration-related operations.Under this Trump administration, the base has reportedly already been used to fly deportees on military aircraft to Guantánamo Bay and Central and South America.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnder Joe Biden, it was used as an emergency shelter to for thousands of unaccompanied migrant children. In 2021, Fort Bliss also reportedly played a key role in resettling Afghan refugees brought to the US after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. And in 2016, under the Obama administration, Fort Bliss housed several hundred unaccompanied migrant children.The new facility being established at Fort Bliss comes as the Trump administration has sought to use several US military bases around the country as immigration detention facilities.The expansion has faced some criticism from Democrats. Texas representative Veronica Escobar, whose district includes Fort Bliss, warned that using military facilities as immigration detention centers could hurt the effectiveness of US military forces.“It’s not good for our readiness, and it degrades our military,” she said.Last month, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced that both the Camp Atterbury base in Indiana and the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey could now house detained immigrants.Democrats from both states condemned the move, with New Jersey’s Democratic delegation warning that “using our country’s military to detain and hold undocumented immigrants jeopardizes military preparedness and paves the way for Ice immigration raids in every New Jersey community”.The planned opening of the new immigration detention facility near El Paso also comes as a new report released this week by the office of the US senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat representing Georgia, found and documented hundreds of alleged human rights abuses at immigration detention centers in the US since 20 January 2025.The report cites deaths in custody, physical and sexual abuse of detainees, mistreatment of pregnant women and children, overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions, exposure to extreme temperatures, denial of access to attorneys, child separation, and more.In a statement about the report’s allegations, a spokesperson for the DHS told NBC News that “any claim that there are subprime conditions at Ice detention centers are false”. More

    • 150 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Impossible to rebuild’: NIH scientists say Trump cuts will imperil life-saving research

      by

      Last week, the office of management and budget (OMB) revealed plans to freeze all outside funding for National Institutes of Health research this fiscal year, but reversed course later that day, leaving the scientific community in a state of whiplash. A senior official at the NIH who spoke on condition of anonymity said this was just the latest in a “multi-prong” approach by the Trump administration to destroy American scientific research.In July, the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the NIH, updated its website to reflect Trump administration plans to significantly cut cancer research spending as well. Since January, the administration has been cancelling NIH grants, in some cases targeting other specific research areas, such as HIV treatment and prevention.“It’s really, really bad at NIH right now,” said the official, who added that researchers working outside the NIH have been unaware of the severity of the situation until recently, even though they have also faced funding upheaval since the winter.“The Trump administration is, for the first time in history, substantially intervening inside NIH to bring it under political control,” the official said. “That’s what we saw this week with the OMB freeze on funding.”