US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares128 Views

      in US Politics

      Now is not the time for the US or Europe to go it alone, warns Nato chief

      by

      Nato’s secretary general has told the US and Europe it is “not the time to go it alone” amid reports that Washington and some European leaders want to weaken their commitments to the transatlantic military alliance.Mark Rutte said in a speech in Warsaw that the US needed to be told that European countries would “step up” and lift their defence spending – while they needed to hear that Washington would not abandon them.“Let me be absolutely clear, this is not the time to go it alone. Not for Europe or North America,” said the Dutch head of the alliance. “The global security challenges are too great for any of us to face on our own. When it comes to keeping Europe and North America safe, there is no alternative to Nato.”Europe “needs to know that Uncle Sam still has our back”, Rutte continued, but in turn “America also needs to know that its Nato allies will step up. Without restrictions and without capability gaps” because “reassurance is a two-way street”.The 76-year-old alliance has come under intense pressure following the election of Donald Trump, most recently with key administration members complaining about European defence “free-loading” in a confidential chat on the Signal app that leaked when a journalist from the Atlantic was added to the group by mistake.On his first trip to Europe earlier this year, Pete Hegseth, the new defence secretary, said the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and signalled that cuts to the number of American troops in Europe were a possibility.Since then, some reports had suggested that the US was willing to relinquish its hold on the position of Nato’s top military commander, the supreme allied commander Europe (Saceur), a position first held by Dwight Eisenhower and currently held by Gen Christopher Cavoli, whose tour expires in the summer.One Nato source said that idea had been dropped. A second said the UK was particularly keen to ensure the US remains inside the alliance at a time when any sustained end to the fighting in Ukraine could allow Russia to distribute 600,000 troops elsewhere along member states’ eastern flank.On Friday last week, Trump himself appeared to dismiss the speculation. When asked directly about the US being prepared to give up the top military command, he replied that the alliance was “gone until I came along” before praising Rutte, his predecessor and European members for increasing defence spending.“Nato is solid, is strong but they have to treat us fairly,” the US president added.Another report suggested Europe’s leading military powers wanted to devise a plan to shift the financial and military burden to European capitals over the next five to 10 years and present it to the US, amid worries about whether Washington would come to the defence of Europe in a crisis.However, this idea was dismissed by British sources who argued that the idea that the US contribution to European security could be replaced in five years or so was “living in cloud cuckoo land”.Rutte said he recognised that “the US commitment to Nato comes with a clear expectation” and “that European allies and Canada take more responsibility for our shared security”. He said he would work towards developing this at the next leaders’ summit in The Hague in June.Nato members have begun to announce some increases in defence spending, with the UK promising to lift its budget from 2.33% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, starting with an extra £2.2bn next year. Germany has agreed to loosen its debt rules to allow for additional spending on defence under the incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz. More

    • 188 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump wants a Nobel peace prize. Here’s how he can earn one | Ken Roth

