US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump orders approval of 211-mile mining road through Alaska wilderness

      by

      Donald Trump on Monday ordered the approval of a proposed 211-mile road through an Alaska wilderness to allow mining of copper, cobalt, gold and other minerals.The long-debated Ambler Road project was approved in the US president’s first term, but was later blocked by the Biden administration after an analysis determined the project would threaten caribou and other wildlife and harm Alaska Indigenous tribes that rely on hunting and fishing.In a related development, the White House announced it is taking 10% equity stake in Trilogy Metals, a Canadian company that is seeking to develop the Ambler site along with an Australian partner.The gravel road and mining project, north of Fairbanks, Alaska, “is something that should’ve been long operating and making billions of dollars for our country and supplying a lot of energy and minerals”, Trump said at an Oval Office ceremony. Former president Joe Biden “undid it and wasted a lot of time and a lot of money, a lot of effort. And now we’re starting again. And this time we have plenty of time to get it done,” Trump added.Interior secretary, Doug Burgum, said approval of Ambler Road will unlock access to copper, cobalt and other critical minerals “that we need to win the AI arms race against China”.Supporters, including Alaska’s congressional delegation, have said the road is needed to reach a large copper deposit worth more than $7bn. Copper is used in production of cars, electronics and even renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines.Opponents, including a consortium of 40 federally recognized tribes, worry that development allowed by the road would put subsistence harvests at risk because the lands include important habitat for salmon and caribou.Karmen Monigold, an Inupiaq member of Protect the Kobuk, a Northwest Arctic advocacy group opposed to the access road, said she cried when she first learned of Trump’s actions. “And then I reminded myself of who we are, and who our people are and how far we’ve come,” she said on Monday in a telephone interview. “They tried to assimilate us, to wipe us out and yet we’re still here. We still matter.”Monigold said she hopes Alaska Native groups will file lawsuits, as they’ve done before, to halt the project.The two-lane gravel road includes about 26 miles that would cut through Gates of the Arctic national park and preserve. The road would also cross 11 rivers and thousands of streams before reaching the site of a future mine.The Republican-controlled House approved a bill last month that would pave the way for Trump to expand mining and drilling on public lands in Alaska and other states. The vote, largely along party lines, would repeal land management plans adopted in the closing days of Biden’s administration that restricted development in large areas of Alaska, Montana and North Dakota.Biden’s goal was in part to reduce climate-warming emissions from the burning of fossil fuels extracted from federal land. Under Trump, Republicans are casting aside those concerns as they open more taxpayer-owned land to development, hoping to create more jobs and revenue and boost fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The administration also has pushed to develop critical minerals, including copper, cobalt, gold and zinc.While Trump has often said, “drill, baby, drill”, he also supports “mine, baby, mine”, Burgum said. “We’ve got to get back in the mining business.”The US government said last week it is taking a minority stake in Lithium Americas, another Canadian company that is developing one of the world’s largest lithium mines in Nevada. The Department of Energy will take a 5% equity stake in the company and a 5% stake in the Thacker Pass lithium mining project, a joint venture with General Motors.Ambler Metals, a joint venture between Trilogy Metals and Australia-based South32, thanked Trump for jump-starting the Ambler project.“This road will help secure the critical minerals our country needs for economic competitiveness and national defense, while also delivering meaningful benefits here at home,” said managing director Kaleb Froehlich. More

    • 175 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      Schumer rejects Trump’s claim that bipartisan government shutdown negotiations are under way – live