“I think the core of it is that they want to destroy universities, or at least turn them into rightwing ideological factories,” the official said, since the majority of the NIH’s grants are distributed to researchers in universities, medical schools and similar institutions.In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech entitled The Universities Are the Enemy. The official said they were alarmed at how little universities are fighting back – many have settled with the administration, which has “gotten Columbia to completely knuckle under. One of America’s most significant universities and a place that is a worldwide magnet for talents. Same thing at Penn. Now they’re going after UCLA.”Institutions such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also stayed on the sidelines, refusing to sufficiently resist Trump, the official said.If the administration does manage to freeze NIH funding, it will push to rescind the funds permanently using a rescission motion, the official said. This type of motion only requires a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Senate, instead of the supermajority necessary to beat a filibuster. Republicans would have enough votes to “ram through these motions to effectively cut the budget without Democrats in Congress weighing in. It’s an ongoing disaster.”Researchers at the many universities where the administration has frozen funding, such as Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, are starting to feel the gravity of the situation, said the official. Carole LaBonne, a biologist at Northwestern, said “university labs are hanging by a thread”, explaining that even though the OMB reversed its decision to freeze outside NIH funding, “the baseline reality is not much better”.Other recent changes at the NIH include allocating research grants all at once rather than over multiple years, so that fewer projects are funded. Reductions in cancer research funding also mean that only 4% of relevant grant applications will move forward. “This will effectively shut down cancer research in this country and destroy the careers of many scientists. This is devastating,” LaBonne said.The extreme uncertainty surrounding scientific research is also negatively affecting scientists’ mental health. “I do not know any faculty who are not incredibly stressed right now, wondering how long they will be able to keep their labs going and if/when they will have to let laboratory staff go,” LaBonne said. “It also very hard to motivate oneself to write grants, a painstaking and time-intensive processes, when there is a 96% chance it will not be funded.”Ryan Gutenkunst, who heads the department of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Arizona, said: “The chaos at NIH is definitely freaking [faculty and students] out and wasting huge amounts of emotional energy and time. We were emailing about the latest pause, only to find it unpaused hours later.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe senior NIH official found last week’s events unsurprising, they said: “They’re throwing everything at the wall to stop NIH from spending. What struck me was that many of my colleagues at universities were like, ‘Oh, my God, they’re stopping grants.’ And it really seemed to activate people in a way that I hadn’t seen before, whereas a lot of us at NIH thought, ‘Oh, they just did another thing.’”Science is an engine for American economic dominance, and scientific clusters such as Silicon Valley could not exist without federal funding, the official said. “Once you break them, it will be impossible to rebuild them. We’re on the path to breaking them.”LaBonne said she worried about the impact on progress in cancer specifically. “My own research touches on pediatric cancers. Forty years ago more than 60% of children diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of diagnosis. Today there is a 90% survival rate. We should not put progress like that in danger,” she said.Although many major scientific institutions have complied with the administration, grassroots organizations and individual scientists, including those within the NIH, are finding ways to resist.The senior NIH official said they were most hopeful about grassroots organizers who are resisting the Trump administration openly, rather than relying on older strategies such as litigation and negotiations with Congress. For example, Science Homecoming, a website to promote science communication, is encouraging scientists to get the word out about the importance of federal funding to their home towns.The Bethesda Declaration, signed by 484 NIH staff, directly accused NIH director Jay Bhattacharya of “a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally appropriated funds for critical NIH research. Each day that the NIH continues to disrupt research, your ability to deliver on this duty narrows.” More

