US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares152 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Cavalier and aggressive’: why are border agents flooding into US cities?

      by

      Border patrol officers have become ubiquitous footsoldiers in Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan, and lawyers and human rights advocates worry that the agency is expanding its aggressive tactics into cities far from its conventional range.Led by Gregory Bovino, a particularly hardline Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sector chief from southern California, border patrol agents have become a daily presence in several major cities across the US.Earlier this month in Chicago’s Southwest Side, a border patrol shot a woman multiple times amid protests against the Trump administration’s militarized immigration raids in the city.This summer in Los Angeles, border agents on horseback swept through a public park downtown – riding alongside national guard troops and other agents in military vehicles. In southern California, videos of border patrol agents pinning down and beating 48-year-old landscaper ​​Narciso Barranco went viral.Agents have also made arrests in California’s agricultural Central Valley and at New York immigration courthouses. They have set up immigration checkpoints in Washington DC.Lawyers and human rights advocates say the agents, who are trained to block illegal entries, drug smugglers and human traffickers at the country’s borders, may be ill-suited to conduct civil immigration enforcement in urban communities.“The border patrol is certainly quite cavalier, and has been very aggressive historically as it goes about its enforcement responsibilities,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University. They tend to do their work in rural places and isolated parts of the United States. And they generally are not trained in community interactions and policing.”View image in fullscreenUntil recently, the agency usually worked close to the southern US border – especially along the south-western border – though the department has long had the authority to conduct patrols more inland.Under a 1946 statute, Border Patrol agents have the ability to conduct warrantless searches within a “reasonable distance” – or up to 100 miles – from any international boundaries. Those boundaries include international land borders as well as coastlines – so in effect, their range encapsulates most US major cities – including LA, New York and Washington DC. Chicago falls within this 100-mile zone, because the Great Lakes are considered a maritime boundary.Nearly two-thirds of the US population lives within the zone.Still, García Hernández said, until recently, it was highly uncommon to see border patrol agents stray far from the south-western border.But now illegal border crossings are at a historic low, and the administration has deployed thousands of military personnel to the southern border, freeing up the Border Patrol, he said – ready and available as force multipliers in the administration’s deportation mission. The department currently has about 19,000 agents. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which encompasses the Border Patrol, is about 60,000 strong – making it the largest law enforcement agency in the country.Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), meanwhile, has about 5,500 immigration enforcement officers, plus an additional 7,000 agents tasked with investigating cross-border criminal activities. Though the agency is making a massive push to hire 10,000 more agents, that process is expected to take some time.It’s unclear exactly how many Border Patrol agents have joined up with Ice and other federal agents in raids targeting Chicago, Los Angeles and other big cities.DHS did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s query.As border agents stray away from their original mission, legal experts have raised concerns that they are bringing along with them a culture of combative enforcement. “CBP has a history of problematic treatment of people, in my opinion, perhaps worse than any other law enforcement agency,” said Deborah Anthony, a professor of legal studies at University of Illinois Springfield with an expertise in constitutional law and the legality of Border Patrol operations.The Border Patrol has long had “more leeway” with the US constitution’s fourth amendment’s protections against random and arbitrary stops and searches, Anthony said. They are able to set up checkpoints and, in some cases, roving patrols, she said – but these authorities are limited by law.Agents cannot pull people over without “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation, or search homes or vehicles without a warrant or probable cause.In recent deployments, however, agents appear to be flouting these restrictions. Earlier this month, Border Patrol agents, along with other federal agents, conducted a military-style immigration raid of an apartment complex in Chicago. Video evidence showed agents indiscriminately bursting through front doors.“All the evidence suggests there were egregious violations of rights, both in the treatment of people, in the lack of a warrant, in the breaking down of people’s doors, in what seems to be almost indiscriminate targeting of almost everyone in the building,” Anthony said.View image in fullscreenImmigrant advocates have had limited success in opposing this type of indiscriminate enforcement. In a January operation that took place shortly before Trump took office, plainclothes border agents poured into California’s Central Valley region, conducting random stops along the highway. In response, the ACLU sued the Border Patrol on behalf of the United Farm Workers union – and a federal district court found that the operation violated the fourth amendment.And in June a federal lawsuit from advocacy groups accused the Border Patrol, Ice and other agencies of violating rights by profiling street vendors, car-wash workers, day laborers and others, and making arrests without adequate cause – resulting in a temporary restriction against such enforcement in California and parts of the west coast.But proving such fourth amendment violations can be a big burden on advocates, said Anthony. And Border Patrol has a long history of aggressive enforcement tactics.“There’s evidence of everything from legal and constitutional violations to physical and sexual abuse and mistreatment, and very little recourse or accountability,” Anthony said. “Internal discipline within [the] Border Patrol is very problematic and that has been systematically the case for a long time now.”A 2023 report by the Washington Office on Latin America (Wola) and the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), migrant rights advocacy groups, detailed persistent human rights abuses without accountability within the agency. More