      by

      Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump’s claim that negotiations with Democrats are underway.“Trump’s claim isn’t true — but if he’s finally ready to work with Democrats, we’ll be at the table,” Schumer said in a statement. “For months, Democrats have been calling on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans to come to the table and work with us to deliver lower costs and better healthcare for the American people.”He added: “If President Trump and Republicans are finally ready to sit down and get something done on healthcare for American families, Democrats will be there — ready to make it happen.”Earlier today, Trump told reporters that “we are speaking with Democrats” regarding the ongoing government shutdown and that “some good things could happen with health care.”“Just hang in there, because I think a lot of good things could happen, and that could also pertain to health care,” Trump said.Donald Trump signed an executive order to allow construction of an access road to the Ambler mining district in Alaska and unlock domestic supplies of copper and other minerals, reversing an order from former President Joe Biden.The Biden administration had rejected a 211-mile road intended to enable mine development in the north central Alaskan region. Biden’s Interior Department had cited risks to caribou and fish populations that dozens of native communities rely on for subsistence.“This is something that should have been long operating and making billions of dollars for our country and supplying a lot of energy and minerals and everything else that we are talking about,” Trump said earlier today.“On day one, he signed a very important executive order unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential,” the interior secretary, Doug Burgum, said on Monday. “And this is part of the continuation. There’s a number of things that have already happened with Alaska that are moving forward. There’s more to come. But big milestone today in reversing this Biden-era decision about the Ambler Road.”Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump’s claim that negotiations with Democrats are underway.“Trump’s claim isn’t true — but if he’s finally ready to work with Democrats, we’ll be at the table,” Schumer said in a statement. “For months, Democrats have been calling on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans to come to the table and work with us to deliver lower costs and better healthcare for the American people.”He added: “If President Trump and Republicans are finally ready to sit down and get something done on healthcare for American families, Democrats will be there — ready to make it happen.”Earlier today, Trump told reporters that “we are speaking with Democrats” regarding the ongoing government shutdown and that “some good things could happen with health care.”“Just hang in there, because I think a lot of good things could happen, and that could also pertain to health care,” Trump said.While speaking to reporters on Monday, President Donald Trump said that “Puff Daddy” has contacted him about a pardon.He’s referring to Sean “Diddy” Combs, who was sentenced on Friday to more than four years in prison on federal prostitution-related charges. Trump made these remarks while answering questions about the possibility of pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on sex trafficking charges, after the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal.“I have a lot of people who have asked me for pardons,” President Trump said. “Puff Daddy has asked me for a pardon.”Regarding Maxwell’s appeal, Trump said: “I’m gonna have to take a look at it. I have to ask DOJ. I didn’t know they rejected it. I didn’t know she was even asking for it.”Voting is officially underway in California, the final step of lightning speed campaign to temporarily redraw the state’s Congressional districts.Proposition 50, known as the Election Rigging Response Act, was brought by Governor Gavin Newsom and California Democrats to offset Texas’s gerrymander, drawn at Donald Trump’s behest, that aims to safeguard Republicans’ fragile House majority next year.Unlike Texas and Missouri, where the Republican legislature approved a new map carved up in their favor, the effort in California will be decided by voters.Ballots have been mailed and the “yes” and “no” campaigns are in full swing. Polling suggests the yes campaign has the edge in the blue state that has been tormented by Trump since his return to office.Proponents have put the president at the center of their campaign, arguing that it is the best chance Democrats – and the country – has to put a check on Trump’s second term. Opponents argue that the new maps – designed to help elect five more Democrats to Congress – disenfranchise the millions of Republican voters in the state, while dismantling the work of the state’s independent commission, long considered a gold standard in fair map-drawing.While surveys consistently find that voters prefer independent redistricting and do not trust politicians to control the process, Newsom and Democrats have argued that their plan is both temporary and necessary to respond to Trump’s “powergrabs” in red states.The measure asks voters to amend the state constitution to adopt a new congressional map for 2026 through 2030. Election Day is 4 November.Michael Ellis, the deputy director of the CIA, unexpectedly removed a career lawyer who had been serving as the agency’s acting general counsel since January and appointed himself to the position, The New York Times reports.Ellis, who was involved in a number of controversies during President Trump’s first term, is keeping his role as the agency’s second-highest official while assuming responsibility for the agency’s top legal decisions.The reason behind his move remains unclear, but it has raised concern among current and former intelligence officials, according to the Times.President Donald Trump on Monday said that he would be open to striking a deal on Affordable Care Act subsidies that are at the heart of the government shutdown fight.But he also noted that “billions and billions” of dollars are being wasted, nodding to arguments from conservatives who do not want the health subsidies extended.“We are speaking with the Democrats,” Trump said, adding: “some very good things” could happen.Trump, who had been teasing layoffs for the last several days, said that if a Senate vote later Monday to reopen the government fails, “it could” trigger mass firings.“It could,” he said. “At some point it will.”A CBS News/YouGov survey shows that more Americans blame President Trump and congressional Republicans for the government shutdown than congressional Democrats.According to the poll, 39% of US adults say Trump and the GOP deserve most of the blame, compared to 30% who fault Democrats and 31% who place equal blame on both sides.A majority (52%) disapprove of how Trump and Republicans are handling the shutdown, while 49% disapprove of Democrats.Social Security Administration commissioner Frank Bisignano was named to the newly created position of CEO of the IRS today, making him the latest member of the Trump administration to be put in charge of multiple federal agencies.As IRS CEO, Bisignano will report to Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who currently serves as acting commissioner of the IRS, the Treasury Department says. It is unclear whether Bisignano’s newly created role at the IRS will require Senate confirmation.The Treasury Department said in a statement that Bisignano will be responsible for overseeing all day-to-day IRS operations while also continuing to serve in his role as commissioner of the Social Security Administration.JB Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor, said today that the federal immigration agents have “terrorized” people in his state in recent months.“They aren’t receiving any orders from Trump to cease and desist their aggressive behavior. Remember, they answer only to Trump, not to the people of Illinois,” Pritzker said. “Their plan all along has been to cause chaos that and then they can use that chaos to consolidate Donald Trump’s power. They think they can fool us all into thinking that the way to get out of this crisis that they created is to give them free rein.”Addressing reporters today, Illinois governor JB Pritzker said today that he plans to use “every lever” to resist the “power grab” from the Trump administration to quell protests in Chicago by deploying national guard troops.The state has now filed a lawsuit to block the president’s move to federalize troops. Earlier, a federal judge did not block the deployment immediately, but has given the justice department two days to respond in writing to the state’s temporary restraining order motion. The next hearing is set for Thursday.Per my earlier post, noting that the Chicago mayor has signed an executive order which prevents federal immigration agents from using city property for immigration staging, the White House has responded, calling the move “a sick policy” that “coddles criminal illegal alien killers, rapists, and gangbangers who prey on innocent Americans”. Donald Trump has announced that all “Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks” coming to the US from other countries will be subject to a 25% tariff starting 1 November.