    • 163 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      Shared prayers and tears: how Lammy wooed JD Vance and the White House

      by

      It was famously something that Tony Blair did not do with George W Bush, or at least not something to which the then British prime minister wished to admit. But these are very different times.When the US vice-president, JD Vance, and his family join David Lammy at the foreign secretary’s grace and favour home in Kent at the start of their summer holiday in the UK, they are expected to deepen their relationship by praying together, it is understood.Within the grounds of Chevening lies the pretty 12th-century St Botolph’s church. It is Anglican but, security risks and denominational differences aside, it may present one option for a place to take communion, sources suggested.Vance is a Catholic and Lammy has described his faith as Anglo-Catholic. The two men previously took mass in Vance’s residence in Washington when the vice-president hosted Lammy and his family in March.The burgeoning relationship between the two men, freshly evidenced by word that they will spend time together before the Vances head to the Cotswolds, may surprise some.As a backbencher, Lammy described Donald Trump as “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath”. Now, Trump is “someone that we can build a relationship with” and Vance is a “friend”.The philosophy behind Lammy’s foreign policy has been described as “progressive realism” – taking the world as it is and not as we might wish it to be.Sceptics might be temped to describe such a pivot in different terms but the outcomes were difficult to argue with, said Michael Martins, formerly a political specialist in the US embassy in London and founder of the consultancy firm Overton Advisory.“I think they have done a pretty good job and you can see it with some of the incoming tariff increases which have not affected the UK as they have with other trading partners, like Canada,” Martins said.“I think it is paying off. I think President Trump’s view on Putin and Russia has changed, is changing and softening, in a way that I think the British government has been pushing for. I think the dividends from the relationship building are starting to come.”Lammy, a touchy-feely sort of politician, targeted Vance for a full charm offensive early on, when Labour was in opposition and Trump’s re-election was far from certain, sources said. The then shadow foreign secretary had a significant obstacle to overcome: Lammy has been a friend of Barack Obama since they met at a 2005 gathering of Harvard Law School’s black alumni.Such was the love-in that Lammy’s wife, Nicola Green, an artist, was given “unprecedented access” to chronicle Obama’s 2008 campaign. It was this political and personal relationship that has been front and centre of every US newspaper profile of Lammy in recent times. “A Friend of Obama Who Could Soon Share the World Stage With Trump” was the New York Times headline last April.View image in fullscreenLammy had a further card to play. He has spoken about how Vance’s bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, bore parallels to his own story of growing up with a single mother and an absent, alcoholic father. Lammy has said Vance’s book “reduced me to tears”.“I said to JD: ‘Look, we’ve got different politics, but we’re both quite strong Christians and we both share quite a tough upbringing,’” Lammy said of an early meeting.He recently elaborated in an interview with the Guardian. During drinks with Vance and the deputy Labour leader, Angela Rayner, in the US ambassador’s residence at the time of the new pope’s inauguration, Lammy had an epiphany. It struck him that they were “not just working-class politicians, but people with dysfunctional childhoods”, he said. “I had this great sense that JD completely relates to me and he completely relates to Angela.”Donjeta Miftari, a former foreign policy adviser to Keir Starmer in Downing Street who is now a director at Hanbury Strategy, said: “David is an incredibly pragmatic person and he likes to take the world as it is. Frankly, you don’t have influence over which populations elect certain individuals in the country.”Lammy had had a gut feeling that the Republicans would win the White House back, she said, and he worked for “years, not months” on building the necessary relationships.“I’ve known him for a few years now, and I’d say that he is also, just on a personal level, one of the most empathetic and relational kind of MPs and politicians,” she said.“You know, in the early days of opposition and in government, I think he had a strong sense of where the US was going, and that is grounded in the fact that he studied out there, lived out there. He knows America well and it’s a big part of who he is.“So I think he sort of clocked basically that that is the direction in which the country was going so built these relationships well before they came to power in the US. And I think that gives it, like, extra kind of credibility and authenticity as well, because you’re not just calling them when you need them when you’re both in post. He’s an incredibly effective operator. Frankly, he’s quite good company as well, which always helps.”There will be a formal bilateral meeting between the two politicians before Vance’s wife, Usha, and their three children join Lammy, his wife and their children for the weekend. After their stay with the Lammys, the Vances are understood to be heading to a Cotswolds period property near Charlbury, about 12 miles (19km) north-west of Oxford.Martins, who was working in the US embassy at the time of Trump’s first state visit, said he recalled the delight that the president took in the pomp and ceremony. “I think vice-president Vance has to walk a bit of a delicate line,” he said. “Obviously he is angling for his own White House bid at the end of the Trump presidency. You know, I think he has to be careful not to appear as the primary recipient of international flattery.” More