    • 125 Shares134 Views

      in US Politics

      China warns US of retaliation over Trump’s 100% tariffs threat

      by

      Beijing has told the US it will retaliate if Donald Trump fails to back down on his threat to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports as investors brace for another bout of trade war turmoil.China’s commerce ministry blamed Washington for raising trade tensions between the two countries after Trump announced on Friday that he would impose the additional tariffs on China’s exports to the US, along with new controls on critical software, by 1 November.“Wilful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China,” a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said on Sunday, according to the state news agency Xinhua. “China’s position on the trade war is consistent. We do not want it, but we are not afraid of it.“If the United States insists on going the wrong way, China will surely take resolute measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests.”Trump and senior US administration officials opened a door to a China trade deal on Sunday as market futures showed another US stock market drop.“Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.The message came after JD Vance called on Beijing to “choose the path of reason” in the latest spiralling trade fight between the world’s two leading economies that has shaken stock markets.Dow futures showed a drop of 887 points ahead of the stock markets’ open on Monday. The index dropped sharply lower on Friday after reignited fears of a trade war with China when threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports after China said it would restrict rare earth exports. The Dow fell 879 points, or 1.9%.“It’s going to be a delicate dance, and a lot of it is going to depend on how the Chinese respond,” Vance said on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures. “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China. If, however, they’re willing to be reasonable,” he said, then the US would, too.The US president shocked the financial markets on Friday when he accused China of “very hostile” moves to restrict exports of rare-earth materials needed by US industry.It prompted heavy falls on Wall Street, where about $2tn (£1.5tn) was wiped off the value of the US stocks.China insisted on Sunday that its latest export controls on rare earths such as holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium were legitimate.“China’s export controls are not export bans,” said the commerce ministry spokesperson. “All applications of compliant export for civil use can get approval, so that relevant businesses have no need to worry.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe measures were introduced after Washington added a number of Chinese firms to its export control list in a crackdown on the use of foreign affiliates to circumvent export curbs on chipmaking equipment and other goods and technology.The UK’s FTSE 100 share index fell almost 1% on Friday as Trump’s threat sparked a late selloff. The futures market indicates there could be further losses in London and New York on Monday, although there could also be relief that Beijing has not yet retaliated.Bitcoin, which had tumbled 8% after Trump’s post on Truth Social, rose by 4% on Sunday after China refrained from retaliating.Trump’s tariff threat was “a rather unwelcome development for financial markets” as investors had “by and large moved on from the trade and tariff story”, said Michael Brown, a senior research strategist at the brokerage firm Pepperstone.“Chiefly, the question that every man and his dog are attempting to answer is whether this is a credible threat, that the Trump admin might follow through on, or whether this is another example of the ‘escalate to de-escalate’ strategy that Trump used so frequently earlier in the year.“A strategy where outlandish and ridiculous tariff figures are threatened, in an attempt to focus minds, extract concessions from the other party, and ultimately come to agreement faster than otherwise might’ve been possible.” More

    • 175 Shares143 Views

      in US Politics

      Doge-ish comes to Florida: a DeSantis loyalist is going after ‘waste’ in Democratic cities

