US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders says he opposes urging Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down

      by

      Bernie Sanders said he opposes any move to force Sonia Sotomayor, the senior liberal justice on the US supreme court, to step down so that Joe Biden could nominate a younger liberal replacement before he finishes his term as president.Sotomayor, 70, is known to suffer from health issues, and some Democrats fear a repeat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died during Donald Trump’s first term – giving him a third opportunity to nominate a new justice and further shore up the top court’s conservative bent.In his first term, Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia, Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Anthony Kennedy, and Amy Coney Barrett to take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died less than two months before the 2020 election – leaving six largely conservative judges to just three liberals.Trump’s first-term appointees to the court were critical to overturning abortion rights and a series of other rulings that delighted conservative activists.In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders, a progressive senator who identifies as an independent but usually votes with Democrats, said it would not be “sensible” to ask Sotomayor to step down while Biden is still in office.He added he’d heard “a little bit” of talk from Democratic senators about asking Sotomayor, who is serving a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, to step aside.“I don’t think it’s sensible,” Sanders said, without elaborating further.No elected Democrat has so far publicly called on the justice to resign, but the idea comes amid a feverish effort by Democrats to “Trump-proof” their agenda before the Republican takes office in January.Supreme court justices are nominated by the sitting president but face an often grueling confirmation process in the Senate. With Democrats soon to lose control of the body, the opportunity for Biden to appoint – and for Democratic senators to confirm – a successor to Sotomayor is fast slipping away.Biden appointed Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson to the supreme court. She was confirmed in 2022. However, with just two months left in office, it is unlikely that Biden and a Democrat-controlled Senate would be able to nominate and confirm a new justice to the court in time.Democrats have previous floated the possibility of increasing the number of justices to counter the court’s political make-up. In July, Biden proposed term limits and a code of ethics for court justices, after a series of scandals relating to the conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito called into question their impartiality.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden said the court had “gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman’s right to choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office”.In a second term, meanwhile, Trump could have the opportunity to further deepen the court’s conservative leaning, as Thomas and Alito are both in their mid-70s.Just as Democrats are considering whether Sotomayor should step down to install a replacement liberal justice, Republicans could do the same after they take power in January. “Alito is gleefully packing up his chambers,” Mike Davis, a conservative legal operative, predicted on social media this week.Although a Republican majority in the Senate refused to take up confirmation hearings in 2016 when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia, protesting that to do so in an election year would be unfair, they had no such problems when Trump nominated Barrett to replace Ginsburg in 2020, also an election year. More

    • 213 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      How a second Trump term could further enrich Elon Musk: ‘There will be some quid pro quo’