      by

      Donald Trump’s instinctive deference to the Israeli government is at odds with his self-image as an expert dealmaker. Much as it may seem laughable that the president wants the Nobel peace prize, his quest may be the best chance we have for securing any US government regard for the rights and lives of Palestinians in Gaza.Trump currently seems to endorse the strategy of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of trying to pummel Hamas into accepting defeat. To force Hamas to release its remaining hostages and to disband its diminished military force, Netanyahu has resumed Israel’s strategy of starving and bombing Palestinian civilians. In less than a week, about 600 Palestinians have already been killed.The second phase of the ceasefire was supposed to have led to the release of Hamas’s last hostages in return for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and a permanent end to the fighting. Instead, the Israeli government has unilaterally changed the terms. It wants the hostages released and Hamas dismantled without committing to end the war. Hamas has rejected that one-sided ultimatum, evidently worried that Netanyahu would then resume attacking Palestinian civilians unimpeded.This is not an idle fear. The point of the renewed attacks may not be simply to wrest concessions from Hamas. The vast majority of the hostages freed so far have been released after negotiations rather than by military action, and most families of the hostages, prioritizing survival of their loved ones, want a negotiated solution.Rather, Israel’s aim may be to advance the project of expelling Palestinian civilians from Gaza, the longtime dream of the Israeli far right. Already the defense minister, Israel Katz, is threatening to seize and annex parts of Gaza, and Netanyahu is reportedly planning a new and larger ground invasion. Now that Trump has endorsed the forced permanent deportation of 2 million Palestinians from Gaza – a massive war crime and crime against humanity – Netanyahu may feel he has a green light to pursue that callous strategy.Tellingly, the far-right Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir has rejoined Netanyahu’s governing coalition as police minister now that the temporary ceasefire, which he opposed, has ended. Head of the pro-settler, nationalist-religious Jewish Power party, Ben-Gvir has long been unabashed about his desire to “solve” the conflict in Gaza by getting rid of the Palestinians. And we should recognize that Gaza would most likely be just a prelude to the occupied West Bank.In these circumstances, a deal with Hamas seems unlikely. Why would Hamas capitulate if that would permanently separate the Palestinian people from their homeland?Netanyahu and Trump may calculate that overwhelming military force, if applied with sufficient brutality, would force Hamas’s hand. That has long been the Israeli strategy. Trump has even resumed delivery of the enormous 2,000lb bombs that Joe Biden had suspended because Israel was using them to indiscriminately decimate entire Palestinian neighborhoods.The international criminal court prosecutor has already hinted that this indiscriminate bombardment may be the next focus of his war-crime charges. Trump himself would be at risk of being charged for aiding and abetting these atrocities – an eventuality that would not lead to his immediate jailing but would severely limit his ability to travel to the 125 governments that as members of the ICC would have an obligation to arrest him. (Trump might ask Vladimir Putin about how it felt not to be able to attend the August 2023 Brics summit in South Africa for fear of arrest.)Hamas has so far shown no inclination to succumb to this war-crime strategy, and the surrounding Arab states have rejected becoming a party to another Nakba, the catastrophic forced displacement of Palestinians in 1948. The big question is whether Trump comes to recognize that a deal, not forced surrender, is the most likely way out of the current horrors in Gaza that he had vowed to end.For now, Trump’s deference to Israel seems firm, but one should never take anything for granted with Trump. If there is any constant to his rule, it is that his self-interest overcomes concern for others.That’s where the Nobel prize comes in. If Trump wants to be known as the master of the deal, it won’t be by underwriting more Israeli war crimes.Trump alone has the capacity to force Netanyahu to adopt a different approach. Despite Israel’s dependence on US military assistance, Netanyahu got away with ignoring Biden’s entreaties to curb the starvation and slaughter of Palestinian civilians because the Israeli leader knew that the Republican party had his back. But Trump has become the Republican party. If he pressures Israel, Netanyahu has nowhere to the right to turn.That is how Trump played a decisive role in securing the temporary ceasefire that began shortly before his 20 January inauguration. He could do the same thing now to force Netanyahu toward a more productive, less inhumane path.What might that look like? The best option remains a two-state solution – an Israeli and Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side. The main alternatives would be rejected by Israel (recognition of the “one-state reality” with equal rights for all) or most everyone else (the apartheid of endless occupation).The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has said that he will not normalize relations with Israel, which Trump craves, without a Palestinian state. Both the Saudis and the Emiratis have also insisted on a state as a condition for financing the rebuilding of Gaza.But wouldn’t a Nobel peace prize for Trump be preposterous? No more so than the one granted, however controversially, to Henry Kissinger. He had directed or approved war crimes or mass atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor, Bangladesh and Chile, but the Nobel committee honored him nonetheless for concluding a peace deal with Vietnam and withdrawing US forces. A Trump pivot away from Netanyahu’s endless war would be no more surprising than Kissinger’s about-face.Admittedly, it would be foolhardy to bet on Trump becoming an advocate for a Palestinian state, but it is worth recognizing that his personal ambitions could lead him in that direction. It speaks to the topsy-turvy world of Trump that the Palestinians’ best hope in the face of an Israeli government that respects no legal bounds is to play up what it would take for Trump to secure his coveted Nobel. We must persuade Trump to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

      Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs, was recently published by Knopf and Allen Lane More

    • 188 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      What the accidentally leaked war group chat reveals about the Trump administration | Moira Donegan