      by

      The words of Blaise Ingoglia, the Ron DeSantis loyalist handpicked to lead the Republican Florida governor’s Doge-style assault on local government spending, could not have been more prophetic.“Expect a knock on the door from us,” Ingoglia warned on 1 October as he announced upcoming audits for Democratic-run cities and counties whose “excessively wasteful” pecuniary habits displeased the DeSantis administration.The knock came soon enough, but in an unexpected place. Two armed police officers in bulletproof vests, sent by the criminal investigations division of Ingoglia’s Florida department of financial services, turned up at the home of a retired couple in Largo, demanding to know whether they had sent him a handwritten postcard that contained only three words: “You lack values.”“It was designed to intimidate us,” said James O’Gara, a military veteran who said the non-threatening card was one of dozens he has sent to various local, state and national politicians as part of a campaign of peaceful protest.“I presume that most of them aren’t even read, they just get thrown in the garbage. But I wrote one to Blaise Ingoglia about his Doge activities, and two law enforcement officers are standing at my doorstep telling my wife they need to speak to me.“They’re all in black, ‘police’ in giant reflective lettering across their vests, weapons at their side and all the other stuff on their belts. It was very intimidating for not even a threatening statement. I mean, the whole financial responsibility issue … they used very little judgment, or very little good judgment.”Sydney Booker, Ingoglia’s communications director, insisted he had not seen the postcard, and that the decision to conduct a threat assessment on the O’Garas was made “solely by law enforcement personnel”.In a statement to the Guardian, she said: “While it is unfortunate that this incident occurred, the chief financial officer trusts that law enforcement officials are taking necessary steps to protect public safety and the safety of elected officials while also preserving the first amendment rights of Floridians, especially in light of recent events.“As a conservative who believes in free speech, the CFO has never shied away from candid conversations and vigorous debate throughout his career in public service, and he does not plan to start.”Booker did not address a question about whether the visit was a justifiable use of resources given Ingoglia’s pledge to eliminate wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money. But O’Gara rejected the assertion that it was necessary for public safety, and said it was a sinister move designed to quash dissent.“It flatly doesn’t protect the politicians and it doesn’t protect the rights of citizens,” he said.“They were making small talk about my being in the infantry, about being in the army. Somebody had to do some research beyond just looking up my voter registration and getting my address.”The episode has parallels to previous incidents in which Florida state officials dispatched law enforcement to private homes. A Fort Myers man said he was visited in September last year by a detective carrying his personal information and challenging his signature on a petition for an abortion rights ballot amendment DeSantis was trying to defeat.A year earlier, officers from DeSantis’s newly formed election fraud police unit arrested at gunpoint two men accused of voting illegally. The cases were later dismissed.Ingoglia’s scrutiny of city and county budgets, meanwhile, is facing headwinds.Officials in Broward county, the most heavily Democratic county in the state, are pushing back on his claim of $189m in “excessive, wasteful spending”. They say it is a faulty calculation of its general revenue fund based on “inaccurate, factually incorrect numbers” of new residents and inflation, rather than any specific examples of waste or fraud.Ingoglia’s figure, they say, also overlooks new mandates from the state that the county is now required to fund.“We wrote to him, we said: ‘Please show us where you got your starting point from, your population growth number and your inflation numbers, because they don’t match any of the generally accepted numbers.’ He has not enlightened us,” said Steven Geller, a Broward county commissioner and former mayor.“If you use his formula with the generally accepted number, numbers plural, we are under the number he says we should be.”Geller also pointed to new demands on county coffers for items that previously came from state funds, including the operation of driver’s license offices, some tax collection and the enforcement of a “draconian” state law that makes homelessness a crime.“The CFO might have a point if the legislature would stop giving us unfunded mandates. However, even ignoring that, the CFO used an inflation factor which is not the generally accepted inflation number, and in fact, we can’t find any number that matches the number he used,” he said.Geller said DeSantis “blasted Broward for overspending” the same day he revealed his Doge initiative, without having examined any of the county’s figures.“We’re the largest Democratic county in Florida. We have 2 million people and nine county commissioners, all of us Democrat. So is it a coincidence we’re the first county they Doge’d, or that he announced the results before they had any data?” he said.In addition to Broward, Ingoglia has appeared in recent days in several other Democratic-run municipalities, making broad allegations of fraud and excessive spending. But analysts say there is little evidence, other than a few individual examples of comparatively small amounts going towards LGBTQ+ events or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.Officials in the cities of St Petersburg and Orlando, and Hillsborough, Orange, Pinellas and Seminole counties, all have rejected Ingoglia’s claims.Robert Jarvis, professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad college of law, said the motivation of DeSantis, who will be termed out of office in 2027, for the Doge purge was purely political. It is tied, he said, to the governor’s efforts to abolish or reform property taxes and secure more power for the state.“There’s no evidence that local governments in Florida are wasting money. And so there’s no reason for what DeSantis is doing from a financial standpoint,” he said.“Even Ingoglia admits he hasn’t found any wasteful spending, but they’re going after the things they like to go after, like Pride parades, DEI initiatives, things the DeSantis base is against.“And going after his enemies allows him to ignore how he has wasted money on things like Alligator Alcatraz, a tax holiday for assault weapons, going after Disney in lawsuits that he keeps losing.”Jarvis said Ingoglia, who was appointed chief financial officer by DeSantis and is running for election to the role next year, appeared a useful ally of the governor at the right time.“Next year, DeSantis wants to have that referendum to cut local property taxes and be able to say, after he goes out of office, that he saved all this money at the state level, and got property taxes rolled back,” he said.“If that comes to be, it will hurt local governments, but DeSantis does not care about local governments, just like the Florida legislature has been at war with local governments for years.“Local governments tend not to do what Republicans want them to do. They tend to be more focused on actually delivering services to their residents.” More