    • 138 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      US universities’ settlements with Trump ‘will only fuel his authoritarian appetite’

      by

      With the Trump administration’s campaign to reshape US higher education in full swing, some top universities have agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle antisemitism claims; others may soon spend more and submit to major restrictions on their autonomy to avoid billions in funding cuts and other crippling measures.The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University have reached settlements with the government in the past month, seeing millions in federal funding restored in exchange for adopting measures that advocates warn severely undermine their independence. Columbia also agreed to pay more than $220m to settle antisemitism allegations, including an employment discrimination claim that may qualify any Jewish employee who has allegedly experienced antisemitism to get a payout.The University of California, Los Angeles, also agreed last week to pay $6m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests – but that did not stop the Trump administration from citing “antisemitism and bias” to freeze more than $300m of the university’s funding.Harvard University is reportedly considering paying as much as half a billion dollars to restore billions in research funds and fend off further attacks by the government – even though the university’s president, Alan Gerber, has denied the reports.The settlements come amid a flurry of cuts, investigations and other measures designed to curtail the independence of universities that the Trump administration has described as “the enemy”.Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities says they mark “a watershed moment for American higher education” and will “further embolden the administration to use coercive tactics against other institutions”.“The weaponization of federal funds in an effort to enforce ideological conformity through the control of campus policies, the curriculum, research, and discourse inside and outside of the classroom poses a threat to the fundamental mission of US colleges and universities,” she said.UPenn, Columbia and Harvard did not respond to the Guardian’s requests for comment. A spokesperson for Brown said the agreement with the administration “preserves the integrity of Brown’s academic foundation and enables us to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty”.The White House is reportedly negotiating with several other universities. About 60 institutions are under investigation over alleged antisemitism and several have had federal funding cut or threatened. Education advocates warn that with each settlement, more universities risk coming under attack.“When one university capitulates to Trump’s hostage-taking strategies it puts pressure on all institutions because it confirms that this strategy works,” said Isaac Kamola, a professor at Trinity College who studies conservative efforts to undermine higher education. “Every institution is now at risk.”Ripple effectColumbia, where pro-Palestinian students staged a 2024 protest encampment that was soon followed by dozens of others nationwide, was the first university to be targeted by the administration.When it reached a much-anticipated settlement after months of negotiations, the US education secretary, Linda McMahon, boasted that the deal would offer “a roadmap” for other universities. Columbia’s reforms “will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come”, she said.Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, called the settlement “a disaster” for “the independence of colleges and universities nationwide”. But he echoed McMahon’s prediction: “The settlement will only fuel Trump’s authoritarian appetite.”The deal sees Columbia submitting to the oversight of an independent monitor reporting to the government, and agreeing to review its Middle East curriculum and expand Israel and Jewish studies. That’s in addition to several measures the university had already taken, including the adoption of a controversial definition that conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Notably, the agreement does not preclude the government from issuing more demands in the future.Columbia also agreed to pay $200m to the government over three years, and $21m to settle a class-action lawsuit that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission described as the “largest such settlement” in two decades. That agreement follows a charge brought on behalf of “all Jewish employees” at Columbia, with the funds intended “to remedy alleged antisemitism harassment that may have been experienced by its employees”, the commission said. It added that a claims administrator would reach out to all “potential aggrieved individuals” with a confidential questionnaire to determine eligibility.A spokesperson for the commission said that all Jewish employees were entitled to part of the settlement “if they experienced discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation” based on their Jewish or Israeli identity, and that they do not need to have previously filed a complaint to be considered. “What matters is their experience with antisemitism at Columbia,” the spokesperson said.Some of Columbia’s Jewish employees questioned the criteria.“Where is my antisemitism money?” James Schamus, a faculty member who previously denounced the university’s actions “in the name of Jewish safety” wrote in a post. He said that he suspected the payouts would be distributed not based on “Jewish-ness” as much as political considerations.But it is Columbia’s agreement to yield to the administration on academic matters that met the fiercest backlash. Last week, the prominent historian Rashid Khalidi announced in an open letter that he would cancel a class he had planned to teach in the fall, citing the settlement and adoption of the IHRA definition, and accusing Columbia’s leaders of having turned the storied institution into “a shadow of its former self” and an “anti-university”.Still, Columbia’s deal with the administration fell short of some of the most restrictive scenarios floated during negotiations, and even those critical of it acknowledge the university found itself in a near-impossible position.“We fully appreciate that the alternatives to settlement would have come with their own formidable costs and risks,” a group of scholars from Columbia’s own Knight First Amendment Institute wrote in an analysis on Monday. “It would be deeply unfortunate, however, if Columbia’s settlement were to become a model for the rest of the academy.”More targetsSo far, that seems to be the case. A week after Columbia’s announcement, Brown followed, reaching a deal with the administration to restore frozen federal funds in exchange for adopting the administration’s definitions of male and female, which advocates say infringe transgender rights. Brown will also pay $50m to Rhode Island workforce development organizations as part of the deal. The university also granted the government access to its admissions data to ensure it is “merit-based”. UPenn made similar concessions when it became the first university to settle in early July.Harvard has been the only university to fight back, suing over $2.6bn in funding cuts and the revocation of its eligibility to host international students. Both cases are proceeding in court, where the university has notched some early victories, even though Harvard is also negotiating with the administration and has passed measures pre-empting some of its demands.At UCLA, part of the largest public university system in the US, administrators also tried to anticipate the administration by issuing a flurry of new policies. They restricted the ability to protest on campus and centralized faculty hiring. A spokesperson for UCLA referred the Guardian to a statement by the university’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, in which he listed a host of measures it had taken to combat antisemitism.But that wasn’t enough to keep UCLA from becoming Trump’s latest target.“Unsurprisingly, the anticipatory obedience of UCLA administrators has not prevented Trump administration attacks,” the UCLA Faculty Association wrote in a statement. “Each university that falters legitimates the Trump administration’s attacks on all of our institutions of higher education and we must stand up now. To protect our democracy we must protect our universities.” More