      by

      Donald Trump owes his decisive 2024 presidential victory in no small part to the enthusiastic support of the world’s richest man. In the months leading up to the election, Elon Musk put his full weight behind the Maga movement, advocated for Trump on major podcasts and used his influence over X to shape political discourse. Musk’s America Pac injected nearly $120m into the former president’s campaign.Now, Trump is looking to return the favor. Speaking with reporters last month, he said he would appoint Musk as “secretary of cost-cutting”. Musk, for his part, has joked he would be interested in serving as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge) with a stated goal of reducing government spending by $2tn. Practically speaking, experts say those cost cuts could result in deregulation and policy changes that would directly impact Musk’s universe of companies, particularly Tesla, SpaceX, X and Neuralink.Trump administration officials, eager to maintain Musk’s support, may similarly loosen rules and reassign federal government officials to benefit Musk’s interests. It’s an explicit, openly transactional relationship unlike any seen in recent US political memory, experts said.“We’ve seen lobbying efforts, we’ve seen Super Pacs, but this is a different level we’ve never seen before,” said Gita Johar, a professor at Columbia Business School. “There will be some quid pro quo where he [Musk] will benefit.”Pausing for a moment, Johar added: “‘Conflict of interest’ seems rather quaint.”Trump: bad for electric vehicles, good for ElonTesla is already reaping the benefits of a second Trump administration. On Wednesday, just hours after the Associated Press official called the race in favor of Trump, the car company’s stock shot up 13% to a 52-week high. By the end of the week, Tesla reached $1tn in market capitalization, its highest valuation in two years. Musk’s own fortune shot up $26bn with the stock.That might seem odd considering the former president’s vocal disdain for electric vehicles. In recent years, the president-elect has referred to efforts to promote environmentally friendly cars as a “Green New Scam” and claimed EVs simply “don’t work.” He has also pledged he would end Joe Biden’s “electric vehicle mandate” on his first day in office. Biden has implemented tax credits and emissions standards that favor electric vehicles.But Trump’s hardline rhetoric against EVs started to soften almost immediately after Musk pledged his support for the candidate. Trump himself has been explicit about the reason for his shifting outlook.“I’m for electric cars,” Trump said during a campaign event in August. “I have to be, because Elon endorsed me very strongly.”Still, experts agreed a Trump administration will likely roll back tax credits for consumers looking to buy new electric vehicles. That would hurt newer EV startups and legacy carmakers that are still trying to bring down the costs of manufacturing their vehicles. By contrast, eliminating those credits may be a boon to Tesla since the company has already made extensive use of those credits to capture a commanding lead in the EV market in the US.View image in fullscreen“Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a recent note to investors. “This dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment.” For the rest of the electric vehicle industry, though, Trump presidency would be “an overall negative”, Ives wrote.Tesla will also find itself caught in the middle of Trump’s much-vaunted but still vague tariff proposals. Though auto tariffs could help insulate Tesla from cheap, competitive Chinese electric vehicles entering US markets from the likes of BYD, stiff import taxes would simultaneously make it much more expensive to manufacture new cars. Tesla’s supply chain is highly dependent on goods and materials from China. Steel tariffs would likely drive up the cost to produce the company’s Cybertruck, while tariffs impacting rare earth metals and minerals sourced from China would also drive up costs of semiconductors crucial to powering the fleet’s cameras and sensors.“If there is a general tariff, the price of those will skyrocket,” George Mason University Mercatus Center research fellow Matt Mittelsteadt said in an interview. “You can’t re-shore what you can’t make.” Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.Clearing a road for Musk’s autonomous vehiclesExperts say Musk’s role in the Trump administration could help chart the path for Tesla’s autonomous vehicle rollout. The company is currently being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over the role its Autopilot and “full-self driving” features may have played in a spate of accidents, including more than two dozen fatal ones. A Trump administration favorable toward Musk’s business interest could wind down those investigations.“The specific worry with Musk and NHTSA is that the Trump administration might influence the decisions that civil servants are making to benefit the business interests of Tesla,” Cardozo School of Law professor and tech regulation expert Matthew Wansley said.Musk has also explicitly said he would try to leverage his influence in a Trump administration to streamline regulations around fully autonomous “driverless” vehicles like those operated by Waymo and Cruise. Though Tesla vehicles aren’t currently capable of the same level of autonomy, Musk recently revealed the concept for a more advanced “Cybercab” robotaxi he says will operate without a steering wheel.Current safety regulation for this level of autonomous vehicles varies by state and generally require years of testing with humans behind the wheel. Musk advocated for a “federal approval process” that would preempt those strict state rules during a third-quarter Tesla earnings call. If that weaker federal process were to be approved, Tesla may have a shorter climb to catch up with more advanced competitors.SpaceX could win lucrative government contracts for a Starlink rollout and a Mars missionFew of Musk’s endeavors have benefited as directly from government partnerships in recent years as SpaceX. The private space company secured a $3bn federal contract in 2021. It is currently competing with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin for a series of contracts with the US Space Force worth some $5.6bn. Musk has already asked Trump to appoint SpaceX employees to top government positions, according to the New York Times.Experts agreed Musk’s relationship with Trump would strengthen its position as a top contender for space contracts. Mittelsteadt says recent Republican opposition to the Biden administration’s beleaguered rural $42.45bn broadband initiative could also open up a new path for SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service. A GOP-led Federal Communications Commission, Mittelsteadt argued, could decide to pay SpaceX to expand Starlink access nationwide. Trump lauded Starlink’s role in providing internet access to hurricane survivors during a speech on election night.“The ceiling for what he could possibly get out of government contracts could be raising,” Mittelsteadt said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and Musk also appear united in their interest in sending a rocket to Mars. The president-elect has repeatedly praised Musk’s “beautiful, shiny white” rockets on the campaign trail and has said he wants to land a rocket on the red planet before the end of his next term.“We will land an American astronaut on Mars,” Trump said during an October rally.Musk, meanwhile, has repeatedly emphasized his dream of colonizing Mars and creating an interplanetary human species. Equally as often, he has criticized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for bureaucratic “superfluous delays.” A favorable Trump administration could feel motivated to soften those rules and guidelines, experts said. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.Trump could reduce scrutiny on Neuralink and XTelsa and SpaceX aren’t the only Musk-owned properties that stand to thrive during a second Trump term. Neuralink, Musk’s brain-computer interface company, has drawn scrutiny from the US Food and Drug Administration over alleged issues related to record-keeping and quality controls for its animal testing. A more favorable FDA under the Trump administration could help wind down those inquiries and provide a clearer runway for the company’s future experiments. Neuralink did not respond to a request for comment.X, which Musk acquired in 2020 for $44bn, could likewise benefit during a Trump term. The platform served as an important, invaluable resource for spreading pro-Trump rhetoric during the 2024 presidential campaign. Johar, whose recent research dives into X’s rise, said its utility to Trump makes it unlikely to draw regulators’ ire under him.“I don’t see any guardrails going up in terms of verifying the truth of information that’s already gone by the wayside since X was taken over,” said Johar.‘Conflict of interest seem rather quaint’The scope of Musk’s influence in the Trump administration and US politics more broadly is just beginning. The billionaire said last week in a conversation livestreamed on X that he will continue pouring money into America PAC, his organization founded this summer to support Trump’s bid for president, and has plans to “weigh in heavily” on future elections like the 2026 midterms.“It’s impossible to imagine how much influence Elon Musk could have in this administration because there’s no precedent,” University of California Berkeley professor Dan Schnur said. “He could have spent over a billion dollars, and it would’ve still been an incredibly savvy investment for him.”Experts speaking to the Guardian unanimously agreed Musk’s potential efforts to influence policies that could directly impact his business would constitute a clear conflict of interest. Whether or not the billionaire faces substantive penalties, however, remains to be seen. Musk and the allied Trump administration could face a barrage of lawsuits alleging misconduct, but litigation alone may not prevent Musk from achieving his preferred policy agenda, experts predicted.“There are all sorts of potential conflicts of interest. The question is whether that bothers Trump or not,” Schnur said. “It’s a reasonable bet to assume that it does not.”Musk has said he would attempt to trim $2tn in government spending if appointed to the cost-cutting position in the Trump White House. Though he hasn’t fully outlined how he would achieve such a goal, the billionaire has suggested much of that belt-tightening could come from eliminating what he sees as redundant government workers and reducing overly burdensome regulations. But Mittelstead says Musk will likely face an uphill battle if tries to apply a “move fast and break things” attitude toward US government positions.“The type of cost-cutting, slash-and-burn approach that he brought to Twitter is not possible in the public sector,” Mittelstead said.It’s also an open question as to whether or not Musk and Trump’s newfound relationship can withstand the weight of two notoriously volatile personalities. Musk made headlines in 2017 when he stepped down from a pair of Trump advisory councils after disagreeing with the then-president decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. Trump, for his part, has previously referred to Musk as a “bullshit artist”.“They’ve appeared to have developed a very strong personal rapport,” Schnur said. “But they’re also two of the most volatile personalities on the set and earth.” More