    • 163 Shares89 Views

      in US Politics

      Maga figures back Bukele’s call for Trump to crack down on US judges

      by

      Donald Trump is not known for taking advice, especially from foreign leaders who often seek to flatter and compliment the US president.But El Salvador’s authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has followed a different tack by calling on the Trump administration to follow his example in impeaching “corrupt judges”.His call for Trump to take action against the US judiciary also received support from Maga figures, including an X post by one-time close Trump ally Elon Musk, who has in the past boosted Bukele’s calls to impeach US judges.Experts say Bukele’s latest intervention comes at a time of unprecedented threats to judicial independence and individual judges in the US, and in a period where the Trump administration is employing the same authoritarian tactics used by authoritarians in countries such as Turkey, Hungary, India and Bukele’s own El Salvador to subvert democratic accountability.Bukele’s online call last week was just the latest in a long series of taunts and allegations he has made against the US’s legal system, including a March claim that the US was “facing a judicial coup”, and his mockery of a federal judge’s order to halt deportation flights sending accused illegal immigrants to his country’s brutal prison system.Bukele’s impeachment call was also made amid social media attacks on Oregon federal judge Karin Immergut by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, attorney general Pam Bondi, Musk, and Trump himself in a recent press gaggle.Immergut had issued restraining orders preventing Trump from mobilizing the national guard, first in Oregon then in California. Trump has been gunning to send troops into Portland, which the president has characterized as “war-ravaged” on the basis of small, non-violent protests outside the city’s homeland security facility.Miller, Bondi and Musk have a long record of attacking judges who have ruled against Trump’s executive orders or otherwise impeded the administration’s political agenda. Before resuming office this year, Trump directed his followers against judges presiding over his civil and criminal trials, who were then deluged with threats and harassment.Monitoring groups, law enforcement agencies and judges themselves have pointed to a heightened atmosphere of threats and intimidation in the months since he re-entered the White House.According to data gathered by the US Marshals Service, in 2025 through to the end of September, there were 562 threats to 395 federal judges, giving rise to 805 investigations. 2025 has already eclipsed 2022, the first year of published records, and 2024, and is on track to exceed 2023’s record of 630 threats made.The threats are not just happening at the federal level. Data from Princeton’s Bridging Divides Initiative indicates that there have been at least 59 instances of threats, harassment, stalking, or violence committed against judges on the local level in 2025.Experts say that the threats are a product of the rhetoric coming from senior administration figures.In May, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) published a detailed report alleging that “malicious and highly irresponsible statements from Trump administration members and allies coincide with escalating violent posts on social media”. It recorded “a 54% increase in calls for impeachment and violent threats against judges across social media platforms from January to February 2025, the first full month of Trump’s administration”.Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of GPAHE, said: “Trump’s threats against judges have definitely driven online vitriol at judges and calls for impeachment. Targeting the judiciary is one more step in Trump’s march towards authoritarianism.”That march towards authoritarianism has been well-trodden in recent years in several countries, including by Bukele.In 2021, immediately after commencing a second term in the face of constitutional prohibitions, Bukele’s parliamentary loyalists voted to dismiss the country’s attorney general and five justices on the constitutional court. The judges, who had provoked his ire by ruling against coronavirus measures, made way for replacements hand picked by Bukele.The move echoed Viktor Orbán’s remodeling of Hungary’s court system in 2018; Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s judicial purges in 2019; and attempts at similar moves in Israel and Poland.Experts say that the threats and rhetorical attacks in the US can be seen as attempts to undermine judicial independence in a system that offers no easy way for the executive to dismiss judges Trump disapproves of.Meghan Leonard, an associate professor at Illinois State University who has researched authoritarian backsliding in democracies, said the Trump administration had learned from the examples set by authoritarians overseas.“The administration is looking around at these successes and failures. They know they’re not going to be able to pass any legislation that would weaken the judiciary,” she said.Pointing to examples such as Miller’s relentless assertions of nearly limitless presidential authority, she added: “They directly attack the judiciary by repeating over and over that it is not a co-equal branch in the separation of powers.“They continue to reframe the debate by repeating their claim that the president has more power than this other co-equal branch, which is not how separation powers work.”Leonard said: “Judges’ only protection is people’s belief in the legitimacy of their ability to make those decisions. Individual threats on top of weakening institutional legitimacy may make judges think twice about decisions that go against the current administration, which is, of course, massively problematic for judicial review and for democracy.”Kim Lane Scheppele, professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University, has written about the use of “autocratic legalism“ by the likes of Orbán and Putin, and has spoken out about escalating threats to judges in the US.She pointed to a wave of so-called “pizza doxxings“ this year, in which judges have received unsolicited pizza deliveries with the recipient listed as Daniel Anderl, the son of Judge Esther Salas, who was killed at the judge’s home in 2020 by a gunman targeting Salas.“Everyone understands what it means. ‘We know where you live. ‘We’re coming for you,’” Scheppele said.“Federal judges are protected by the Secret Service and the Marshals Service. And those are both specialized police units that sit institutionally inside the Department of Justice. And Pam Bondi has been leading the attacks on federal judges”On the administration’s aims, Scheppele said that “impeaching a federal judge is almost certainly not going to happen because it’s so hard to do. Right now, I don’t think that the desire of the Trump administration is to remove the judges via impeachment. It is to scare the judges enough to get some of them to think twice about ruling against the administration.”She said: “Bukele knows how to play that game. He’s very skilled at it. I’m not surprised that he’s annotating the US crisis and cheering on Trump. He knows that Trump lives online; he’s also currying favor.”Beirich said: “It’s not surprising that someone like Bukele would do this, or Hungary’s Orbán, given their autocratic behavior. But an American president supposedly supportive of democracy should know better.” More

