More stories

  • in

    Democrats aim to force release of Matt Gaetz ethics report

    Congressman Sean Casten, Democrat of Illinois, introduced a privileged resolution on Tuesday demanding the House ethics committee release its investigative report on former representative Matt Gaetz, even after Gaetz withdrew from consideration after being nominated to be Donald Trump’s attorney general, amid sexual scandal.Casten’s resolution calls for immediate public disclosure of the committee’s draft report, including conclusions, recommendations and supporting materials, with provisions to protect sensitive information and witness identities.The ethics committee’s investigation was centered around serious allegations against Gaetz, including potential sexual misconduct, inappropriate congressional behavior, misuse of campaign funds, using illicit drugs, and possible bribery. Gaetz has consistently denied these claims.Casten’s move came weeks after he led 97 House Democrats in signing a letter requesting the report’s release. In this case, the resolution will force a House vote within two legislative days, though Republican leadership is expected to resist.Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has opposed releasing the report in the past, arguing that ethics investigations typically conclude when a member leaves Congress. Gaetz resigned from the House as soon as Trump nominated him to become attorney general, and when he stepped aside eight days later after it was clear he would struggle to be confirmed even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he indicated he would not seek to return to Congress.However, Casten has often pointed to previous cases, such as the 2011 investigation of former Representative Eric Massa, where investigations continued after a member’s resignation.“The committee on ethics has, on many occasions, released its reports on former members,” Casten said in a statement. “Resigning from Congress should not allow members to avoid accountability for allegations as serious as those faced by Matt Gaetz.”Johnson’s office did not reply to a request for comment on whether his stance has changed. The Republican ethics committee chair, Michael Guest, declined to comment when asked if the committee would now release the report.Congresswoman Susan Wild, the top Democrat on the committee, declined to comment.The ethics committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday to discuss next steps concerning the congressional investigation. More

  • in

    Donald Trump’s legal team pushes for hush-money case to be dismissed – US politics live