      by

      Perhaps one of the greatest lessons of the Donald Trump era, for me, has been in learning the difference between being shocked and being surprised. And indeed it was a bit shocking to learn, via an essay published by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, that a high-profile journalist had been included on a chat on the commercial messaging app in which a military strike on the Houthi rebels in Yemen was coordinated – including discussions of the timing of the attack, debates about political messaging, personnel coordination and weapons to be used – seemingly without anyone noticing that he was there.It was shocking that their incompetence was so fortuitous – that the person they included, seemingly accidentally, in their unsecured group chat about war plans was someone so uniquely equipped to broadcast their idiocy to a large audience. But it was in no way surprising that members of the Trump administration are behaving with such recklessness, shortsightedness, indifference to responsibility or peevish sadism. Of course they’re planning overseas bombings in a group chat, I thought when I first read Goldberg’s account. Because we live in an age where the people with the superlative power are those who are least temperamentally suited for it; because the stupidity of this White House outpaces any attempt at parody; and because these guys are exactly as dumb in real life as they look on television.The story goes like this: as part of its backing of Israel’s wars in the Middle East, the Trump administration sought to strike against Houthi rebels, a coalition of Yemeni militants and pirates who have been attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea in an attempt to pressure the west to stop supporting Israel’s war on Palestinians. Trump authorized a military strike on a scale more lethal and less precise than those that had previously been launched by the Biden administration; according to a Signal user identified as JD Vance, the president wanted to “send a message” and convey strength on the world stage. In the chat, no other strategic rationale for the strike was offered.Such operations are supposed to be planned in secret, so that neither the targets, nor foreign governments, nor members of the media are aware of them ahead of time; the secrecy is what keeps the military personnel who carry out these strikes safe from some threats to their lives, and what allows the US to carry out its objectives unprompted. But the planning is also supposed to be documented, as much federal action is, to comply with records-keeping requirements.The resulting measures can be intense: often, to discuss classified matters, high-ranking federal officials enter safe rooms equipped with anti-surveillance technology, in which they are not allowed to take their phones; at other times, they are only permitted to discuss such matters on specially secured government-issued devices. (Signal, according to Goldberg, is not downloadable on these government devices, meaning that the administration officials in the chat were using their personal phones.) These are measures that have been put in place in order to protect interests that are worth protecting: to guard against foreign intelligence agencies (or, for that matter, magazine editors) learning of America’s plans, to keep Americans safe, to comply with records-keeping laws. Abiding by them is a sign of respect – both for the power of the executive, and for the law.And so that’s not what the Trump administration did. Instead, in order to coordinate the military strike, which was apparently greenlit by Trump in an in-person meeting in the White House situation room, the national security adviser, Michael Waltz, created an enormous national security threat by convening a planning group on a commercial messaging app.Why did the Trump officials use Signal for this, of all things? The reality is that they’re probably using it for a lot; the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which has become something of a handbook for the Trump regime, recommends using private apps to conduct official business, so as to evade records-keeping laws. Signal is an app that is marketed for its privacy and message-disappearing features: a single member of a chat can mark messages to be deleted, permanently, for all members. (In another seemingly illegal move, Waltz reportedly set the messages in the war-planning group chat to disappear after a matter of weeks.)If the Trump administration’s members are habitually using Signal to conduct official business, the danger is not only that any foreign intelligence agency worth their salt (or any journalist who happens to benefit from their incompetence) could be listening in with relative ease. It’s that the records-keeping apparatus that is meant to preserve such conversations could not reach and document them – meaning that the use of Signal would specifically make such sensitive national security information more accessible to foreign adversaries and less accessible to historians and journalists here in the US.The content of the chats themselves is grim, too, providing an insight into the petty and eager social dynamics within Trump’s inner circle and the administration’s principle-thin commitment to any understanding of policy. Vance pipes up to suggest delaying the strike; he claims to be worried about public opinion on the issue, and complains that an attack on the Houthis would provide economic benefits to Europe, who he wants to punish for some reason. He does not seem to feel he has enough clout to actually oppose the strike, however, undermining his own complaints with caveats that he will defer to others.The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, chimes in, clearly thinking he’s supposed to be the center of attention, to eagerly but insubstantially support Vance’s points before pivoting to saying he wants to go ahead with the strike anyway. He has the cringing eagerness of a personality hire: he wants to be seen talking, but doesn’t really have much to say.Stephen Miller, Trump’s surrogate in the chat, says, bizarrely, that Europe will be made to compensate America for the strike at some later date, reflecting the Trumpian vision of all politics as an extortion racket to extract money, favors, or – perhaps more to the point – shows of deference. Everyone defers to Miller immediately. It is a group of very stupid people, trying to create post-hoc justifications for something their boss told them to do, not thinking too hard about what they’re actually doing – which is killing people.There is a risk, in talking about the Trump administration’s decision to plan a military strike over a Signal group chat in which they accidentally included a prominent journalist, of making it seem like the only problem with the administration’s actions was in their breach of confidentiality and decorum.But the controversy that erupted about the Signal chat after Goldberg revealed his inclusion on Monday seemed almost to overshadow the strategic folly and moral depravity of the strike itself: a reckless escalation in a volatile region that risked provoking Iran, the Houthi’s backer and a nuclear state, and which took the lives of 53 human beings, including five children. That the strike seems to have been planned in a way that endangered national security and violated several federal laws should not blind us to the fact that the strike itself was stupid.But there is something in the story of the accidentally leaked war secrets group chat that speaks to the essence of the second Trump administration: its cavalier incompetence, its contempt for human life, its fealty to grievance and resentment, indifference to consequence, and jeering, jocular enthusiasm for violence. It shows us something about the Trump administration that we have previously seen only rarely: what they act like when they think they are in private. It’s not a pretty sight.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares137 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is offended by a painting of himself. For once, I get where he’s coming from | Dave Schilling