    • 163 Shares161 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats are captive to outdated etiquette. It’s endangering democracy | Ryan W Powers

      by

      In early August, dozens of Democratic lawmakers fled Texas for Illinois, denying Republicans the quorum needed to pass new congressional maps projected to give the party as many as five additional seats. Their absence paralyzed the state legislature, turning a walkout into political resistance and drawing national attention.As the standoff dragged on, Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, offered an unorthodox countermove: a proposal to suspend his state’s independent redistricting commission and draw maps designed to hand Democrats a comparable advantage. He unveiled the plan with spectacle, mimicking Donald Trump’s signature style through all-caps declarations, a mocking nickname for White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt (“KaroLYIN”) and AI-generated celebrity endorsements.While Texas Democrats ultimately returned and the Republican redistricting plan has advanced, Newsom has been cast as the emerging leader of Democratic opposition to Trump. Why did it take the party nine months to find one?It wasn’t for lack of need. Just last summer, Trump ousted independent agency heads who contradicted his narrative, deployed the national guard to Washington DC against the mayor’s wishes and granted the attorney general license to enlist the justice department in partisan battles. Each step pushed democratic norms closer to the breaking point.The real answer is that the most powerful liberal institutions – the Democratic establishment, major donors and the professional class around them – are captive to outdated etiquette. They prize agreeability as an end in itself: disruption is discouraged, compromise exalted, restraint worn as a badge of honor. And because these institutions shape liberal culture from the top down, their attachment to niceties dulls urgency and narrows the space for bold, breakout leadership.What makes Newsom unique is his willingness to defy convention when circumstances demand it. The lesson is not in his theatrics, but in the reminder that strategically breaking norms can sometimes accomplish more than following them.California’s independent redistricting commission is written into the state constitution, which means Newsom’s proposal cannot advance without voter approval in November. Even if successful, redistricting alone is only a stopgap. The deeper fight is cultural: whether the Democratic establishment can break its attachment to rigid politeness before democracy withers.The stakes are not theoretical. The Trump administration has undermined judicial independence, hollowed out federal agencies and run straight through one of elite liberalism’s most entrenched institutions: big law.For decades, elite law firms have been essential to Democrats, supplying both the funding and talent that sustains the party’s infrastructure. Yet when faced with punitive executive orders, some of these very institutions – once defenders of liberal democracy – folded, signing settlement deals that critics have labeled unconstitutional and undemocratic.Until recently, I was an associate at a big law firm. After publishing an op-ed about the constitutional dangers of a Trump-Palantir partnership – implicating my firm’s client Trump Media, and a former client, Palantir – I was warned that continuing to speak out could cost me my job. What came next was more interesting: a test of how far one act of dissent could ripple through a system built to contain it.Instead of leaving quietly, I challenged big law publicly. I announced my firing on Instagram with a caption that began “Candidly, I’m disgusted” and concluded with a stern rebuke of big law’s surrender to Trump “in shadowy back rooms, on billion-dollar yachts”. The post was raw, even theatrical, but its real purpose was to spotlight a more substantive op-ed I had written on the corporate legal sector’s complicity in democratic backsliding.Within hours, the post went viral. Political commentators with a combined audience of more than 10 million amplified it on social media, and leading legal publications picked up the story. The op-ed drew more than 50,000 readers, including Fortune 500 CEOs, non-profit leaders and the dean of Harvard Law School. Even the prominent legal scholar Laurence Tribe shared the piece.What began as a messy act of dissent had become legitimized critique. Some elites may have clutched their pearls at the breach of decorum, but the spectacle renewed debate over big law’s role in creeping authoritarianism.In elite liberal spaces, the expectation is always the same: stay quiet, exit gracefully, never make a scene. Yet nonviolent unruliness has power precisely because it breaks the code of composure. Psychologists call this the “expectancy violations theory”: when behavior defies what’s anticipated, it commands outsized attention and carries significant weight. That impact is magnified when it comes from insiders with status or access.This dynamic