    • 150 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine’s MPs hopeful Donald Trump’s victory ‘not a catastrophe’ for war effort

      by

      Ukrainian politicians are expressing tentative hopes that the return of Donald Trump to the White House will not necessarily lead to a rapid and humiliating forced peace.An initial 25-minute post-election call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday, during which the president-elect handed the phone to Elon Musk, is said to have been positive in tone and no specifics of any peace proposals were discussed.Zelenskyy also thanked Musk for making the Starlink satellite internet service available for use by his country’s military, for whom it is a vital communications tool on the front line.Though Trump promised to “stop wars” in his first speech after his victory over Kamala Harris became apparent last week, there are no settled outlines of a peace plan yet, giving Kyiv breathing space to press its own case.Oleksiy Goncharenko, a Ukrainian opposition MP, said: “I don’t think that Trump’s victory is a catastrophe. Ukraine is now his business and if negotiations lead to a disaster it will be his, like Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. This is a person who loves to win.”Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin on the phone on Thursday and discussed the war in Ukraine, the Washington Post has reported. The US president-elect advised Putin not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of “Washington’s sizeable military presence in Europe”, according to the Post.Ukrainians emphasise the complexity of negotiating with the Russian president, who they hope may overplay his hand with maximalist demands or irritate the notoriously prickly American leader.“At some point, Trump has to present a plan to Putin and we will see if Putin wants to stick to it. From that moment there is a new reality,” Goncharenko said. “In the meantime, we have to work with the US and with US public opinion.”Putin has already praised Trump’s courage for his defiant behaviour after surviving an assassination attempt in July, describing him as “a real man”, though Moscow has said its goals in invading Ukraine – once described as “demilitarisation and denazification” – remain unchanged.The Russian president congratulated Trump on his victory and said: “He turned out to be a courageous person. People show who they are in extraordinary circumstances. This is where a person reveals himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in a very correct manner, courageously. Like a man.”He said he was ready for dialogue with Trump. “What was said about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to bring about the end of the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion this deserves attention at least.”On Sunday, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, was upbeat but non-specific. “Trump during his election talked about how he perceives everything through deals, that he can make a deal that can lead to peace,” he said, though he added campaign trail statements were not always borne out.A day after his phone call with Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, acknowledged that the president-elect thought he could move fast. “I believe that President Trump really wants a quick decision,” he said at a meeting of the European Political Community in Budapest. “He wants that. It doesn’t mean that it will happen this way.”Specific proposals for a peace deal in Ukraine from senior Republicans are competing and to some extent contradictory. A critical factor will be Trump’s appointments to the state department and Pentagon as well as his choice of national security adviser.In June, the retired Lt Gen Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who previously both served as chiefs of staff in Trump’s national security council, presented a proposal to Trump that would force Ukraine to negotiate by threatening to cut off military aid, freezing the conflict along the current frontlines.In September, JD Vance, now the vice-president-elect, proposed something similar, a plan that would allow Russia to take control of the 20% of Ukraine it currently occupies, and stipulating that Ukraine would never be allowed to join Nato.Another plan partly proposed by Mike Pompeo, a former secretary of state under Trump now considered to be a candidate for defence secretary, involves a de facto partition based on the current frontlines while lifting “all restrictions on the type of weapons Ukraine can obtain and use” – including British Storm Shadow missiles. This would be paid for with money obtained from Russian foreign exchange reserves; $50bn in loans from G7 members was announced last month.Over the weekend, the Trump campaign distanced themselves from a comment made by another campaign adviser, Bryan Lanza, who said “Crimea is gone,” arguing the occupied territories were lost for good. Lanza “does not speak for” Trump, a spokesperson for the Republican said.All such proposals are diametrically opposed to Zelenskyy’s own “victory plan” presented publicly last month, which called for Nato membership plus unrestricted use of western weapons to force a restoration of its internationally recognised territory.Across Ukraine there is a certain fatalism. Maria Avdeeva, a Kyiv-based fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute thinktank, said: “I think Ukrainians have already learned the lesson that we have to count on ourselves” – a refrain that crops up repeatedly in conversation.Ukraine is already struggling on the battlefield to a degree not seen since the spring of 2022, particularly on the southern part of the eastern from, where Ukraine has lost 9km in a week in some areas as Russia presses forward aggressively, incurring, according to UK estimates, numbers of troops killed and wounded of as high as 1,354 a day.The numbers of cases of Ukrainian desertion (18,196) and soldiers going absent without leave (35,307) between January and September are double those of the whole of 2023, according to leaked figures from the prosecutor general’s office, suggesting a growing weariness in parts of the armed forces.Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s most senior military commander, said on Saturday: “The situation remains challenging and shows signs of escalation. The enemy, leveraging its numerical advantage, is continuing offensive actions and is focusing its main efforts on the Pokrovsk and Kurakhove directions.” More

    • 163 Shares106 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I hate lying to her’: US couples on voting against their partners’ candidates