      by

      While his friends are getting messy in the group chat, Donald Trump simply has more important things on his mind. Namely, himself. The United States’ war plans are being divulged to journalists like gossip on a second-rate Real Housewives spinoff, but the focus of the American president is squarely on a painting of himself that he doesn’t care for. Trump posted on Truth Social, his personal squawk box for various grievances, that he takes umbrage with a depiction of his face in the Colorado state capitol.The painting depicts Trump as full-faced, cherubic and without wrinkles. He almost looks younger, like a large baby in a suit. A boss baby, if you will. You might assume that at 78, Trump would jump at the chance to shave a few years off his face, but sadly, it seems he’d prefer to look like he was lit by the director of photography from Nosferatu.If I had to put my art critic hat on, I’d say Trump almost looks regal in the Colorado painting. Squint, and he resembles Henry VIII after a shave. You’d think he’d be flattered by that association. After all, Henry VIII had twice the number of wives Trump has. So far.But no, the ire of Trump came down fully on Sunday – and the painting was swiftly removed. “Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,” Trump said in his social media post.The state of Colorado is an easy target for Trump. He lost it by 11 points in 2024. The governor, Jared Polis, is a Democrat. The painting was actually crowdfunded in large part by Republicans, but even then, for Trump, it was a perceived insult. And Trump is the kind of person to perceive insults around every corner.“The artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst,” he continued. I’m sure that compliment for Obama was one he typed with stubby-fingered frustration. No one should be getting the royal treatment but him. In a sense, that’s the most relatable thing about the man.Take a photo of me without my consent and chances are I will be horrified by the finished product – angles that make me look heavier, show off my ever-expanding bald spot or generally remind me of what I actually look like. The worst pictures are the ones that capture you in some gruesome motion – chewing your food, preparing to launch into a conversation or scratching some intimate area on your body. We’re used to our reversed image in a mirror, our own personal fantasyland where we can pick and choose how we see our flip-flopped face to ensure we leave the house with some semblance of self-esteem intact. Photos reveal what people – strangers and familiars alike – actually see when they look at us: the facial tics, the gestures, the lumps and bumps and frown lines.Worse yet is a painting or drawing. That anyone submits to one of those exaggerated drawings from carnivals or the beach is beyond me. Why would you want a caricature of you drawn by someone you’ve never met, giving you a giant head and a pair of rollerblades or a large pencil? Maybe someone should get one of these for Trump and see if he prefers it to the Henry VIII boss baby painting. “Sir, we thought you’d like this drawing of you surfing while wearing a backwards baseball hat and carrying a puppy in one hand.”There’s a caricature drawing of me on the wall of a bar in Los Angeles called Capri Club, if you ever find your way out here. My drawing sits among those of other regular patrons and luminaries of the neighborhood. It’s based off of a photo of me in front of said bar, having a martini. The moment captured is a lovely memory for me of a summer night well spent with friends and cocktails. The drawing, on the other hand, gives me deep anxiety. I look puffy, for starters. My substantial, jowly cheeks seem to grow every time I look at it, as though I have Dorian Gray-ed myself inside this bar. It’s very clearly me up there, but it’s not who I see myself to be. Granted, if I drew myself, I’d just be a wobbly stick with a circle for a head. So perhaps I shouldn’t be giving notes to artists.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe very act of existing is to perceive and to be perceived, often without you even knowing it. I am pained when I think about how other people look at me. I know I’m not alone in that self-conscious whinging and navel-gazing. I wish I could blithely ignore the cacophony of doubt, but I can’t manage it, and countless people in the world feel the same way.Perhaps that’s why I’m mildly shocked Trump is so concerned with how he looks in a painting in Colorado. This is a man who tells the world he never doubts himself, that he is resolute in his decision-making and is always in control. The first few months of his second term in office have been almost exclusively about proving how strong he is and that anyone who wrongs him will be punished.So why be so worried about a painting? Perhaps it’s that the painting exposes him, casts him as soft, childlike and ill-prepared to wear the clothes of an adult. His preferred image of himself is a backlit Batman villain rather than the backwards-aging Benjamin Button in Colorado. In that case, maybe the painting did its job.

      Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist More

    • 188 Shares197 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘There was no place for me in American society’: an ex-Black Panther cub speaks out