suggests that liberalism’s best strategy is to subvert its own norms. Critics may argue that spectacle undermines substance, or that breaking etiquette diminishes the credentials that lend Democrats authority. But in today’s attention economy, spectacle is often how substance gets noticed. Breaking strict decorum is not the enemy of liberalism; it may be the very tool that keeps it alive.Elections bear this out. In Wisconsin’s supreme court race this year, the candidate Susan Crawford broke from traditional judicial etiquette. She waged a decisively bold campaign, labelling her opponent Brad Schimel “a rightwing extremist” and mocking him as “Elon Schimel” in light of his endorsement by the controversial tech billionaire. Behavior that might once have seemed undignified instead helped drive record turnout and carried her to a decisive victory.By contrast, in Ohio’s 2022 Senate race, the US representative Tim Ryan built a campaign on moderation and convention, presenting himself as a steady unifier. That strategy failed to resonate with the electorate, overshadowed by the deliberately unorthodox and provocative campaign of his opponent, JD Vance, now the vice-president.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe cult of congeniality has left Democrats out of touch. Their resistance, defined by hollow gestures like waving “No King!” and “Save Medicaid” signs on the House floor, only underscores how mismatched the party is to the moment. The reason is clear: politics has evolved, but the Democratic establishment still clings to the Obama-era script of unwavering politeness and reserve that now defines a bygone age.That era ended with the mainstream embrace of rightwing populism. In the late 2000s, the Tea Party clawed its way into the national spotlight by angrily heckling Democratic lawmakers, parading AR-15s outside political events and staging unruly rallies on the National Mall. The movement dominated headlines, heavily influencing the Republican party’s agenda and showing that unruliness itself could confer political legitimacy. By the 2010 midterms, Republicans had turned that ethos into an electoral strategy and managed to flip 63 House seats, the party’s largest gain since 1948.If the Tea Party proved that disrupting norms could win elections, Trump showed that it could seize an entire party. Once a familiar face on red carpets and network television, he built a political base by rejecting etiquette: apparently mocking a reporter’s disability live on stage, attacking a federal judge’s ethnic background and urging supporters to use physical force against protesters at his rallies. Acts that might once have disqualified a candidate instead became evidence that longstanding norms were now optional.Even so, Democrats should not use rightwing populism as a blueprint. That approach is rooted in demolition: attacking institutions indiscriminately, sometimes through brute force. What’s needed instead is an approach rooted in defense: reinforcing institutions carefully and rejecting violence wholesale. When Nicole Collier, a Texas state representative, camped out in the House chamber, she was not attempting to upend the legislature. She was pushing back against a Republican power play that threatened its integrity.Skeptics may argue that this style of politics risks alienating moderates or deepening division. But unruliness is not an end in itself: it is a temporary shock meant to restore democratic vitality. Here, abandoning etiquette is less about breaking order than resetting it. As the economist Karl Polanyi observed, such interruptions act like an immune response, jolting institutions back to health so decorum can return.Of course, bold disruption carries risk. Breaking composure can cost reputations, careers, even relationships. From Harry Belafonte, ostracized by Hollywood and mainstream media for defiant civil rights activism, to Larry Kramer, rejected by his peers for uncompromising Aids advocacy, history shows that those who put action above etiquette often paid dearly. But sacrifice itself – the willingness to acceptance consequences – is what transforms dissent into political pressure.The task now is to channel deliberate, nonviolent unruliness into strategy. Trump’s return to the White House made clear that authoritarianism does not yield to decorum. Voters recognize this: a recent survey found that nearly three-quarters of Democrats believe their leaders aren’t fighting hard enough. Newsom has now stepped forward, with Kathy Hochul, the New York governor, and Obama himself – the onetime apostle of gentility – lending their support. Breaking ranks will not always succeed, but caution all but ensures defeat. The choice is plain: abandon outdated norms, or watch democracy slip away.What’s giving me hope nowWhat gives me hope are the people living out Jane Goodall’s final lesson: that hope is a discipline we practice together, not a feeling we hold alone. The ones who show up at town halls, register young people to vote and lean into the small, human bonds that keep hope alive. Connection is everything.