    • 200 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Trump is a wrecking ball’: behind the president’s $200m plan to build a White House ballroom

      by

      “Sir, why are you up on the roof?”The question was shouted by a reporter on Tuesday as Donald Trump scaled new heights at the White House. The US president explained that he was scoping out a new ballroom and boasted: “Just another way to spend my money for this country.”It emerged last week that Trump, who made his money in the New York construction industry, intends to build an enormous $200m ballroom for hosting official receptions, one of the biggest projects at the White House in more than a century.This will be just the latest step in a radical architectural overhaul intent on making the 225-year-old executive mansion less redolent of stuffy Washington and more evocative of Mar-a-Lago, his gaudy palace in Palm Beach, Florida.Trump has revamped the Oval Office by splashing the room in gold, from the stars surrounding the presidential seal on the ceiling to gold statues on the fireplace to the mantel itself. He crowded its walls with numerous portraits, while just outside the office is a framed photo of Trump’s mugshot as featured on the cover of a New York tabloid newspaper.View image in fullscreenOutside, Trump has erected a pair of towering flagpoles that fly the Stars and Stripes and paved over a grassy patch of the Rose Garden, and, he told NBC News, he intends to replace what he said was a “terribly” remodeled bathroom in the Lincoln Bedroom with one that is closer in style to the 19th century.But his most ambitious architectural gambit will be the new ballroom, which officials say he and unspecified donors will pay for, designed to host grand state dinners, given in honour of foreign leaders visiting Washington. Until now, these were generally done by erecting a huge tent on the White House grounds.“When it rains or snows, it’s a disaster,” Trump said in his NBC interview, bemoaning how the tents are stationed “a football field away from the White House”.View image in fullscreenWhereas the East Room, currently the biggest room in the White House, can accommodate about 200 people, the new structure will span more than 8,000 sq metres (90,000 sq ft) and have space to seat 650 people. Work will begin in September and is expected to be completed before the end of Trump’s second term, in January 2029.A model of the ballroom presented by the government shows it will be a white building with tall windows reminiscent of the main White House edifice. It will replace the East Wing, which usually houses the offices of the first lady, and it remains unclear where they will be relocated.View image in fullscreenTrump told reporters last week: “They’ve wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years, but there’s never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I’m good at building things and we’re going to build quickly and on time. It’ll be beautiful, top, top of the line.”He added: “It’ll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favourite. It’s my favourite place. I love it.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDemocrats are sceptical, however. Chuck Schumer, the party’s minority leader in the Senate, told a press briefing: “Listen, I’m happy to eat my cheeseburger at my desk. I don’t need a $200m ballroom to eat it in. OK?”Others regard Trump’s transformation of the White House as a dark metaphor for his approach to US democracy. Mona Charen, policy editor of the Bulwark website, wrote this week: “Trump is a walking wrecking ball of law, tradition, civility, manners, and morals. Many visitors to the nation’s capital won’t know or understand much of that damage.“But starting now with the paving of the Rose Garden, and coming soon with the construction of a garish ballroom, they will see a physical representation of a low and shameful time. The once graceful executive mansion will be transformed into something tasteless and embarrassing. It will be both awful and fitting.”The ballroom is shaping up to be one of the most significant projects to break ground at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since renovation and expansion works undertaken by Theodore Roosevelt at the start of the 20th century. Harry Truman also oversaw sweeping construction work between 1948 and 1952, including gutting the main building and adding the Truman Balcony.View image in fullscreenTruman drew his share of criticism at the time. Stewart McLaurin, president of the White House Historical Association, wrote in a recent essay published on LinkedIn: “Preservationists mourned the loss of original interiors, while media outlets questioned the project’s cost during post-war economic recovery.”Subsequent presidents have overseen facelifts, refreshes and renovations. Anita McBride, who was chief of staff to first lady Laura Bush, recalled on Wednesday: “Mrs Bush transformed every single room in the residence. The largest restoration of any room in the White House is the Lincoln Bedroom, done under her tenure. She helped to oversee the the redo of the White House theatre; the way that she designed it is the way it still looks to this day.”McBride acknowledged that Trump, a longtime property developer, is more engaged in remodelling the White House than many of his predecessors. “He’s certainly paying attention to things at the White House that he feels would be improvements for the occupants, not just him but those that come after him. Maybe it’s his background that lends itself to having a keen eye to enhancements.“This is the largest transformation we have seen since the Truman renovation when it needed improvement and to be structurally sound. President Truman took such criticism for wanting to add the balcony and you cannot imagine the White House without that balcony now.” More