      by

      Hello and welcome to The Long Wave. This week, Guardian Documentaries has released a short film about the life and legacy of the Black Panthers with a focus on the group’s children. It was released alongside a Long Read by Ed Pilkington in the US on the wider group. I spoke to one of those cubs in the film, Ericka Abram, about her childhood within the activist community in the 1970s, and how her life was shaped by the experience. But first, the weekly roundup.‘I lived in a protected Panther bubble’View image in fullscreenThe first thing I notice about Ericka is that she is deliberate in her articulation and her responses are meticulously considered. She is also warm and quick-witted, with a flair for a killer line. She will not argue with people online about Donald Trump, she says, because it’s a waste of time to engage with a “bot, a baby or a bigot”.Ericka is the daughter of Elaine Brown, a former chair of the Black Panther party, and Raymond Hewitt, one of its leaders. She spent her early years in Oakland, California, and the Black Panther party she grew up in was not only a political organisation, but also a social one. The cubs lived in dormitories and had their own school. At weekends, they could return to a home where adult members of the party lived together and played an equal role in their care – “comrade moms” is how she describes the women she lived with.Ericka had no idea her childhood was anything out of the ordinary. Even though reporters showed up at their schools, and she had seen her mother and Huey Newton, the co-founder of the Black Panthers, on television, she did not have a sense of how outsiders perceived the party. I ask her if she was aware of the risks involved for her family and the wider network. “It just felt like family,” she says. Despite this, she shares a chilling story about her mother’s bodyguard stopping a seven-year-old Ericka from opening the door of their house and rebuking her, because he was the first person who should walk out, in case someone shoots.The full picture did not start to become clear until she was in high school, years after her mother left the party and took Ericka with her. She recalls someone once telling her: “Your mother is the only woman in US history to lead a paramilitary organisation.” Ericka says it was “strange” to hear her mum being described like that.She recalls a community that was deeply activist but also, perhaps counterintuitively, apolitical. Ericka tells me it often shocks people that she not only had no insights on the internal politics of the Black Panthers, but she had almost no idea what the party actually was. “The Black Panther party and the reasons it existed were unknown to me. [This is] because I wasn’t suffering racism or sexism; I lived in a protected Panther bubble.” The group participated in boycotts with farmworkers, who successfully secured better working conditions and union rights, and Ericka “hated” that party members couldn’t eat grapes and things she thought were delicious. But the boycotts were explained to her in such a way that she grasped that there were overlords who needed to be forced to play fair. She says from an early age she understood capitalism as synonymous with greed.View image in fullscreenLeaving that bubble was a sharp adjustment. When Ericka was eight her mother left the party and moved to Los Angeles, and the experience of attending a non-Black Panther school for the first time was full of conflict. “I had fights frequently – arguments with my teachers – most of it was about injustice. One teacher put me out of class because I said Australia was founded by prisoners and bigots or something like that. I was in seventh grade.” Another time she was ejected from class for sitting quietly during the pledge of allegiance. “I might not have understood the values that were raising me, but as soon as I was removed from them I needed them most,” she says.I ask how she adjusted to living in the mainstream. Her answer is unequivocal: “There was no place for me in American society.” That might have led to her finding refuge in drugs, says Ericka, who started using cocaine when she was 15. “I was trying to medicate a pain I didn’t understand. And living a life I hadn’t any intention of living.” As a child, she had assumed she would one day become a Black Panther. When that life did not come to pass, a profound sense of effacement took hold. “I developed this idea that unless I die for the people, my life was worthless,” she says. Growing up in an organisation with such a clear purpose raised the hurdle so high that one may as well not try to scale it. That’s what comes “from being raised by people who knew what they were willing to die for”, she says.I suggest that she is describing a sort of nihilism and erasure. Well, yes, is her answer. Ericka has always believed that individuals do not matter. “We were raised to believe we were precious – but we were precious for a purpose. I went to school with a kid called Bullet. I mean, there’s no pressure there.” Ericka says at times she felt she did not live up to expectations. As a teenager “I felt I had failed my mother,” she admits casually. I stop her. Why? “Because when we left [the Black Panther party] there was nothing to protect us from America. I thought I could protect her but I didn’t understand what that meant.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWith such a legacy, I wonder if she harbours any resentment towards her mother, or indeed that generation of Black Panther parents, for not preparing their children for life outside the party? “No,” she says, before I finish the question. “I didn’t feel resentment. But I remember I was about to start my sophomore year when Huey Newton was killed. I felt so alone. And I realised that I wasn’t mourning his death but that, even at the age of 19, some part of me thought that as long as he was alive, someone would still come and tell me what to do.” As she holds back tears, there is such plaintiveness and loss in her voice. For a moment, she is again that 19-year-old faced with figuring life out on her own.And it feels as if she has. Ericka’s sense of failure has been replaced by an understanding that what the Black Panthers signed up to was something exceptional. She refuses to call herself a cub, because a cub grows up to be a Panther. And she is not that. “They really did promise their lives to an ideal,” she says.The values she grew up with are serving