      by

      In the 2024 election, women turned out for Kamala Harris, while men were instrumental in securing Donald Trump’s win, according to early polling information. In some cases, those women and men were married to each other or otherwise romantically involved. In other relationships, it was the men who voted for Harris, while their female partners voted for Trump.Here, Americans who voted differently from their partners shared with the Guardian how such partisan views have affected their relationship, what it was like to “cancel out” a loved one’s vote, and why some kept their votes secret. Some requested to keep their identities anonymous to discuss personal matters.‘The only thing keeping me in this marriage is my teenagers’I’m voting for Harris, and I fight about it often with my husband. I’m disgusted with him for how he has changed from the man I married to supporting a candidate who is anti-everything in our personal lives. We have a trans child, a female child, a disabled child, mixed-race grandchildren, all of whom are hated by the Maga party. I’ve always been an independent feminist who bases beliefs on logic, facts and empathy. Living with a person who can’t admit to being wrong when facts are presented and no longer supports independent women is its own sort of hell. The only thing keeping me in this marriage is my teenagers. Thankfully, they’re juniors in high school, so I only have one and a half years to be stuck in it. Anonymous, caretaker, indie author and editor, 47, IllinoisView image in fullscreen‘I hate lying to her, but it’s for the best’I’ve been dating my girlfriend for 10 months. We met through a mutual friend at her church, and got along instantly. I love her to death. We celebrated Halloween and dressed up as ghosts.I secretly voted for Kamala Harris. I told my girlfriend that I wasn’t voting, and she doesn’t doubt it. She once said that Trump is America’s last hope, and that he is God’s chosen candidate. It was horrifying. I was internally screaming “WTF”. She has also said that the allegations against him are all lies; part of a “secret plot” to destroy him. But I wasn’t ready to talk about it. I feel dishonest. I hate lying, but it’s for the best. I’d hate to see her go insane over my vote, but I know she would. Not only that, but her father would disapprove of our relationship if he knew. He would disapprove of her just for dating me. I can’t risk that, ever. Anonymous, computer science student, 22, Joplin, MO‘He calls me stupid’It has been hell since the moment Trump announced his candidacy. Hubby, who voted for Clinton and Obama (he says he now regrets doing that), is brainwashed Maga to the core and watches Fox incessantly. It was affecting my physical and emotional health. He uses abusive language, calls me stupid when I explain my main concerns are education, health, climate change, moral standards and so on. He is an old man who has felt disenfranchised and diminished by social change.I met him in a club on a girls’ night, and we’ve been married for 37 years. No children, but he has a daughter and two granddaughters from a previous marriage who I have a great relationship with. And we have a cat! The evil spewed by Trump has made our life bizarre. But at this point, I’m in it for the long haul. Anonymous, retired educator and scientist , Florida‘We will still have sex tonight’It is election night as I write this. I’m sitting in the nursery holding our five-month old baby while he naps. My conservative husband is downstairs with our six-year old, probably listening to live election coverage that leans far right in perspective. He asked me how I was feeling today and I said fine. I know when I’m on my deathbed, I will not be thinking about Donald Trump, I’ll be thinking of my family. I’ll be thinking of my husband who yes, voted for Trump not once but three times but is also smart (yes, very smart), and my favorite person in the world. Now that the poll results are pouring in, I feel upset that my husband can support a misogynistic, racist and manipulative candidate. I also heard my husband’s concerns about another four years of a liberal leadership, and he is not wrong. He is just less right. And we will still have sex tonight. Susie, 39, from Colorado‘My wife expects Trump to stop funding mass slaughter’I voted for Jill Stein. Almost every Democrat we met voted for Jill Stein because she opposes what is happening in the Ukraine and Gaza (and the West Bank), especially Gaza. My wife voted for Donald Trump because she doesn’t believe a word he actually says and she expects him to stop funding mass slaughter. We think similarly about politics, but my wife doesn’t want the Democrats in power because they are warmongers, whereas I will not vote for anyone who endorses a genocide or an unjust war. Voting differently hasn’t affected our relationship in the least. Anonymous, artist, 69, Tucson, ArizonaView image in fullscreen‘I wrote in Jesus Christ, my husband voted Trump’I couldn’t vote for Harris because she is pro-abortion, and strong on that. Although I am strongly pro-life, I do think laws need to be refined to protect women who are miscarrying and to protect the life of the mother. I could not vote for Trump because he is mentally ill and unstable. I think he has turned the immigration issue into racism. My biggest issues are to protect and support Israel, to find a humane way to screen immigrants and help true asylum seekers, while protecting our country from real criminals, not illegals. So I wrote in Jesus Christ. My husband voted Trump. We can agree to disagree. We both have freedom to vote our conscience. Anonymous, retired RN and homeschool teacher, 58, Kingston, Tennessee‘Our love is more important than our disagreements’My wife and I have been together since 2019, married in 2022. I voted for Harris, she didn’t. It’s been a strain on our relationship and we have developed policies – such as when it gets too heated, either of us can say “peace out” – and we are working on listening thoroughly to each other. The election won’t affect our relationship. We’ve agreed on that! Our love is more important than our disagreements. Ross R Mason, 62, vice-president at EarthX Media Inc, Dallas, Texasskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion‘I don’t feel like my best self when I have to defend my values to my spouse’I really don’t understand how my husband can like Trump. We used to make fun of him when he was on The Apprentice. He is a smart man, and he believes these buffoons. I voted for Harris. I support women’s reproductive rights, and that was one of the most important issues for me. I also feel that she is sane and not divisive. My husband and I agreed when Harris got on the ticket that we would not discuss politics. If we do, it sours our relationship. It has worked for the most part. I don’t feel like my best self when I have to defend my values to my spouse. Anonymous, librarian, 47, from Oregon‘I love his determination to do his best’About 27 years ago, I met my husband on a blind date. Two years later, we married. He voted for Trump, I voted for Harris. It’s not a secret; my husband knows what’s important to me. I’m extremely aggravated by his preference for Fox News, which I see as a successful propaganda machine. However, while I don’t care for his political perspectives and practices, I love his intellectual capacity, his sense of humor and his determination to do his best. Anonymous, retired educator, 78, from Tucson, ArizonaView image in fullscreen‘He chose a misogynistic racist over me’We’ve been married 40 too many years and basically canceled each other’s votes. I’ve been involved in politics since my 20s and consider myself as a liberal. There have been many arguments since my husband started to espouse Trump gaslighting. I hate the fact that he would choose a misogynistic racist over me, a woman. Abortion and immigration issues mattered to me this election. Most of our relatives came to the US as illegals and now this immigration rhetoric comes up? We both agreed not to discuss politics, though. We’ll keep on keeping on. Rebeca Guevara, 76, retired nurse from Laredo, Texas‘This makes me question the relationship’My partner knows who I voted for, but we just don’t talk about politics. I’d love to be able to have a discussion with him about the issues, but he usually changes the subject. While I consider myself a moderate (I’d vote for someone like Mitt Romney if he was the Republican candidate), he gets most of his political insights from Fox News. He sees Trump as strong and believes that he’d be worse off financially if Harris had won (he and I are both in a good position financially, but we’re not nearly rich enough to be better off under Trump).We met online almost two years ago and are in a committed relationship, but we both have kids from previous marriages and are not planning to live together anytime soon. The fact we can’t even have a discussion about the election makes me question the relationship. Anonymous, 51, Columbus, Ohio, with a management position in engineeringResponses have been edited for clarity. Read more of the Guardian’s 2024 US election coverage