      The White House criticized a Trump-appointed judge’s ruling, which temporarily blocked the deployment of national guard troops from Oregon and California. At a press briefing today, Karoline Leavitt said Judge Karin Immergut’s decision was “untethered in reality”, and said the administration was hopeful that the ninth US circuit court of appeals would rule in the president’s favor. Immergut said there was no evidence that persistent protests outside the immigration facility in Portland constituted an “invasion” – which could allow Trump to federalize guardsmen. The White House said that the facility is “under siege” by “anarchists”.

      In the midwest, Illinois has sued the Trump administration to block the deployment of hundreds of national guard troops to the streets of Chicago. In the lawsuit, leaders in the state say that Trump is using a “flimsy pretext”, which alleges an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) facility in a Chicago suburb needs protecting as protests outside the building over Trump’s immigration crackdown continue. A reminder that over the weekend, the president sought to federalize up to 300 members of the Illinois national guard, despite the objections of the Democratic governor JB Pritzker. Trump sent another 400 from Texas, which Republican governor Greg Abbott has said he authorized.

      It is the sixth day of the government shutdown, and both parties continue to trade barbs over who is to blame. Congressional republicans say and the White House say that the ball is in the Democrats’ court, to pass a “clean” funding bill, and tackle healthcare negotiations once the government reopens. Meanwhile, Democrats say that their colleagues across the aisle have stonewalled any attempts at compromise. Earlier today, Karoline Leavitt said that any layoffs would be an “unfortunate consequence” of the shutdown, again laying blame at Democrats’ feet.

      The Senate will hold votes later today on the dueling stopgap funding bills, which are set to fail … yet again. The House of Representatives remains out of session, after Republican speaker Mike Johnson said that he wouldn’t be calling lawmakers back to Capitol Hill until the Senate advances the House-passed extension, known as a continuing resolution.

      The supreme court rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s challenge of her criminal conviction for recruiting and grooming minors who were sexually abused by her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking crimes. Two lower federal courts have ruled that a plea deal Epstein struck in 2007, which protected his co-conspirators, didn’t extend to Maxwell’s federal conviction.

      Beyond the beltway, delegations from Israel, Hamas and the US began negotiations in Egypt today. The White House said that it hopes for a swift release of all remaining Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners so that a lasting peace deal can be reached in the region.
      The cause of a huge fire at the beachfront home of a South Carolina judge who had reportedly been subjected to death threats is being investigated by state law enforcement investigators.The blaze at the home of Diane Goodstein – a Democrat-appointed circuit court judge – erupted on Saturday, sending three members of her family to the hospital, including her husband, a former state senator.However, Goodstein, 69, was walking her dogs at the time the blaze erupted at the three-story home in the luxury gated community on Edisto Beach in Colleton county.A spokesperson for the South Carolina state law enforcement division (Sled) confirmed it was investigating a fire in the county. “The investigation is active and ongoing. More information may be available as the investigation continues,” a Sled spokesperson told FITSNews.For his part, John Kittredge, the South Carolina chief justice, told the outlet: “At this time, we do not know whether the fire was accidental or arson. Until that determination is made, Sled chief Mark Keel has alerted local law enforcement to provide extra patrols and security.”Goodstein, who has served on the state judicial bench since 1989, in September issued a temporary injunction on the release of the state’s voter files to the Trump administration-led US justice department.Goodstein’s ruling was later publicly criticized by an assistant attorney general for the justice department’s civil rights division, Harmeet Dhillon. The division has been at the forefront of efforts to acquire information, including names, addresses, driver’s license numbers and social security numbers, of more than 3 million registered voters under an executive order targeting “non-citizen voter registration”. More

    • 125 Shares51 Views

      in US Politics

      US attorney resists pressure from Trump to prosecute Letitia James

      by

      A career federal prosecutor in Virginia has told colleagues she does not believe there is probable cause to file criminal mortgage fraud charges against New York attorney general Letitia James, according to a person familiar with the matter.The prosecutor, Elizabeth Yusi, oversees major criminal cases in the Norfolk office for the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and plans to soon present her conclusion to Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally, who was installed as the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia last month. Yusi’s thinking was first reported by MSNBC on Monday.The justice department declined to comment. The US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia did not return a request for comment.The case sets up another high profile confrontation between the justice department and Trump, who has fired attorneys who have refused to punish his enemies. Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience, was put in the role at the urging of Trump after her predecessor concluded there wasn’t probable cause to file criminal charges against James Comey, the former FBI director. Halligan personally presented the case against Comey to a grand jury after she was appointed and secured a two-count indictment.Trump has openly asked Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, to prosecute James, who led a civil fraud case against the president that led to a $500m fine, which was recently overturned by a New York state appellate court.William Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency head and a staunch Trump ally, made a criminal referral of James to the justice department in April, alleging she may have committed mortgage fraud. Pulte pointed to mortgage documents related to a 2023 Norfolk, Virginia, home James helped purchase for her niece in which James appeared to indicate on a document she intended to use the home as her primary residence. James was serving as the attorney general of New York at the time.Prosecutors empaneled a grand jury in May to investigate, but struggled to build a case against James, despite pressure from Trump allies. Emails from the time of the home purchase and other mortgage documents show James clearly indicating that she did not intend for the home to be her primary residence. That evidence makes it difficult for prosecutors to prove that James knowingly lied on the mortgage documents.Multiple prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia have either been fired or resigned in recent weeks as Trump has increased pressure on the office to bring charges against Comey and James.Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, resigned on 19 September after facing pressure from Trump to file charges. Maya Song, a top Siebert deputy, was also fired in late September. Michael Ben’Ary, a top national security prosecutor in the office, was also fired last week after Julie Kelly, a pro-Trump media personality, falsely accused him of working on the Comey case.“The leadership is more concerned with punishing the President’s perceived enemies than they are with protecting our national security,” he wrote in his farewell letter to colleagues.“Justice for Americans killed and injured by our enemies should not be contingent on what someone in the Department of Justice sees in their social media feed that day.” More