    • 225 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      A new generation of populists is showing Democrats how to defeat Trump | Jared Abbott and Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      As Democrats continue to sift through the wreckage of the 2024 election, one truth should be impossible to ignore: they are bleeding support among working-class voters and Donald Trump’s stumbles alone will not save them. From Black and Latino men to young and low-income voters, Trump’s re-election made it clear that working Americans increasingly feel alienated from the Democratic party.Democrats today might not be as sanguine about sidelining the working class as Chuck Schumer was before the 2016 election, when he claimed that for every blue-collar voter Democrats lost, they could pick up two college-educated Republicans. But it’s clear that many Democrats still don’t see winning back working-class voters as essential – either to defeat Maga or to build durable, majoritarian progressive coalitions for the future.A new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP) and Jacobin magazine, based on an analysis of hundreds of public opinion questions spanning six decades, suggests that blue-collar voters are not out of reach – if Democrats are willing to lead with economic populism. The report shows that American workers have long supported – and still overwhelmingly favor – a bold progressive economic agenda. If Democrats placed these policies consistently at the heart of their platform, they could not only improve conditions in working-class communities but also begin to rebuild trust with the very voters they need most.Progressive economic reforms – from raising the federal minimum wage and implementing a federal jobs guarantee to expanding social security, taxing the rich, and investing in public goods such as education and infrastructure – are supported not only by Democratic-leaning voters but also by substantial segments of Donald Trump’s base.And while national Democrats remain unsure how to reconnect with these voters, a new generation of economic populists across the country is already showing the way. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral primary campaigning to tax the rich, fund public goods and confront corporate landlords. In Nebraska, independent union leader Dan Osborn – a mechanic and labor activist – ran on a tight platform of workers’ rights and corporate accountability and over-performed Kamala Harris by 14 points in a deep-red state.In difficult House swing districts, Democrats are leaning into economic populism with promising results. In Pennsylvania’s 17th district, Chris Deluzio, a representative and navy veteran, champions “economic patriotism”, calling out economic elites and damaging trade agreements while pushing to rebuild domestic industry and strengthen labor rights. In New Mexico’s second district, Gabe Vasquez has built his platform around a sharp critique of corporate greed – condemning CEOs and wealthy investors for inflating profits while shortchanging workers – and has pushed for a $15 minimum wage and cutting taxes for working families.Meanwhile, in Wisconsin’s third district, Democrat Rebecca Cooke – a waitress and small business owner who grew up on a dairy farm – is mounting a 2026 comeback bid after over-performing other Democrats and losing by less than three points in 2024, running on a platform that targets corporate price gouging, expands affordable rural housing and defends family farms.These candidates come from different regions and backgrounds, and hold diverse ideological positions, but nonetheless share a core political strategy: they are highly disciplined economic populists who speak to working-class voters in language that’s grounded, direct and relatable.And, contrary to many centrist pundits, while they do need to avoid fringe rhetoric, Democrats don’t have to embrace social conservatism to do it. The CWCP study shows that while working-class voters are generally to the right of middle-class voters on cultural issues, most hold moderate, and in some cases even progressive, views on issues such as immigration, abortion and civil rights. These voters do not want Democrats to mimic Republicans on controversial wedge issues, but they do want a commonsense message focused on the economic realities of working Americans.Yet working-class voters don’t just embrace politicians who support the right policies. Our previous research shows that they want leaders who understand people like them, share a similar class background and speak plainly about what they’ll do and why it matters. The path to winning back working-class voters runs through authenticity, clarity and a credible commitment to improving people’s lives.Unfortunately, the national party has been slow to adapt. Harris’s 2024 campaign offered ambitious economic proposals that could have benefited millions of working Americans. But as the race wore on, she grew increasingly reluctant to lead with economic populism, instead doubling down on a strategy rooted in fear of Trump. That may have comforted donors and consultants, but it left many working-class voters cold – and opened the door for Republicans to posture as the party of the people.This vacuum has given Republicans room to pose as economic populists, despite an agenda that overwhelmingly serves corporations and the wealthy. Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act delivered massive tax cuts for the rich while masquerading as a working-class boon. House Republicans have attacked union protections and slashed social welfare programs – moves wildly out of step with working-class preferences. But without a compelling Democratic alternative, the right’s billionaire populism can take hold. If Democrats want to rebuild a durable majority, they need candidates who stay focused on populist economics and steer clear of the culture wars.Reversing the Democratic party’s working-class decline will not be solved by platitudes or photo ops with hard hats. It demands a real shift in priorities. It means crafting campaigns that focus relentlessly on tangible economic outcomes and elevating candidates who reflect the experience of the working class. And it demands a clear, consistent message that puts class and dignity back at the center of Democratic politics.

      Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics

      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation magazine and the founding editor of Jacobin More