      A masculinity researcher on the Democrats’ ‘fatal miscalculation’

      Election deniers use Trump victory to sow more doubt over 2020 result

      What a second Trump presidency means for big US tech firms

      Who could be in Trump’s new administration More

    • 150 Shares81 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s wild threats put press freedom in the crosshairs in second term

      by

      Donald Trump could have an easier time limiting press freedom in his second term in the White House after a campaign marked by virulent rhetoric towards journalists and calls for punishing television networks and prosecuting journalists and their sources, legal scholars and journalism advocacy groups warn.Aside from worries about Trump’s demonization of the press inciting violence against journalists, free press advocates appear to be most alarmed by Trump’s call for the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke TV networks’ broadcast licenses and talk of jailing journalists who refuse to reveal anonymous sources.Still, despite a conservative majority on the supreme court and likely Republican control of the House and Senate, those same people also say that America’s robust first amendment protections and a legislative proposal and technology to protect sources mean that a diminished press under Trump is not a certainty.“My big-picture concern is that Trump is going to do exactly what he has been telling us that he wants to do, which is that he is going to punish his critics,” said Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern University law professor.Kitrosser added: “He is going to punish people who dissent from his approach to things, people who criticize him and also, perhaps more importantly, investigative journalists and their sources who are not offering opinions but are exposing facts that he finds embarrassing or inconvenient.”Trump has long said journalists deliver “fake news” and are the “enemy of the people”, but since leaving office in 2021 he has used more violent language. At a 2022 rally in Texas, Trump suggested that the threat of rape in prison could compel a journalist to reveal their sources.“When this person realizes that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that was,’” Trump said.At a recent campaign rally, Trump also said that given where the press was located at the event, if someone were to try to assassinate him, the person “would have to shoot through the fake news, and I don’t mind that so much”.Kash Patel, who could be appointed as acting attorney general or head of the CIA, frequently talks of the “deep state” and told the far-right Trump ally Steve Bannon in a podcast interview: “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media … We’re going to come after you.”Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said it was “entirely possible that [Trump] is just bloviating”.In his earlier campaigns and first term in office, Trump “was on the campaign trail calling them names and riling up crowds, but he was not actively saying, ‘I want to throw them in jail,’” Timm said.Trump also posted on Twitter during his first term about revoking broadcasters’ licenses when they put out “fake news”.After the tweets, Ajit Pai, then the FCC chair appointed by Trump, said: “I believe in the first amendment.”View image in fullscreen“Under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on a particular newscast,” Pai explained.But Trump and his supporters talked more about revoking the licenses during his second run for the White House. CNN reported in October that Trump had over the last two years said at least 15 times that the government should take such actions.After a 60 Minutes interview in October that contained an answer from Kamala Harris about the war in Gaza that differed from her response in a trailer for the interview, Trump called CBS a “threat to democracy” and said its license should be revoked.An FCC commissioner appointed by Trump recently also said that NBC could lose its license for having Harris appear on Saturday Night Live before the election and not giving equal time to Trump.Another Trump-appointed FCC commissioner said it “would not be inappropriate for the commission” to investigate the complaint about the 60 Minutes interview.“That is even more disturbing, because it means that it’s not just Trump wildly spewing off the cuff. It means that two of the five current FCC chairs might be amenable to this argument,” Timm said.Still, it is unlikely that the FCC would be able to revoke a broadcaster’s license before the end of Trump’s term, according to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor for the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe commission only revokes a license when a broadcaster goes off the air, Schwartzman said. The government agency could then take back the spectrum licensed to the station in case someone else would like to use it.The commission could deny a license renewal, but none are up for renewal until June 2028, and the commission would not be able to even decide to hold a hearing on a renewal before the end of Trump’s second term in office, Schwartzman said.As to cracking down on whistleblowers and journalists, Trump could use the Espionage Act, which allows the government to pursue people who share information with journalists related to national security, Kitrosser said.Barack Obama was also aggressive in his use of the law to prosecute whistleblowers during his presidency.Kitrosser said she was “very, very disturbed” by Obama’s crackdown on media sources.But the difference between the Obama administration’s effort and Trump’s call for prosecuting journalists and sources who leak information is that Trump has repeatedly said: “He does not think that criticism of him, criticism of judges that he appoints, criticism of his policies … should be protected,” Kitrosser said. “Not to protect national security, but to protect himself, and I think that is really the fundamental difference between Obama and Trump.”The Trump administration will probably have an easier time pursuing sources than journalists.“I think courts will be more receptive to the argument that the first amendment bars media prosecutions of journalists under the Espionage Act than they have been receptive to those claims by media sources,” Kitrosser said.To protect sources, journalists could also start to rely more on encryption communication tools like Signal in a second Trump term. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has urged journalists to start using such technology.The organization is also lobbying for the passage of the Press Act, which would prohibit the federal government from compelling journalists to disclose certain protected information, except in limited circumstances such as to prevent terrorism or imminent violence, and from spying on journalists through their technology providers.The House passed the bill unanimously. Three Republican senators have also sponsored the legislation, but it has stalled in committee because of a small group of Republicans, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who argued the bill would “open a floodgate of leaks damaging to law enforcement and our nation’s security”.“Too many journalists are little more than leftwing activists who are, at best, ambivalent about America and who are cavalier about our security and the truth,” Cotton wrote in a statement explaining his opposition.Timm, of the Press Foundation, said he was unsure whether the Senate would pass the legislation before Joe Biden leaves office.“The Democrats in the lame duck session are really going to have to prioritize it because when the Senate changes hands and the White House changes hands, there is probably little to no chance that this bill would pass,” Timm said. “It’s now or never for protecting journalists’ rights.” More