    • 138 Shares36 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge refuses to block Trump’s deployment of national guard to Illinois

      by

      A federal judge will not immediately block national guard troops from being deployed in Illinois after a lawsuit from the state against the president on Monday.Troops from Texas could be deployed to Chicago later this week, and Trump is also seeking to federalize the Illinois’national guard. A similar effort to deploy troops to Portland was blocked by a judge in Oregon.Illinois sued the Trump administration on behalf of the state and the city of Chicago on Monday after the president ordered national guard troops to deploy in the state against the governor’s wishes.The Illinois attorney general, Kwame Raoul, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Donald Trump from calling up the state’s national guard or sending in troops from other states “immediately and permanently”.“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.Trump has gone after Democratic-led cities, sending in military to clamp down on protests and aid in his deportation agenda. He has declared war on Chicago, threatening for weeks to send in more troops while immigration agents scoured the city for people to deport, and local residents protested against his crackdown.Raoul argues that these efforts to send in guard troops against a state’s will infringe upon the state’s sovereignty and self-governance while leading to unrest and harm for the state’s residents.“It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police. It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue,” Raoul wrote.Illinois’s governor, JB Pritzker, said the Trump administration had not discussed plans to federalize the state’s national guard or to send in troops from other states.“We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” he said in a statement. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois national guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”A Trump-appointed judge in Oregon blocked Trump from sending in troops to Portland. Governor Gavin Newsom of California is also fighting against troops being sent from his state to Oregon. Troops from Texas were going to be sent to Portland and Chicago, with the blessing of Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott.Trump administration officials have railed against the ruling, saying a judge cannot prevent the president from moving troops. “Today’s judicial ruling is one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen – and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat,” Trump adviser Stephen Miller wrote on X.Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, also signed an executive order to prohibit federal immigration agents from using city-owned property to conduct their operations, which comes after “documented use” of public school parking lots and a city-owned lot as staging sites, Johnson said in a press release.“We will not tolerate Ice agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority. ICE agents are detaining elected officials, tear-gassing protestors, children, and Chicago police officers, and abusing Chicago residents. We will not stand for that in our city,” Johnson said in a statement.At a press briefing on Monday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that cities like Chicago were refusing to cooperate with troops because they don’t like the president. She claimed Trump wants to make cities safer.“You guys are framing this like the president wants to take over the American cities with the military,” she said. “The president wants to help these local leaders who have been completely ineffective in securing their own cities.” More

    • 150 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      US shutdown enters second week as Senate votes again on funding bill