her well during a tumultuous time in US political history. “I know that I see the world in a unique way,” Ericka says when I ask how the Black Panthers shaped her life. She understands now that the difference between “activists and revolutionaries is what you are willing to risk” – and that without solidarity, nothing can be achieved. The Black Panthers were not just seeking racial equality but interconnection between all who are suffering the depredations of state and capital. There is in Ericka a clear understanding that what it takes to stabilise politics in a country roiled by a second Trump administration is a combination of empathy but also resolve – action guided by love.The Black Panther Cubs: When the Revolution Doesn’t Come is out now. For more on this story read Ed Pilkington’s in-depth essay, here. And for an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the Guardian’s latest films as they release, sign up here to the Guardian Documentaries newsletter.To receive the complete version of The Long Wave in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here. More

    • 250 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      For the sake of US democracy, it’s time for Chuck Schumer to step down | Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin

      by

      In just two months, Donald Trump has launched an assault of staggering ferocity on America’s values, laws and people. The Democratic party faces a choice: does it lead the fight against authoritarianism and billionaire capture, or does it hunker down and hope the president implodes on his own? After last week’s legislative debacle, we’ve concluded that if Democrats want to fight, they need to replace the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, with someone who understands the stakes.Since November, our grassroots movement, Indivisible – led by regular people organizing nationwide – has been fighting back. Indivisible groups have pushed members of Congress, attended town halls, protested Elon Musk, and organized locally against Trump’s agenda. Everywhere we go – red, blue or purple – people ask why Democratic leadership doesn’t share their urgency.For months, we urged Senate Democratic leadership to use every tool at their disposal to fight back and raise the alarm. We asked them to stay unified against Trump’s nominees – a cabinet of billionaires and extremists who openly flout the law. We asked them to organize against Maga bills such as the Laken Riley Act, which expands Trump’s mass deportation powers. We asked them to use every procedural tool to halt business as usual. All too often the response has been: “We’re in the minority, we don’t have the votes.”This argument collapsed with the passage of a funding bill packed with Maga priorities. The funding bill required 60 votes to pass, giving Democrats rare leverage. They could have demanded safeguards against Musk’s raid of the government or at least stopped Republicans from making things worse. This was perhaps their only real chance to take a stand this year.Under Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership, House Democrats overwhelmingly united to oppose the bill, forcing the House speaker, Mike Johnson, to pass it with Republican votes. Then it reached the US Senate, where Schumer initially vowed to block it – but reversed course within 24 hours and gave Republicans the votes they needed.This was bad policy and worse politics. History shows that the party demanding new concessions in a funding fight loses public support – and Republicans were the ones making demands. Republican leaders and Trump himself were openly thrilled with Schumer. House Democrats felt betrayed. Nancy Pelosi, a master legislative strategist, put it bluntly: “I myself don’t give away anything for nothing. I think that’s what happened.”Schumer’s defense was that avoiding a shutdown would prevent further damage and stop Trump’s rise. But those with the most at stake disagreed. Litigators fighting Trump’s legal battles said passing the continuing resolution hurt their cases more than a shutdown. The federal employees’ union acknowledged that while a shutdown would be painful, a blank check for Trump to continue his rampage was worse. Yes, a shutdown would be an opportunity for Trump to wreak havoc on federal agencies – but he is doing precisely that already while all the lights are on. From the Center for American Progress to House Democrats to Never Trumpers, a broad coalition agreed: Democrats needed to take a stand.Even if one accepted Schumer’s rationale, his lack of strategy was indefensible. He knew for months this would be the Democrats’ only leverage point. There was no excuse for entering the week without a plan or for undercutting House Democrats after they took a tough vote.The real reason for Schumer’s surrender was a mystery until this week. In an interview with Chris Hayes following the backlash, he was asked if we were facing a constitutional crisis. His response: “We’re not there yet.”It was a stunning admission. The problem isn’t just Schumer’s strategy – it’s his perception of reality. He is conducting business as usual while the country burns.After the Senate Democratic collapse, we called an emergency meeting with over 1,300 Indivisible leaders across the country. The reaction was near-universal: shock, despair and rage. Our leaders – who are holding “empty chair” town halls to pressure Republican lawmakers hiding from constituents – couldn’t understand why Schumer wouldn’t fight as hard as they are. They felt betrayed. Ultimately, 91% of local leaders across blue, red and purple states voted for Indivisible to call on Schumer to step down.We made this call in sorrow, not anger. We’ve worked closely with Schumer over the years. We appreciate his achievements. We like him personally. But the events of the last four months have made painfully clear that the Democratic party is not going to climb out of this hole by relying on the same people who led us into it. We need a leader who understands we’re in an emergency and acts like it. We need our leaders to match the fervor of the people rising up in defense of America.That leader can emerge if we create the opening. Schumer’s fate is no longer in his hands. The Democratic senators who can demand a new leadership election answer to us – their constituents. They will act if we speak up. We get the party we demand – and for the sake of our democracy, we must demand more.