    • 238 Shares62 Views

      in US Politics

      A new era dawns. America’s tech bros now strut their stuff in the corridors of power | Carole Cadwalladr

      by

      In hindsight, 2016 was the beginning of the beginning. And 2024 is the end of that beginning and the start of something much, much worse.It began as a tear in the information space, a dawning realisation that the world as we knew it – stable, fixed by facts, balustraded by evidence – was now a rip in the fabric of reality. And the turbulence that Trump is about to unleash – alongside pain and cruelty and hardship – is possible because that’s where we already live: in information chaos.It’s exactly eight years since we realised there were invisible undercurrents flowing beneath the surface of our world. Or perhaps I should talk for myself here. It was when I realised. A week before the 2016 US presidential election, I spotted a weird constellation of events and googled “tech disruption” + “democracy”, found not a single hit and pitched a piece to my editor.It was published on 6 November 2016. In it, I quoted the “technology mudslide hypothesis” a concept invented by Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School, who coined the term “disruption” – a process endlessly fetishised in tech circles, in which a scrappy upstart such as Microsoft could overthrow a colossus like IBM.Whoever wins, I wrote, this election represented “the Great Disruption. With Trump the Great Disruptor.” And, for good measure, I chucked in some questions: “Will democracy survive? Will Nato? Is a free and fair election possible in a post-truth world?”View image in fullscreenThat article was the beginning of my own Alice in Wonderland tumble down the rabbit hole. and I reread it with the sinking knowledge that this next presidential term may yet provide those answers. If it seems like I’m crowing, I wish. This isn’t a valedictory “I told you so”: it’s an eight-year anniversary reminder for us to wake up. And a serving of notice: the first stage of this process is now complete. And we have to understand what that means.We’ve spent those eight years learning a new lexicon: “misinformation”, “disinformation”, “microtargeting”. We’ve learned about information warfare. As journalists, we, like FBI investigators, used evidence to show how social media was a vulnerable “threat surface” that bad actors such as Cambridge Analytica and the Kremlin could exploit. PhDs have been written on the weaponisation of social media. But none of this helps us now.There’s already a judiciary subcommittee on the “weaponisation of the federal government” in Congress to investigate the “censorship industrial complex” – the idea that big tech is “censoring” Republican voices. For the past 18 months, it’s been subpoena-ing academics. Last week, Elon Musk tweeted that the next stage would be “prosecutions”. A friend of mine, an Ivy League professor on the list, texts to say the day will shortly come “where I will have to decide whether to stay or go”.View image in fullscreenTrump’s list of enemies is not theoretical. It already exists. My friend is on it. In 2022, Trump announced a “day one” executive order instructing “the Department of Justice to investigate all parties involved in the new online censorship regime … and to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified”. And my friends in other countries know exactly where this leads.View image in fullscreenAnother message arrives from Maria Ressa, the Nobel prize-winning Filipino journalist. In the Philippines, the government is modelled on the US one and she writes about what happened when President Duterte controlled all three branches of it. “It took six months after he took office for our institutions to crumble.” And then she was arrested.What we did during the first wave of disruption, 2016-24, won’t work now. Can you “weaponise” social media when social media is the weapon? Remember the philosopher Marshall McLuhan – “the medium is the message”? Well the medium now is Musk. The world’s richest man bought a global communication platform and is now the shadow head of state of what was the world’s greatest superpower. That’s the message. Have you got it yet?Does the technology mudslide hypothesis now make sense? Of how a small innovation can eventually disrupt a legacy brand? That brand is truth. It’s evidence. It’s journalism. It’s science. It’s the Enlightenment. A niche concept you’ll find behind a paywall at the New York Times.You have a subscription? Enjoy your clean, hygienic, fact-checked news. Then come with me into the information sewers, where we will wade through the shit everyone else consumes. Trump is cholera. His hate, his lies – it’s an infection that’s in the drinking water now. Our information system is London’s stinking streets before the Victorian miracle of sanitation. We fixed that through engineering. But we haven’t fixed this. We had eight years to hold Silicon Valley to account. And we failed. Utterly.Because this, now, isn’t politics in any sense we understand it. The young men who came out for Trump were voting for protein powder and deadlifting as much as they were for a 78-year-old convicted felon. They were voting for bitcoin and weighted squats. For YouTube shorts and Twitch streams. For podcast bros and crypto bros and tech bros and the bro of bros: Elon Musk.Social media is mainstream media now. It’s where the majority of the world gets its news. Though who even cares about news? It’s where the world gets its memes and jokes and consumes its endlessly mutating trends. Forget “internet culture”. The internet is culture. And this is where this election was fought and won … long before a single person cast a ballot.Steve Bannon was right. Politics is downstream from culture. Chris Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, quoted his old boss to me in my first phone call with him. Elections are downstream from white men talking on platforms that white men built, juiced by invisible algorithms our broligarch overlords control. This is culture now.The Observer’s reporting on Facebook and Cambridge Analytica belongs to the old world order. An order that ended on 6 November 2024. That was the first wave of algorithmic disruption which gave us Brexit and Trump’s first term, when our rule-based norms creaked but still applied.View image in fullscreenThe challenge now is to understand that this world has gone. Mark Zuckerberg has ditched his suit, grown out his Caesar haircut and bought a rapper-style gold chain. He’s said one of his biggest regrets is apologising too much. Because he – like others in Silicon Valley – has read the runes. PayPal’s co-founder Peter Thiel, creeping around in the shadows, ensured his man, JD Vance, got on the presidential ticket. Musk wagered a Silicon Valley-style bet by going all in on Trump. Jeff Bezos, late to the party, jumped on the bandwagon with just days to go, ensuringhis Washington Post didn’t endorse any candidate.These bros know. They don’t fear journalists any more. Journalists will now learn to fear them. Because this is oligarchy now. This is the fusion of state and commercial power in a ruling elite. It’s not a coincidence that Musk spouts the Kremlin’s talking points and chats to Putin on the phone. The chaos of Russia in the 90s is the template; billions will be made, people will die, crimes will be committed.Our challenge is to realise that the first cycle of disruption is complete. We’re through the looking glass. We’re all wading through the information sewers. Trump is a bacillus but the problem is the pipes. We can and must fix this.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk More