      by

      The US government shutdown entered its second week on Monday, with Democratic and Republican lawmakers making no apparent progress towards reaching a deal to restart funding, while the Trump administration warned it was moving forward with plans to slash the federal workforce.Many agencies and departments closed their doors and told employees to stay home last Wednesday, after Congress failed to approve legislation to continue the government’s authority to spend money.Democrats have refused to back any bill that does not include an array of healthcare-centered concessions, but Congress’s Republican leaders have refused to negotiate over their demands until government funding is restored. Later on Monday, the Senate will vote for a fifth time on the party’s competing proposals to reopen the government, but neither measure appears to have enough votes to advance.“We hope that the vote will not fail, because this administration wants to reopen the government,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.Leavitt said that if the shutdown stretches on, a program thats pays for food for low-income mothers and children would exhaust its funding, while government employees would miss a paycheck, though federal law entitles them to back pay. She also reiterated the Trump administration’s threats to fire federal workers.“We don’t want to see people laid off. But, unfortunately, if this shutdown continues, layoffs are going to be an unfortunate consequence of that,” Leavitt said.In the days since the shut down began, Russ Vought, the director of the White House office of management and budget, has cancelled funding for energy projects in several states, as well as transportations developments in Chicago and New York – all of which are areas governed by Democrats.But though he warned before funding lapsed that he would use it as an opportunity to deepen cuts to the federal workforce, those have largely not yet taken place.Asked about when layoffs may be announced, Leavitt replied: “We’ll see how the vote goes tonight.”Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have shown no signs of budging from their demands in the days since the shutdown began. Speaker Mike Johnson has kept the House on recess for a second straight week, in a bid to pressure Senate Democrats to provide the roughly eight votes the Republican funding bill is expected to need to advance in the upper chamber.“The ball is in the court of the Senate Democrats. There’s only a handful of people in the country who can solve this problem,” Johnson told a press conference.The Democratic minority has largely stuck to their demands that any legislation to fund the government includes an extension of premium tax credits for people covered by Affordable Care Act health insurance. Created under Joe Biden, the credits are set to expire at the end of the year, and costs for 20 million enrollees of the plans will rise if they are not extended.The party has also included in their funding bill a reversal of the Republican cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor and disabled, as well as a restoration of funding for public media outlets like PBS and NPR, and a prohibition on Donald Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission” to undo congressional appropriations.The Senate’s Republican majority leader John Thune has held four votes on the two parties’ bills in the past weeks. No Republicans have supported the Democratic proposal, while only three members of the minority – John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Angus King of Maine – have backed the GOP bill.In an interview on CBS News, Schumer said he and the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, would be willing to negotiate with Trump and the Republican leadership, but they have refused. And while he has “encouraged” his lawmakers “to sit and talk to Republicans”, those conversations were not promising.“The Republicans offered nothing,” Schumer said. “The only way this will ultimately be solved is if five people sit together in a room and solve it.”Several recent polls have shown Democrats with a narrow edge in the public’s opinion of a shutdown. A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll found that 53% of respondents held the GOP responsible for the shutdown, as opposed to 47% who blamed the Democrats. Seventy percent of those surveyed opposed the shutdown overall.Johnson reiterated that he would not call the chamber back into session until government funding is restored. He has also said he will only swear in newly elected Democratic representative Adelita Grijalva once the House returns to work.Grijalva is set to be the 218th lawmaker to sign a petition that will force a vote on a bill to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Johnson and Trump oppose releasing the files, and Thomas Massie, an iconoclastic Republican representative who has led the charge to make the documents public, accused Johnson of keeping the House out of session to delay that vote.“Why are we in recess? Because the day we go back into session, I have 218 votes for the discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files,” Massie said, adding that Johnson “doesn’t want that to be the news”.Joseph Gedeon contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      Jane Goodall said she would launch Trump and Musk on one-way trip into space

      by

      In a lifetime studying the behavior of chimpanzees, Jane Goodall became something of an authority on the aggressiveness of alpha male adults. Now, in an interview released just days after her death, the famed primatologist reveals what she would do with Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other human beings she saw as showing similar traits: launch them on a one-way trip into space.The insight into Goodall’s thinking comes in the Netflix documentary Famous Last Words, recorded in March and kept under wraps until her death last week at the age of 91.“There are people I don’t like, and I would like to put them on one of Musk’s spaceships and send them all off to the planet he’s sure he’s going to discover,” Goodall tells interviewer Brad Falchuk during the revelatory 55-minute special discussing her life, work and legacy.Would Musk, the SpaceX founder and Trump ally with a penchant for apparent Nazi-style salutes and firing thousands of federal workers, be among them, Falchuk wanted to know.“Oh, absolutely. He’d be the host. You can imagine who I’d put on that spaceship. Along with Musk would be Trump and some of Trump’s real supporters,” she said.“And then I would put [Russian president Vladimir] Putin in there, and I would put [China’s] President Xi. I’d certainly put [Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off.”It is not the first time that Goodall, a champion of environmental advocacy, has been critical of Trump in particular.In a 2022 interview with MSNBC she said he exhibited “the same sort of behavior as a male chimpanzee will show when he’s competing for dominance with another. They’re upright, they swagger, they project themselves as really more large and aggressive than they may actually be in order to intimidate their rivals.”In the Netflix interview, the first in the streaming network’s new series capturing the thoughts of iconic world figures to be broadcast only after their death, Goodall further explained her thinking.“We get, interestingly, two types of alpha. One does it all by aggression, and because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And you know, they last much, much longer,” she said.She also examined the “politicization” of behavior, and what her studies had taught her about aggressive behaviors shown by groups of humans and chimpanzees when confronted with something they perceived as hostile, even if no threat existed.“Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and the hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive,” she said.“It’s contagious,” she added. “Some of these demonstrations that turn aggressive, it sweeps through them. They all want to become and join in and become aggressive. They’re protecting their territory or fighting for dominance.”Falchuk asked if she believed it was the same for humans. “Probably, sometimes yes. But I truly believe that most people are decent,” she said.“My biggest hope is raising this new generation of compassionate citizens, roots and shoots. But do we have time? I don’t know. It’s a really grim time.”Goodall, born in London five years before the start of the second world war, likened the fight against the darkness of present-day politics to Britain standing up to Nazi Germany, and the “spirit of obstinance” shown by Winston Churchill.“That doesn’t mean you don’t have moments of depression, but then you come out of it and say, ‘OK, I’m not going to let them win,’” she said.“It’s like Churchill in the war, his famous speech, we’ll fight them on the beaches, we’ll fight them in the streets and the cities, then he turned aside to a friend and was heard to say, ‘and we’ll fight them at the ends of broken bottles because that’s all we’ve bloody well got’.”Goodall, in a post-interview address to camera, ended with a message of encouragement for those fighting against political oppression and the climate emergency.“Even today, when the planet is dark, there still is hope. Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing,” she said.“And if you want to save what is still beautiful in this world – if you want to save the planet for the future generations, your grandchildren, their grandchildren – then think about the actions you take each day. Because, multiplied a million, a billion times, even small actions will make for great change.” More