      Leah Greenberg is the co-executive director of Indivisible

      Ezra Levin is the co-executive director of Indivisible More

    • 150 Shares98 Views

      in US Politics

      How to protect your phone and data privacy at the US border

      by

      Welcome to Opt Out, a semi-regular column in which we help you navigate your online privacy and show you how to say no to surveillance. The last column covered what to do with your 23andMe account after the company filed bankruptcy. If you’d like to skip to a section about a particular tip, click the “Jump to” menu at the top of this article.If you’re a visa or green card holder with plans to travel to the US, reports of people being turned away at airports over messages found on their devices might be prompting you to second-guess your travel plans. You might be asking whether Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search your phone, whether you can opt out and what you should do to minimize your risks.The short answer is that yes, CBP can search your devices. Constitutional protections are generally weaker at US borders, including airports. You can try to opt out, but depending on your specific circumstances, you might not be willing to risk the potential ramifications of not complying, which can include the confiscation of your devices.Privacy experts say everyone should conduct a personal risk assessment – which should include your immigration status, travel history and what data you might have on your phone. There’s not a one-size-fits all solution because data that may seem sensitive to some may not be to others, depending on your circumstances. That assessment might affect your calculus of whether to push back if CBP attempts to search your phone, for instance, or how much you want to lock down your devices before heading to the airport.While CBP said it only searched about 47,000 devices of the 420 million people who crossed the US border in 2024, experts the Guardian spoke to say border enforcement has been unpredictable under the Trump administration, so figuring out whether you’re at risk of a device search is not as straightforward as it once was. French officials said a French scientist was recently turned away at an airport in Texas because immigration officers found texts that were critical of Trump on his phone.“The super-conservative perspective is to assume they are completely unhinged and that even the most benign reasons for travel are going to subject non-citizens to these device searches,” said Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit digital rights group.If you’re a US citizen, you must be admitted into the country. That said, some jurisdictions allow CBP to work with the FBI or local police to advance domestic investigations, so there are still some risks of your devices being searched for domestic reasons.There are steps you can take to make it harder for CBP officers to access your device and the data on it. So what should you do to protect the data on your phone from being searched? The main thing is to prepare ahead of heading to the airport. Here is what you should be thinking about:Decide if you will comply with a phone searchBefore you travel, start to prepare for the possibility of being pulled into secondary screening. First, you should decide if you’re going to comply if an immigration officer asks if they can search your device. They may ask for your phone password or for you to unlock the device. Ideally, you would unlock the device yourself and not share your password. You can decide not to give your consent, but that does come with its own risks.From a guide to the border from the EFF: “This presents a no-win dilemma. If a traveler complies, then the agents can scrutinize and copy their sensitive digital information. If a traveler declines, then the agents can seize their devices and subject the traveler to additional questioning and detention.”It’s possible that, if you refuse the search, the officer might decide that you are not worth the trouble because you do not present a high risk. They might let you go. On the flip side, though, declining could make the process longer or could result in border agents confiscating your device. If they do confiscate your device, make sure you ask for a property receipt so you can document that they have your device when you try to get it back. Even if you don’t give up your password, immigration officials can use various tools on your device to unlock it themselves. They can also try to guess your password, so make sure you have a strong and long password.There are a lot of reasons you might not want to risk being held back longer than you already have been or risk having your device confiscated – including that you don’t know how long border agents will keep your phone.If you plan to comply with a phone search to avoid any further complications, your phone might be searched either manually or with forensic tools. It is worthwhile to prepare for both types of searches.Turn your phone and Face ID off before entering the USThe EFF recommends turning your devices completely off before entering the US. This could return your phone or laptop to a heightened security state and, as a result, could make it harder for anyone to break the encryption on your device.Privacy advocates also recommend making sure your device requires a password to decrypt or unlock. If you use Face ID or a fingerprint to unlock your phone, for instance, it would be easier for an officer to use it to gain access to your device.Do not wipe your phoneYou might think the most protective options are to completely wipe your phone before traveling, use a burner or travel without a phone. But the EFF’s Cope said that could actually raise suspicions.“People are damned if they do and damned if they don’t,” Cope said. “If you cross the border with no data on your device, that itself can be seen as suspicious.”Instead, if you want to seem cooperative but do have data or texts stored on your phone that you wouldn’t want to be accessed, Cope suggests deleting that information selectively rather than wiping your whole device.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEncrypt your data and use a strong passwordThe most important step to take before you travel is to encrypt the data on your device, which is different than using encrypted messaging services like Signal. Device encryption can make it harder for CBP officers to access files on your phone or laptop or recover deleted files, even if they confiscate the device and subject it to sophisticated forensic tools.Fortunately, all recent models of both iPhones and most Android phones come with full-device encryption automatically turned on. On an Android, double check that yours is on in the “advanced settings” tab of your “Security” menu. You will want to choose a strong password that is not easy to guess so CBP can’t walk in the front door to your device. Here’s a good primer on how to make a strong password.“This encryption is only as good as the encryption passphrase someone uses on their device, though,” said EFF senior staff technologist Bill Budington. “So the best advice is to choose a strong, nine- to 12-random-character (or four- to five-word) passphrase for the device, and make sure that biometric unlocks like Face ID or Touch ID are turned off when going through sensitive areas like checkpoints or somewhere your device could be confiscated.”Laptops, on the other hand, do not all come with full-device encryption. You can use the encryption tools some of them offer to encrypt your data. MacOS has a tool called FileVault, which you can access by searching for it in the top right corner of your screen, and some Windows computers come with a tool called Bitlocker, which can be used to encrypt your device. The EFF has a full list of tools you can use on various operating systems here.For those of you traveling with a device owned by your employer or someone else, you will want to make sure to have a conversation with them before you travel to ensure your device is sufficiently protected.How to securely delete your dataIn addition to encrypting your devices, you should delete any specific texts, apps, photos, etc that you feel are sensitive or you wouldn’t want a government agent to see.Securely deleting this data requires a few steps and comes with limitations. If you are not wiping your phone entirely, as that may raise suspicions, you will probably opt to delete specific files. That more practical option may be effective for a manual or cursory search but may not be sufficient in the event of a more advanced search by US immigration personnel. Files may not be fully deleted, or there may be references to these files that remain on your device.On top of ensuring your device is encrypted, you will want to make sure that you’ve deleted your files from any trash folders as well. On iMessage, for instance, if you click on “filters” in the top left corner you’ll find a “recently deleted” folder. Make sure you’ve cleared texts from there as well. On iPhones, once a file is deleted from both the main iMessage interface and the “recently deleted” file, it is permanently deleted, according to the company.Cope suggests pre-emptively deleting some apps your don’t want to be searched. This protective method is imperfect because an advanced search could reveal that an app was installed, but it would be a way to avoid having your WhatsApp messages searched, for instance, in the case of a manual search.Move things on to a cloud storage serverDuring law enforcement searches inside the boundaries of the US, a cloud storage server is not more protected than your devices. At the border, however, there are currently policies in place that prohibit CBP from searching online cloud services. In practice, that means that immigration officers will have to put your phone in airplane mode before searching it.“They do specifically say officers are only authorized to look at data that are ‘resident on the device’,” Cope said. “So that is data that is actually on the hard drive of your phone, laptop or camera. They’re supposed to disconnect it from the internet, if it’s an internet-connected device.”If you have data that you don’t want to or can’t delete permanently for any reason, you can delete it off your device and store it on your cloud storage like iCloud, Google Drive or Microsoft One Drive.This is a high-level guide that may not touch on the specifics of your situation. For a full comprehensive guide on how to protect your devices at US borders, please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation. More

    • 188 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A capitalistic cowardice’: big law firms being threatened by Trump face pressure to speak out