    • 188 Shares81 Views

      in US Politics

      From Trump’s victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people despise the left | John Harris

      by

      There is no need to pick only a few of the many explanations of Donald Trump’s political comeback. Most of the endless reasons we have heard over the past five days ring true: inflation, incumbency, a flimsy Democratic campaign, white Americans’ seemingly eternal issues with race, and what one New York Times essayist recently called “a regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright”. But there is another story that has so far been rather more overlooked, to do with how politics now works, and who voters think of when they enter the polling booth.Its most vivid element is about the left, and one inescapable fact: that a lot of people simply do not like us. In the UK, that is part of the reason why Brexit happened, why Nigel Farage is back, and why our new Labour government feels so flimsy and fragile. In the US, it goes some way to explaining why more than 75 million voters just rejected the supposedly progressive option, and chose a convicted criminal and unabashed insurrectionist to oversee their lives.The latter story goes beyond Kamala Harris and her failed pitch for power. When established parties on the progressive and conservative wings of politics go into an election, in the minds of many people, they represent a much larger set of forces, whether their candidates like it or not. After all, what people understand as the left and right operate far beyond the institutions of the state: political battles are fought in the media, on the street, in workplaces, campuses, and more. This has always been the case, but as social media turn the noise such activity makes into a deafening din, seeing most big parties and candidates as the tips of much larger icebergs becomes inevitable.Trump leads the movement that was responsible for the January 6 insurrection, has made less-than-subtle noises about his affinity with the far right, and makes absolutely no bones about any of it. For the Democrats, the lines that connect a centrist figure such as Harris to the wider US left tend to look much fuzzier, but that does not make millions of people’s perceptions of them any less real. Around the world, in fact, the left looks to many voters like a coherent bloc that goes from people who lie in the road and shut down universities to would-be presidents and prime ministers – the only difference between them, as some see it, is that radical activists are honest about their ideas, whereas the people who stand for office try to cover them up.What the US election result shows is that, when told to make a choice, millions of people will draw on those ideas, and ally themselves with the other political side. Many of them, of course, have arrived at that conclusion thanks to outright bigotry. But given the remarkable spread of votes for Trump – into Latino and black parts of the electorate, and states considered loyal Democratic heartlands, from California to New Jersey – that hardly explains the entirety of his win. What it highlights is something that many American, British and European people have known for the past 15 years, at least: that the left is now alienating huge chunks of its old base of support.That story has deep roots, partly bound up with the decline of political loyalties based around class: compared with 2008, 2024’s Democratic coalition was skewed towards the higher end of the income range, whereas Trump’s tilted in the other direction. The same kind of fracturing now seems to be affecting many ethnically based political loyalties: as Trump well knows, there are now large numbers of voters from minorities – and immigrant backgrounds – who largely accept rightwing ideas about immigration. That is partly because modern economies create such a desperate competition for rewards.But there seems to be more to it than that: polling shows the suggestion that “government should increase border security and enforcement” is supported by higher percentages of black and Hispanic voters than among white progressives – but the same applies to “most people can make it if they work hard” and “America is the greatest country in the world”. Growing chunks of the electorate, in other words, are not who the left think they are.Meanwhile, the widening political gap based around people’s education levels – voters without college degrees supported Trump by a 14-point margin, while Harris had a 13-point advantage among college-educated people – creates yet more problems. Some of them are to do with “wokeness” and its drawbacks. Because the cutting edge of left politics is often associated with institutions of higher education, ideas that are meant to be about inclusivity can easily turn into the opposite. The result is an agenda often expressed with a judgmental arrogance, and based around behavioural codes – to do with microaggressions, or the correct use of pronouns – that are very hard for people outside highly educated circles to navigate.At the same time, our online discourse hardens good intentions into an all-or-nothing style of activism that will not tolerate nuance or compromise. A message about the left then travels from one part of society to another: there is a transmission belt between clarion calls that do the rounds on college campuses, the Democratic mainstream, and unsettled voters in, say, suburban and rural Pennsylvania. And the right can therefore make hay, as evidenced by a Trump ad that was crass and cruel, but grimly effective: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”In its own ugly way, that line highlights what might have been Trump and his supporters’ strongest asset: the idea that, because they are so distant and privileged, modern progressives would rather ignore questions about everyday economics. Nearly 40% of all Americans say they have skipped meals in order to meet their housing payments, and more than 70% admit to living with economic anxiety. A second Trump term, of course, is hardly going to make that any better: the point is that he was able to successfully pretend that it would.That then opened the way for something even more jaw-dropping: Trump’s sudden claim to be a great unifier, something implicitly contrasted with progressives’ habit of separating people into demographic islands. It takes an almost evil level of chutzpah to flip from his hate and nastiness to a new message of love for most Americans, but consider what he saidabout his coalition of voters: “They came from all quarters: union, non-union, African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Arab American, Muslim American. We had everybody. And it was beautiful.” That is the increasingly familiar sound of populist tanks being parked on the left’s lawn.None of this is meant to imply that most progressive causes are mistaken, or to make any argument for leaning into Trumpism. What the state of politics across the west highlights is more about tone, strategy, empathy, and how to take people with you while trying to change society – as well as the platforms that poison democratic debate, and the harm they do to progressive politics. The next time you see someone on the left combusting with self-righteous fury on the hellscape now known as X, it’s worth remembering that its current owner is Elon Musk, who may be about to assist Trump in massively cutting US public spending, while cackling at the weakness of the president’s enemies, and their habit of walking into glaring traps.