    • 138 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      Boom time for US billionaires: why the system perpetuates wealth inequality

      by

      To many Americans, the economy of the past five years has been rough. Prices have soared yet pay remains stagnant. High mortgage rates have made buying a home a dismal prospect. The unemployment rate has been creeping up.Most people have indicated they are delaying major life decisions, including having kids or switching jobs, because of the instability. But for a very small group of people, the last five years couldn’t have been any better.The wealth of the world’s billionaires grew 54% in 2020, at the height of the pandemic. And even amid all the economic instability, the stock market has only continued to grow. This growth has largely benefited just a small number of Americans: 10% of the population owns 93% of stock market wealth.As uneven as this distribution seems, it’s the system working as it is currently designed.In his new book Burned by Billionaires, inequality researcher Chuck Collins argues that the system that perpetuates wealth inequality is purposely opaque to most Americans.“[The wealthy] have bought their jets, they’ve bought their multiple houses and mansions, but now they’re buying senators and media outlets,” Collins told the Guardian in an interview. “We’re now entering this other chapter of hyper-extraction where the wealthy are preying on the system of inequality.”Collins, a director at the Institute for Policy Studies, is no stranger to wealth. A great-grandson to Oscar F Mayer, the founder of the meat processing brand, he is a member of the Patriotic Millionaires, a non-partisan group of wealthy Americans who advocate for higher taxes for the rich and higher wages.To help others understand what exactly it means to be “wealthy” in the US, Collins borrows a concept from journalist Robert Frank who, in a 2007 book on the rich, imagined the different levels of wealth as “Richistan” villages: Affluent Town, Lower Richistan, Middle Richistan, Upper Richistan and Billionaireville.To modernize the concept, Collins categorizes these “wealth villages” based on income levels. At the lowest tier, Affluent Town, are the 10 million Americans who have a household income of at least $110,000 and an overall wealth of over $1.5m. The villages get more exclusive as wealth goes up: Lower Richistan has 2.6 million households who have wealth between $6m and $13m; Middle Richistan has 1.3 million households who have assets worth an average of $37m; while Upper Richistan, made up of 130,000 Americans (roughly the size of a small city) has between $60m to $1bn in wealth.Altogether, the residents of these villages make up the top 10% of the wealth income distribution, about 14 million Americans altogether, though their experiences vary dramatically.“You could be in Lower Richistan, and you’re still sitting in the coach section of a commercial plane,” Collins said. “Whereas in Upper Richistan, you’re flying in a private jet. That’s a really different cultural experience. You fly private, you have no stakes in the commercial aviation system. You don’t care if the whole system shuts down – you’re set.”The highest hill in “Richistan” is Billionaireville, which is made up of about 800 American billionaires who are some of the world’s wealthiest. The power that this group has far surpasses those who are simply affluent, let alone the average American who doesn’t reside in “Richistan” at all.But Collins thinks the progressive slogan “billionaires shouldn’t exist” or “abolish billionaires” misses the point and has a “whiff of exterminism” to it.“It’s the distinction between individual behaviors and a system of rules and policies,” Collins said. “We should be concerned about an economic system that funnels so much wealth upward to the billionaires.”In other words, it’s not about the billionaires themselves, but about the system that allows them to have an enormous amount of influence and control over society today.To understand how wealth at the billionaire level works, Collins breaks it down into four parts: getting the wealth, defending the wealth, political capture and hyper-extraction.When many Americans think about wealth, they usually think solely about the first step, Collins said. People can create a modest amount of wealth through starting or running a successful business, which could get them residency in Affluent Town.But getting to Billionaireville requires serious investment and strategy in those next three steps. Collins describes what he calls the “wealth defense industry”: the tax layers, accountants and wealth managers who use their expertise to ensure that the super rich are being strategic about their taxes.“Wealth defense professionals use a wide variety of tools such as trusts, offshore bank accounts, anonymous shell companies, charitable foundations and other vehicles to hold assets,” he writes.To further a wealth defense strategy, a family needs political support. Wealth of over $40m translates to political power, Collins says, and can be used to defend wealth and protect its accumulation. He notes that the 2010 landmark supreme court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed the wealthy to pump a seemingly unlimited amount of money into elections, which has dramatically increased the power the ultra-wealthy have on politics.The last stage is a different kind of wealth accumulation, one that Collins calls “hyper extraction”, to describe how the wealthy have come to touch nearly every single part of an Americans’ everyday life largely through private equity, which allows wealthy individuals to invest in private companies.“Private equity is looking for those corners of the economy where they can squeeze things a little bit harder,” Collins said. “One thing I don’t think people understand is these billionaire private-equity funds are what happens when so much wealth is parked in so few hands, and they can kind of turn around and say, ‘Where else can we squeeze money out of the economy?’ Healthcare? Great. Mobile home parks? These people can’t go anywhere, [so] you can raise their rents.”Collins writes about the Mars family, best known for their dominance in the confectionary market, with M&Ms, Snickers and Skittles, but who have also cornered the pet industry. Along with being the biggest owner of pet care products in the US, the Mars family owns more than 2,500 pet care facilities across the US.The effects of this inequality go beyond the wealth getting wealthier. It’s about people paying more for their healthcare, rent and vet bills without seeing any meaningful wage increases. And Collins said the pain and frustration of this kind of society can lead to deep discontent.“The most powerful oligarchs understand people are being left behind [and] are economically suffering,” Collins said, adding that Republicans have been good at tapping into a potent “phony populism”.“They can basically project this message that actually, Democrats are elitists. They just care about rich Hollywood executives and woke politics, and the people who care about you are over here. They’re the Donald Trumps of the world. They hear your pain, they feel your pain,” he said.The irony, Collins points out in his book, is that Trump has appointed a string of billionaires to his cabinet. Along with Elon Musk, who had a brief but powerful role as head of the so-called “department of government efficiency”, which oversaw massive cuts to the federal workforce, Trump’s secretaries for commerce, treasury, education and the interior are also all billionaires.His cabinet, along with help from Republicans in Congress, helped him pass his huge tax bill, which will make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.While Republican continue to argue that immigration and bad trade agreements are the source of everyone’s economic problems, “the question becomes: Will the Democratic party, which has also been captured by the billionaires and big money, be able to meaningfully address the underlying harms?” Collins said.Democrats, he argues, know what policies are needed to “reverse the updraft of wealth”, including deep changes to the tax system, increasing the minimum wage and strengthening unions.Collins recalled four years ago, when the Democrats were in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Democrats introduced the $4.3bn Build Back Better bill, which would have seen deep investments in the climate crisis, Medicaid, housing and childcare, among other things. The bill was going to be partially funded through changes in the tax system, including higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy and closing out tax loopholes.But while the bill passed the House in November 2021, it ultimately died in the Senate because two centrist Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, blocked it. Both Manchin and Sinema have since both left their Senate seats.“It was so, so close, and the bill really did reflect the will of the majority of people who really want lawmakers to solve some of these urgent problems,” Collins said. “Oligarchic power is not about creating so much as blocking. It’s easier to block than it is to make something meaningful happen, but the muscle memory is there. We know what that looks like.”Collins is optimistic that there can be change, but said it would require sustained political momentum.“It may be before we know it that the pendulum swings back, and then it really is about maintaining a sustained really popular movement to make progress on this extreme inequality we’re living in,” he said. “We can fix this. It is fixable.” More