      Ryan W Powers is a legal analyst who writes a weekly newsletter on democracy, dissent and the law More

    • 200 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Using us as political pawns’: federal workers reel over threats of firings and withheld back pay

      by

      With no end of the federal government shutdown in sight, an estimated 750,000 workers remain furloughed. Hundreds of thousands more are working without pay. They are being “held hostage by a political dispute”, according to union leaders, as Republicans and Democrats remain deadlocked.In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Donald Trump suggested that furloughed employees would not necessarily receive back pay – despite a legal guarantee – prompting further unease throughout the federal workforce. “There are some people that don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way,” the US president said.The administration, meanwhile, continues to threaten mass firings if Democrats stand by their demands. “If this keeps going on, it’ll be substantial,” Trump told reporters. “And a lot of those jobs will never come back.”On Friday, Russell Vought, the White House office of management and budget (OMB) director, announced on social media that layoffs had begun. Several federal agencies started announcing layoffs, but details remained scant on how many workers would be impacted.After a brutal year for the federal workforce, employees who spoke to the Guardian expressed growing anxiety over their pay – and the future of their jobs.“This is the third time I’ve been furloughed in my federal career,” said Priscilla Novak, a furloughed federal employee researcher. “But this is the first time there were threats of having people be fired en masse. I’ve been checking my email every day to see if I’m fired yet.”“Even before the shutdown, it’s just kind of been one thing after another for us,” said Peter Farruggia, a furloughed employee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “I think a lot of us are expecting the worst, hoping for the best.”“Not knowing when my next paycheck is going to get here is definitely very daunting,” Farruggia, also executive committee chair of AFGE Local 2883, which represents CDC workers, added. “But at least I paid rent this month, so that was probably the most important thing. If some of my other bills go by the wayside, then it is what it is, and I don’t really have any other options to seek out.”“What I’m hearing is a lot of anxiety, confusion, and chaos,” said Brent Barron, a US Department of Labor employee who serves as president of the National Council of Field Labor Locals, which represents workers at the department outside Washington DC. Some staffers don’t even know whether they’re furloughed or not, he claimed, let alone “whether or not they’re going to continue to have a job” for much longer.“There are a lot of employees out there that can’t even miss one check, let alone have this thing drag on for weeks and weeks and weeks,” said Barron. About three-quarters of the labor department has been furloughed. “All we want to do is do our jobs.”A law signed by Trump during his first term, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, guarantees all federal workers receive retroactive back pay once a government shutdown is over.“It really baffles me that this administration can just flaunt whatever law and say they don’t have to follow it,” said Barron. “This is a law that was passed in 2019 by Congress and signed by the president. And we all know who was president in 2019.”Trump officials are now facing calls to clarify that the federal government will follow the law, and ensure that every furloughed employee receives back pay.“Given the clarity of the law, there is no place for the Administration to backpedal on its obligation to pay furloughed workers,” labor unions and Democracy Defenders Fund, a watchdog group, wrote to the OMB on Wednesday. “The Administration’s statements appear to be a naked attempt at inflicting pain on innocent parties to gain advantage in the shutdown.”OMB is led by Vought, an architect of the rightwing Project 2025 blueprint. In a private speech in 2023, Vought spoke of wanting to put officials “through trauma” to reduce the capacity of the federal government. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work.”As the administration continues to threaten mass layoffs, raising the prospect of further cuts beyond the 300,000 federal employees set to be removed from the government by the end of this year through firings and attrition programs, officials have also been ordered by a federal judge to provide specifics on the status of any layoff plans, the agencies affected, and whether any federal employees have been recalled to work to carry out reductions in force.“The American people and the workers who keep this country running are being held hostage by a political dispute, by a petty political dispute that they have nothing to do with,” Greg Regan, president of the AFL-CIO’s transportation trades department, said during a press conference this week. “This is entirely vindictive and the only victims are going to be this country.“We’ve all seen the reports every single time we go through this stupid process of a shutdown, how much the American taxpayers lost. It’s a drain on our economy. It’s a drain on our safety. It’s a drain on the people that live here. So we need to put this to an end.”‘People cannot focus on their jobs’Almost all Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees are required to work without pay during shutdowns, in a bid to minimize the threat of disruptions at key travel hubs like airports.The uncertainty has been particularly unnerving for newer, lower-paid employees, according to Cameron Cochems, a lead TSA officer and vice-president for AFGE Local 1127, which represents the administration’s employees in Idaho.Workers are worried about when they start missing paychecks, he said, adding that several have asked where to get low interest loans to float them through missed paychecks.“It feels kind of like there’s just a train coming and you can hear the whistle blowing, but every day it gets a little closer and closer to us,” Cochems told the Guardian. “And right now we can barely hear the whistle because we’re still focused on our jobs, we’re still focused on the mission, which is protect the nation’s transportation system to ensure freedom of movement for people in commerce.“But once that paycheck doesn’t come, I think that that train whistle is going to get louder in everyone’s heads, and it could get so loud that people cannot focus on their job because they’re focusing on things like ‘The bank is calling me for the fifth time today’, or ‘I don’t know how to pay for my daycare,’ things like that.”Threats made about federal workers not being entitled to back pay by Trump and his top officials have heightened anxieties and fears and “thrown a lot more people for a loop, especially the people that are disadvantaged, single parents or living paycheck to paycheck”, added Cochems.“It just feels like they’re intentionally using us as political pawns, and they intentionally want to make our jobs and lives unstable,” he said.“Even worse than morale is the future implication for how our government runs,” added Novak. “I think having a strong civil service that is not politically motivated is the most effective to render modern services for our citizens. Furloughed workers want to go back to work. We need Congress to pass a budget.”The White House and office of management and budget did not respond to multiple requests for comment. More