      John Harris is a Guardian columnist More

    • 200 Shares100 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘No time to pull punches’: is a civil war on the horizon for the Democratic party?

      by

      Joe Biden stood before the American people, millions of whom were still reeling from the news of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential race, and reassured them: “We’re going to be OK.”In his first remarks since his vice-president and chosen successor, Kamala Harris, lost the presidential election, Biden delivered a pep talk from the White House Rose Garden on a sunny Thursday that clashed with Democrats’ black mood in the wake of their devastating electoral losses. Biden pledged a smooth transfer of power to Trump and expressed faith in the endurance of the American experiment.“Setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable,” Biden said. “A defeat does not mean we are defeated. We lost this battle. The America of your dreams is calling for you to get back up. That’s the story of America for over 240 years and counting.”The message severely clashed with the dire warnings that many Democrats, including Biden, have issued about the dangers of a second Trump term. They have predicted that Trump’s return to power would jeopardize the very foundation of American democracy. They assured voters that Trump would make good on his promise to deport millions of undocumented people. And they raised serious doubts about Trump’s pledge to veto a nationwide abortion ban.Now as they stare down four more years of Trump’s presidency, Democrats must reckon with the reality that those warnings were for naught. Not only did Trump win the White House, but he is on track to win the popular vote, making him the first Republican to do so since 2004. Senate Republicans have regained their majority, and they appear confident in their chances of holding the House of Representatives, with several key races still too close to call on Friday morning.The bleak outcome has left Democrats bereft, unmoored and furious when they previously thought this week would be the cause of joy and celebration. They are now heading into a brutal political wilderness with its current leaders tarnished by advanced age and a catastrophic defeat and a younger generation that is yet to fully emerge.The party also faces a likely brutal civil war between its leftists and centrists over the best way forward – one that will be fought over the levers of power in the party at every level from the grassroots of all 50 US states to the crowded corridors of Congress in Washington.The stark reality has left Democrats asking themselves the same question over and over again: how did we get here?The hypotheses and accusations rose from whispers to shouts starting on Wednesday. Although a handful of Democrats suggested Harris should have done more to distance herself from Biden, few party members appeared to blame the nominee, who was credited with running the best possible campaign given her roughly 100-day window to close a considerable gap with Trump.Some Democrats blamed Biden, who withdrew from the presidential race in July only after mounting pressure from his party after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. Jim Manley, who served as a senior adviser to the former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, said that Biden never should have run for re-election.“This is no time to pull punches or be concerned about anyone’s feelings,” Manley told Politico. “He and his staff have done an enormous amount of damage to this country.”In an even more damning indictment, Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker who was applauded for her role in pressuring Biden to step aside, suggested the party should have held an open primary.“Had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race,” Pelosi told the New York Times on Thursday. “We live with what happened. And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different.”View image in fullscreenA number of other senior Democratic aides complained to reporters – on background, without their names attached to the quotes – that Biden had put the party in a terrible position by not reckoning earlier with the widespread concerns over his age and unpopularity. (Biden would have been 86 at the end of his second term, while Trump will be 82 at the end of his.)The White House pushed back against those gripes, framing Democrats’ losses in a much more global context. Incumbents have lost ground around the world in the past year, a trend that experts largely blame on the anger and disillusionment spurred by the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing high inflation it caused.The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, cited this explanation during her press briefing on Thursday, while noting that Biden still believes he “made the right decision” in stepping aside.“Despite all of the accomplishments that we were able to get done, there were global headwinds because of the Covid-19 pandemic,” Jean-Pierre said. “And it had a political toll on many incumbents, if you look at what happened in 2024 globally.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDespite those headwinds, Democrats wonder if their communication strategy could have prevented Republicans’ triumph. Leaders of the party are now debating the role of new media and how dominant rightwing influencers, particularly in the so-called “manosphere”, helped propel Trump to victory.Left-leaning Van Jones posited that Democrats had focused too much on traditional media at the expense of cultivating a leftwing media ecosystem, saying in a Substack Live chat: “We built the wrong machine.”Or perhaps Democrats’ failure to connect with the concerns of working-class voters cost them the White House, as progressives such as Senator Bernie Sanders argued.“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” Sanders said in his post-election statement. “In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.”But who will lead those discussions? Biden will be 82 when he leaves the White House in January. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader who has now been demoted to minority leader, is 73. Pelosi is 84. Sanders, who won re-election on Tuesday, will be 89 by the time his new term ends.The party must now look to a new generation of leaders, a pivot that many argue should have come earlier. Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader who still holds out a distant hope of becoming speaker in January if his party can win a majority, might lead the way. Progressive Democrats will probably be looking to popular lawmakers like congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to shape the party’s future. Other rank-and-file members have pointed to Gavin Newsom, the California governor who is already trying to “Trump-proof” his state, as an example for resisting the new administration.They will have a foundation to work from, party leaders assert. Although Trump’s victory was devastating to them, Democrats protected at least three and possibly five competitive Senate seats while mitigating Republican gains in the House. Even if House Republicans maintain control of the chamber, they will be forced to govern with a narrow majority that proved disastrous during the last session and could pave the wave for significant Democratic gains in 2026.For now, though, the Democrats who poured their hearts and souls into electing Harris as the first woman, first Black woman and first Asian American woman to serve as president seem exhausted. They have spent most of the past decade warning the country about the dangers of Trump and his political philosophy only for a majority of American voters to send him back to the White House.While Trump’s first electoral victory sparked a wave of outrage and protests among Democrats, his second win seemed met with a mournful sigh from many of his critics. Right now, Democrats are taking the time to grieve. And then, eventually, they will start to pick up the pieces of their party.Lauren Gambino contributed reportingRead more of the Guardian’s 2024 US election coverage

      A masculinity researcher on the Democrats’ ‘fatal miscalculation’

      Election deniers use Trump victory to sow more doubt over 2020 result

      What a second Trump presidency means for big US tech firms

      Who could be in Trump’s new administration More