      by

      Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms and attorneys who challenge his priorities are roiling the legal community, with some capitulating to the administration’s demands amid mounting pressure on the US’s biggest firms to speak out.The president signed an executive order on Tuesday targeting the firm Jenner & Block over its previous employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor who worked on Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia. The order came after Trump issued similar executive orders targeting three other firms – Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss – over their representation of his political rivals.Those orders have threatened to cripple the firms by revoking the security clearances of their lawyers, ending access to government buildings and forcing clients who do business with the government to disclose if they are represented by the firm. Trump also issued a separate executive order on Friday directing US attorney general Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers taking actions to block the administration’s priorities.Scholars and experts say there is little doubt that Trump’s executive orders are a thinly-veiled effort to intimidate lawyers who might otherwise challenge the administration. The actions undermine a key element of the American democratic system by limiting the ability of potential adversaries to access the judicial system, one of the most powerful checks on executive power.Trump got a huge boost last week when the firm Paul Weiss accepted demands from Trump in exchange for withdrawing the executive order targeting the firm. The White House was gleeful at that result and the administration reportedly already has a list of other firms it may subject to similar treatment.“Paul Weiss’s deal emboldened him to ratchet up his attack on one of the strongest checks on his power: lawyers and the rule of law,” David Perez, a partner at Perkins Coie, wrote in a post on Sunday on LinkedIn. “Now more than ever law firms and lawyers across the political spectrum have to stand up for our timeless values.” Perkins Coie is suing the administration over the order and won a temporary restraining order blocking it.US district judge Beryl Howell said during a hearing in the Perkins Coie suit that the order “sends little chills down my spine” and wrote in her ruling “such a circumstance threatens the very foundation of our legal system”.Trump’s intimidation campaign may be working. There has been no unified response from the country’s biggest and most well-known law firms. “We waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul Weiss,” Brad Karp, the firm’s chair, wrote in an email to employees on Sunday. “Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.”Former Biden administration officials are having trouble finding lawyers to represent them, the Washington Post reported. And civil rights and non-profit lawyers, who traditionally get pro bono assistance from major firms, say there is a general wariness from big law firms on challenging the administration. And when firms do help, they want to keep it quiet and don’t want their names on publicly filed court documents.Some firms also appear to be revising their web pages that detail their pro bono work. The firm Davis Polk, for example, appears to have recently removed references to racial justice and immigration from the pro bono page on its website, according to a Guardian review of an archived version of the page. As of 17 March, the firm’s pro-bono page included the statement: “We are proud to have a large team of full-time pro bono lawyers, with members focusing on litigation, corporate and transactional, racial justice, and humanitarian immigration matters.” Today, it no longer exists.Davis Polk did not immediately return a request for comment on the changes.The law firms’ fears are well founded. Elon Musk, a top Trump adviser, has already suggested targeting the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because of its pro bono work representing a Georgia man who was falsely accused of voter fraud in the film 2,000 Mules. The conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who made the movie, apologized to Andrews last year, but nonetheless recommended targeting Skadden.“Skadden Arps is the firm engaged in systematic lawfare against ‘2000 Mules.’ They have an army of 17 attorneys working pro-bono against me. I have 2 lawyers. The Left’s game is to ruin us through protracted, costly litigation,” he wrote on Twitter/X. Musk reposted the comment and said “Skadden this needs to stop now.”The law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson is said to be organizing an amicus brief joined by several other firms in support of Perkins Coie. It is unclear, however, which firms will sign it and when it will be filed.Some firms are also beginning to speak out separately.“Our liberties depend on lawyers’ willingness to represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the Federal Government,” Keker, Van Nest & Peters Partnership, a San Francisco-based firm, said in a statement on Saturday. “An attack on lawyers who perform this work is inexcusable and despicable. Our profession owes every client zealous legal representation without fear of retribution, regardless of their political affiliation or ability to pay.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPaul Weiss has faced significant backlash after reaching an agreement with Trump to rescind the executive order. The agreement came days after Perkins Coie successfully got a court order blocking the executive order that targeted it.More than 140 alumni of Paul Weiss signed a letter to the law firm’s chair on Monday condemning the agreement the law firm reached with Trump last week and said it was complicit in “what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy”.“The very independence of lawyers and the legal profession is at stake. We are therefore profoundly saddened, and deeply outraged, that the firm in which we heretofore took pride has cowardly allowed itself to become instead a poster child for the administration’s efforts to silence dissent and impose a loyalty test on attorneys,” they wrote in the letter.Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden, resigned after the Paul Weiss agreement became public. She had organized an open letter signed by hundreds of lawyers urging major law firms to do more. Her resignation letter calling out Skadden for not doing more went viral.“It’s a capitalistic cowardice,” she said. “It is fear for the bottom line of firms that already clear billions and billions of dollars a year in revenue.”Deepak Gupta, a Washington-based appellate lawyer noted that the settlement itself also threatened to harm the firm’s reputation. “Would you want to be represented by a law firm that can’t even stand up for itself? a law firm that might sell you out to the federal government to save its own skin?,” he wrote in a post on the social media platform Bluesky.In his email to employees on Sunday, Karp defended Paul Weiss’s decision to reach an agreement with the Trump administration. The firm faced an “existential crisis”, he wrote, and the executive order could have “destroyed our firm”. The firm, he said, was guided by two principles in reaching the settlement: the firms’s obligation to its client’s interests and its fiduciary responsibility to its employees.For a firm targeted by one of Trump’s executive orders, the economic consequences can be severe.“Clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it,” Karp wrote in his email to employees on Sunday. “Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.”In its lawsuit challenging the executive order against it, Perkins Coie also detailed some of the financial toll the firm had taken. Nearly a quarter of the firm’s revenue was at risk – more than $343m in 2024 – because of the executive order, the lawyers wrote. Trump announced the executive order on 6 March and by the time Perkins Coie sued over it five days later, at half a dozen – some who had been with the firm for years – had left the firm.Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election lawyer who has been targeted by Trump, issued a statement on Saturday that his firm would not negotiate with the White House over who it represented.“President Trump is attempting to dismantle the constitution and attack the rule of law in his obsessive pursuit of retribution against his political opponents. Today’s White House Memo targets not only me and my law firm, but every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law,” his statement said. “President Trump’s goal is clear. He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court.” More