    • 175 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Why does the supreme court keep bending the knee to Trump? | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Two 0f the world’s best-known authoritarian leaders – Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president – have each had at least 15 years at their country’s helm to pack the courts with loyalists and to pressure and intimidate judges. And no surprise, judges in those countries have repeatedly done what Orbán and Erdoğan want.Donald Trump has not had the opportunity to pack the US supreme court to nearly the same degree. Nor has he, despite his brash, bullying ways, done much to pressure or browbeat the court’s nine justices. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative supermajority has ruled time after time in favor of Trump since he returned to office. The six conservative justices have fallen into line much like Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges, even though the supreme court’s justices have life tenure to insulate them from political pressures.With the court’s new term beginning on Monday, many Americans are dismayed that the conservative justices have been so submissive to Trump, the most authoritarian-minded president in US history. Notwithstanding the US’s celebrated system of checks and balances, the justices have utterly failed to provide the checks on Trump that many legal scholars had expected. In ruling for Trump, the chief justice, John Roberts, and the other conservatives have let him gut the Department of Education, fire Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board members, and strip temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The rightwing supermajority has also let Trump halt $4bn in foreign aid, fire tens of thousands of federal employees despite contractual protections and deport people to countries where they have no connection.In these and other cases, the supermajority has ceded huge power to Trump, for instance, by greatly reducing Congress’s constitutional power over spending as it let Trump unilaterally gut agencies and halt funding approved by Congress. What’s more, the court seems eager to snuff out independent, nonpartisan federal agencies by letting Trump fire agency chairs and commissioners without giving any reason, even though Congress approved laws explicitly saying those officials could only be dismissed for cause. (Pleasing corporate America, the court ordered last Wednesday that Lisa Cook can remain on the Federal Reserve Board, at least temporarily, while litigation proceeds over whether Trump can fire her as part of his effort to end the central bank’s independence.)“The chief justice is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America,” said J Michael Luttig, a highly regarded conservative former federal appellate judge.The conservative justices have repeatedly done Trump’s bidding even though they don’t begin to face the intense pressures that Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges face. Erdoğan has sometimes purged and blackballed judges seen as insufficiently loyal, while Orbán’s high-ranking allies have berated less obedient judges as “traitors”.The US supreme court has ruled for Trump in a startlingly high percentage of cases this year. It has issued 24 decisions from its emergency docket (often without giving any reasons) and ruled in Trump’s favor about 90% of the time.In doing so, the court has repeatedly vacated injunctions that lower courts had issued after concluding that Trump, with his 209 executive orders, had egregiously broken the law. Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, found that in Trump administration cases decided between 1 May and 23 June, federal district courts ruled against Trump 94.3% of the time (82 out of 87 cases), often after looking closely at the facts. In contrast, the supreme court ruled 93.7% of the time for Trump (15 out of 16 cases), often without taking a close look at the facts.“The supreme court has pulled the rug out from under the lower federal courts, and it has done so deliberately and knowingly,” Luttig said, adding that the court is “acquiescing in and accommodating the president’s lawlessness”.With the court siding so often with Trump, a new Gallup poll found that a record high 43% of Americans think the court is too conservative, higher than the 36% who think the court is “about right”. Moreover, the court’s overall approval rating has fallen to its lowest level since Gallup began measuring, dropping below 40% for the first time in August (before climbing slightly) – and down from nearly 60% in the early 2000s.Steven Levitsky, a political science professor at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die, voiced bewilderment that the court has been so obliging toward a president who he says is a clear threat to democracy. According to Levitsky, courts come under the thumb of authoritarian governments in several ways. One way is “ideological agreement”. He said the court’s most rightwing members, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, seem in fundamental agreement with Trump, but he said the other conservatives do not love Trump even if they often rule for him. Levitsky suggested that those justices are so hostile toward liberals and liberal arguments that they gravitate towards Trump’s side in case after case.Court packing is another way courts fall under an authoritarian’s sway. Orbán, Erdoğan and their legislative allies have appointed the overwhelming majority of their countries’ judges, while Trump has appointed three of the nine justices. With life tenure, the justices should in theory feel free from political pressure and able to rule against Trump. In the past, many justices have ruled against the presidents and parties that appointed them.Levitsky sees another phenomenon at work: abdication. Pointing to both Congress and the supreme court, he said: “The major institutions that have the authority and responsibility to stand up and stop an authoritarian have declined to do so.”In his view, the conservative justices may have made a major miscalculation. “They are overconfident about the strength of our institutions,” Levitsky said. “They don’t really think our democracy is in danger. They don’t think it can really happen here. I really think a majority of members of the US establishment are in that camp.”The conservative justices have increasingly embraced the unitary executive theory, a once fringe, four-decade-old notion that the president has sole, unlimited authority over the executive branch and should, for instance, be free to fire members of independent agencies along with hundreds of thousands of federal employees. “If they really believed that Trump was a threat to democracy, they wouldn’t be giving him so much power,” Levitsky said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court’s conservatives, Levitsky and many legal scholars say, are also engaged in appeasement. Roberts and the conservatives are “scared out of their minds that they will have to play chicken with Trump”, Levitsky said. “The worst thing for them is if the government ignores them and they don’t have any authority. They’re just terrified that Trump will trample on them and undermine their authority. Trump is not someone you want to play chicken with. They’re terrified of a big, high-profile fight with Trump.”In other words, the conservative justices are so eager to save face and avoid confrontation that they have often given a green light to what lower courts have seen as Trump’s lawlessness. Meanwhile, the three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – have written repeated, often angry dissents that chastise the supermajority for acquiescing to Trump’s lawlessness and steamrolling over parts of the constitution.One theory is that the conservative justices are deliberately giving Trump small victories – vacating lower courts’ injunctions and letting the president’s executive orders proceed and do their damage – as the justices wait for those cases to return to the supreme court, perhaps in a year or two. At that point, those cases would be fully briefed and argued, and the court would issue formal, longer rulings. Legal scholars hope, but are not optimistic, that the thus far compliant court will be more willing to defy Trump when the cases are fully briefed and argued, with the birthright citizenship and tariff cases most often mentioned.“What they’re doing,” Levitsky said, “is giving Trump small victories in an effort to placate him or preserve as much political capital for when the big fights come. It’s appeasement. Appeasement usually doesn’t work when you cede power to an authoritarian executive. It sends signals to society that no one is going to stop the guy. Ceding power to someone like Trump is really dangerous.”After Jair Bolsonaro, a rightwing Trump ally, was elected Brazil’s president in 2019, Alexandre de Moraes, a prominent member of Brazil’s supreme court, feared what he saw as Bolsonaro’s authoritarian tendencies. De Moraes cracked down on Bolsonaro’s efforts to spread disinformation on social media to undermine his opponents. When a mob of Bolsonaro’s allies stormed government buildings in January 2023, pushing for a coup d’etat, de Moraes led efforts to prosecute Bolsonaro. (Last month, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison after being convicted of plotting a coup.)“When Bolsonaro got elected, de Moraes realized that he’s a threat to democracy,” Levitsky said. “He thought that the Brazilian supreme court could be Chamberlain or Churchill.” (Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister, agreed to let Adolf Hitler take over a German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, as part of the Munich agreement, infamously declaring that the agreement would assure “peace for our time”.)“The [US] supreme court hasn’t wanted to be Churchill.” Levitsky said. “John Roberts has been Chamberlain. I think that is incredible destructive behavior.”

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More