    • 175 Shares116 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: US troops will be paid despite shutdown, president claims

      by

      Donald Trump claimed he had found a way to pay US military troops despite the federal government shutdown, saying he had instructed his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to release funds.Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote: “I am using my authority, as commander-in-chief, to direct our secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our troops PAID on October 15.”The government shutdown began on 1 October and is the first since a 35-day closure that happened in December 2018 and extended into the new year during Trump’s first presidential term. There were close calls but no shutdowns during Joe Biden’s presidential term.Trump says military members will be paid despite shutdownThe US president said he had identified the funds to make the payments to troops happen, adding: “I will not allow the Democrats to hold our military, and the entire security of our nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous government shutdown. The radical left Democrats should OPEN THE GOVERNMENT.”Read the full storyTrump and Egyptian president to chair Gaza peace summitDonald Trump and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, are due to chair a Gaza peace summit with several world leaders in Egypt’s Red Sea resort city of Sharm El Sheikh on Monday afternoon.The meeting will take place “with the participation of leaders from more than 20 countries”, the Egyptian presidency said.Read the full storyDemocrats refuse to fold over shutdown as Republican outrage buildsThe Democratic party is sticking to its guns on healthcare and says it is willing to hold out amid the government shutdown – much to the delight of its progressive supporters.Read the full storyNational guard troops in Illinois can remain but not deploy yet, judge rulesThe national guard troops Donald Trump sent to Illinois can remain in the state and under federal control but cannot be deployed, an appeals court ruled on Saturday.The appeals court granted a pause in the case until it can hear further arguments.Read the full storyTrump wants to seem pro-worker – but actions suggest otherwiseUnpaid forced leave and mass firings are hardly the first things to spring to mind as hallmarks of a golden age of the American worker.Yet these were the possibilities floated by Donald Trump this week as he addressed a government shutdown that began on 1 October and is showing no imminent sign of ending.Read the full storyHow Trump and allies are exploiting Kirk’s killingDonald Trump and Maga allies have capitalized on the killing of rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk to expand attacks on liberal groups, donors, Democrats, and others by tarring many critics as the “enemy within” and “radical left” in a move that legal scholars and historians call authoritarian and anti-democratic.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with Ivanka Trump, addressed a rally in Hostages Square in Tel Aviv. Witkoff said Israeli hostages held in Gaza were coming home.

      The French president, Emmanuel Macron, will travel to Egypt on Monday for talks on the peace plan presented by Donald Trump to end the war in Gaza, the Élysée Palace said.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 10 October. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says military members will be paid despite government shutdown

      by

      Donald Trump claimed on Saturday that he has found a way to pay US military troops despite the ongoing federal government shutdown, saying he has instructed his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to release funds.Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote: “I am using my authority, as commander-in-chief, to direct our secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our troops PAID on October 15.”Trump said he had identified the funds to make the payments happen, adding: “I will not allow the Democrats to hold our military, and the entire security of our nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous government shutdown. The radical left Democrats should OPEN THE GOVERNMENT.”The recent federal government shutdown began on 1 October and is the first since a 35-day closure that happened in December 2018 and extended into the new year during Trump’s first presidential term. The shutdown came as Democrats were looking to regain their footing with voters, who re-elected Trump last year and relegated them to the minority in both chambers of Congress.More than 1.3 million military personnel across the country would not have received their first post-shutdown paychecks this month, only getting paid for the 21-30 September period. An estimated 750,000 federal employees have also been furloughed.As the Hill reported, however, federal workers are generally paid once a shutdown ends, whether they are furloughed or working. After the last shutdown in 2018, Congress wrote into law that federal workers must be paid once the government reopens.On Thursday, the US Senate remained deadlocked on legislation to end the shutdown, even as Trump repeated his threat to make Democrats pay for the funding lapse that has closed federal agencies and furloughed employees across the nation.Speaking to Punchbowl News, the Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, expressed confidence in the strategy, saying: “Every day gets better for us.”The White House announced the layoffs of federal workers on Friday, following through with a threat it made to initiate the mass firings of government employees.A document filed with a federal court on Friday evening revealed that hundreds of layoffs took place across the executive branch, including about 315 at the Department of Commerce, 466 at the Department of Education and 187 at the Department of Energy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnion leaders warned the layoffs would have “devastating effects” on services relied upon by millions of Americans, and pledged to challenge the moves in court.“It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has used the government shutdown as an excuse to illegally fire thousands of workers who provide critical services to communities across the country,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 federal and DC government workers.After Russell Vought, the director of the White House office of management and budget, wrote on social media that “RIFs have begun”, referring to the government’s reduction-in-force procedure to let employees go, the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, responded, saying: “America’s unions will see you in court.”In a repost of Trump’s delivery of the news that he proposes to pay the military by 15 October, Hegseth responded: “President Trump delivers for the troops.” More