    The Trump transition team said it has entered a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice.“This is the next step in the ongoing preparation of senior administration officials for the purpose of serving in President Trump’s administration,” the statement said. “This allows the transition team to submit names for background checks and security clearances.”The brief statement didn’t make clear whether the transition has given up on delaying or privatizing background checks for its cabinet nominees.Earlier, those familiar with the tram’s plans had indicated that Trump’s appointees would skirt full FBI vetting and delay receiving classified briefings until after Trump was sworn in.Trump’s lawyers had noted that the US justice department was poised to abandon Trump’s federal cases and referred to a departmental memo that bars prosecution of sitting presidents.“As in those cases, dismissal is necessary here,” their filing argued. “Just as a sitting president is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as president-elect.”Special counsel prosecutors who were pursuing the federal cases against Trump indeed filed paperwork on 25 November asking for their dismissal – citing justice department policy that his team has repeatedly invoked.“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” wrote Molly Gaston, the top deputy for special counsel Jack Smith.“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”Manhattan prosecutors have argued against dismissal in prior court papers and have suggested a solution that would obviate any concerns about interrupting his presidency – including “deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term”.The dismissal pitch came after Judge Juan Merchan’s decision on 22 November to indefinitely postpone the president-elect’s sentencing so lawyers on both sides can argue over its future, given Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.While Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly pushed for dismissal to no avail, his impending return to the presidency has presented an opportunity for them to make their case once again.Merchan said in his postponement decision that Trump’s lawyers had a 2 December deadline to file their argument for dismissal. Prosecutors had a week to submit their response.Trump’s lawyers have been calling on Merchan to toss the case outright after he defeated Kamala Harris on 5 November. In previous papers seeking permission to file a formal dismissal request, Trump’s attorneys said that dismissal was required “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power”.Todd Blanche, Trump’s main attorney and selection for deputy US attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, his choice for principal associate deputy attorney general, said that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course”.Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked a New York state judge to dismiss the criminal case against him, in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts involving hush money.Trump’s lawyers have argued that sentencing in the case would cause “unconstitutional impediments” to Trump’s ability to govern.The lawyers also cited Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of his son Hunter Biden in their argument. The filing reads:
    Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently.’
    President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.’ These comments amounted to an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own DOJ.
    Already, Judge Juan Merchan has indefinitely postponed Trump’s sentencing.The Trump transition team said it has entered a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice.“This is the next step in the ongoing preparation of senior administration officials for the purpose of serving in President Trump’s administration,” the statement said. “This allows the transition team to submit names for background checks and security clearances.”The brief statement didn’t make clear whether the transition has given up on delaying or privatizing background checks for its cabinet nominees.Earlier, those familiar with the tram’s plans had indicated that Trump’s appointees would skirt full FBI vetting and delay receiving classified briefings until after Trump was sworn in.Pete Hegseth, whom Donald Trump named as his pick to lead the defense department, had multiple affairs while married to his first wife, Vanity Fair reports.Such behavior could have violated military rules governing Hegseth, who served in the army national guard, and also strike another blow to his reputation as Republican senators consider whether he should lead the Pentagon. Other media outlets in recent days have reported on an accusation of sexual assault against Hegseth, which he denies, as well as claims that he abuses alcohol, mismanaged finances at two charities he was involved in and created a hostile environment for women.Here’s more, from Vanity Fair’s story:
    Hegseth and Schwarz’s young marriage was short-lived. In December 2008, Schwarz filed for divorce after Hegseth admitted that he cheated on her, according to four sources close to the couple. (APM Reports previously revealed that the infidelity was listed as grounds in the couple’s divorce proceedings.) The sources told me that Hegseth’s infidelity left Schwarz emotionally and psychologically scarred. ‘She was gaslighted by him heavily throughout their relationship,’ one of the sources told me. ‘As far as everyone else was concerned, they were viewed by many as this all-American power couple that were making big things for themselves.’ (Schwarz declined to comment. Hegseth’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, did not respond to a detailed list of questions for this story, and instead provided a statement that impugned my record as a reporter.)
    At the time Schwarz filed for divorce, Hegseth was dating Samantha Deering, whom he met while working in Washington, DC, at Vets for Freedom, a group that lobbied to maintain the military’s “counterinsurgency” strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2010, Hegseth married Deering, with whom he has three kids. In 2017, Deering filed for divorce after Hegseth fathered a child with his Fox News producer Jennifer Rauchet. Hegseth and Rauchet married in 2019 at Trump’s golf course in Colts Neck, New Jersey.
    Speaking of Kamala Harris, the Atlantic published a lengthy interview with four top players in the vice-president’s failed campaign for the White House, in which they discuss what went wrong.The general conclusion of the piece is that it would have been difficult for any Democrat to win, given how unhappy much of the United States was with Joe Biden’s leadership. But the president’s decision to end his bid for a second term just over three months before election day made it unlikely that Harris would be able to turn the situation around – and indeed, she was not able to.It also underscores that Democrats have work to do to win back voting blocs that once supported the party but appear to be defecting in increasing numbers to the GOP.From the piece:
    In a race shaped so profoundly by fundamental forces of disaffection with the country’s direction, could anything have changed the outcome? As the Democratic strategist Mike Podhorzer has argued, more voters might have ranked their hesitations about Trump higher if the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court had not blocked any chance that the former president would face a criminal trial before this election on the charges that he tried to subvert the previous one. Plouffe pointed to another what-if potentially big enough to have changed the result: Biden’s withdrawal from the race much earlier rather than only after his disastrous debate performance in June. If Biden had dropped out last winter, Plouffe argued to me, Democrats could have held a full-fledged primary that would have either produced a nominee more distant from his administration or strengthened Harris by requiring her to establish her independence. Looking back at what contributed to Trump’s victory, Plouffe said pointedly, Biden’s choice not to step aside sooner was ‘the cardinal sin.’
    Even so, Plouffe acknowledged, ‘I’m not sure, given the headwinds, any Democrat could have won.’ For all the difficulties that the atmosphere created for Harris, the election unquestionably raised warning signs for Democrats that extend beyond dissatisfaction with current conditions. It continued an erosion that is ominous for the party in its support among working-class nonwhite voters, particularly Latino men. And as Flaherty, the deputy campaign manager, told me, the Republican Party’s win powerfully demonstrated that it – or at least Trump himself – has built more effective mechanisms for communicating with infrequent voters, especially young men who don’t consume much conventional political news.
    Something Donald Trump might do once he takes office is pardon people convicted over the January 6 insurrection.Despite that, the justice department is continuing those prosecutions, and just announced that Matthew Brent Carver of Kentucky had pleaded guilty to a charge of “felony offense of obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder” in the attack that occurred nearly four years ago. Here’s what the department says Carver did:
    Around approximately 2:45 pm, law enforcement officers, including members of the U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)—who were performing their official duties at the Capitol on January 6—gathered and formed a police line towards the southern end of the Upper West Terrace. Several minutes later, around 2:47 pm, these officers moved in tandem towards the northern end of the Upper West Terrace in an effort to clear and secure the Upper West Terrace.
    As the officers advanced, they ordered protesters to “Move Back! Move Back!” while they attempted to secure the Upper West Terrace. Around 2:48 pm, as the police line approached the northern end of the Upper West Terrace, Carver emerged from the crowd, assumed an aggressive stance towards the approaching officers, and yelled, “Come on! Bring it!”
    Seconds later, Carver approached an MPD officer, grabbed the officer’s baton, and attempted to pull the baton away from the officer and, in doing so, also pulled the officer out of the police line and into the crowd of rioters. Carver was then pulled back into the crowd. Shortly afterward, the police line reformed and continued to push the protesters out of the Upper West Terrace, and Carver eventually made his way out of restricted permitter.
    The FBI arrested Carver on Jan. 30, 2024, in Kentucky.
    And a look at how many people have faced charges over the attack:
    In the 46 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,561 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 590 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.
    Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and other top Democrats spent the past four years arguing to voters, unsuccessfully, that Donald Trump represents a unique threat to democracy and must never be put in power again.Speaking to Newsmax, Trump adviser Jason Miller turned their rhetoric on its head, by arguing that the incoming president will be good for democracy worldwide:
    Democracy is going to be in such better standing around the world, because you have to have a strong American presidency if you want to have strong democracy around the world, where you see peace in the Middle East, where you get the Russia-Ukraine conflict resolved. And finally, we’re going to get back to where we have peace and prosperity … for everybody.
    Speaking to the conservative Newsmax network, top Donald Trump adviser Jason Miller said that the incoming president will take aggressive actions over his first 100 days in office, including cracking down on migrants and spurring more oil and gas drilling.“President Trump is … moving really fast here. I mean, even by Thanksgiving, he had his entire cabinet picked,” Miller said. He said several top advisers including incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and “border czar” Tom Homan “are putting together the executive orders and the policies. As President Trump said, we’re going to drill, baby, drill and secure the border – those will be day one priorities.”Miller continued:
    This first 100 days is going to be nonstop. There’s so many things that he’s ready to do. Because, again, we’ve never had a second-term president step in that is ready to go. In fact, we’ve never had a first-term president, never had president in history who’s so ready to go on day one, who knows exactly what they want to do. So, if you voted for President Trump, [you] should be pretty enthused that we’re gonna have the country back on track.
    As he wrapped up his speech on the outskirts of Angola’s capital, Luanda, a reporter asked Joe Biden for his comment on the declaration of martial law in South Korea.“I’m just getting briefed on it,” Biden replied.A spokesperson for the national security council said earlier that they were “seriously concerned” by the declaration, but Biden has not yet commented.As South Korea’s surprise martial law announcement sends shock waves across the country and beyond, another war abroad is also commanding the US’s attention, the Guardian’s Andrew Roth reports. Joe Biden is scrambling to “put Ukrainian forces in the strongest possible position” before Donald Trump, who has threatened to cut off all aid to Ukraine, assumes the highest level of office in the nation.The Biden administration is rushing military equipment to Ukraine in a last-ditch effort to shore up the country’s defenses against the Russian invasion before Donald Trump assumes the US presidency in January.The newly announced $725m in assistance will include Stinger anti-air missiles, anti-drone weapons, artillery shells and long-range Himars rocket munitions, and anti-armour missiles, as well as spare parts and other assistance to repair damaged equipment from US stocks, the state department said.The new shipments of weapons come as Ukraine is desperately seeking to stabilise its frontlines in both the east of the country, where Russia has made grinding progress toward the crucial logistics town of Pokrovsk, as well in the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces are bracing themselves for an assault by Russian and North Korean troops.South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, declared martial law today, and accused the country’s main opposition party of being anti-state, North Korea sympathizers.A spokesperson for the US national security council told CNN that the US was not given a warning from the South Korean president before he declared martial law.“We are seriously concerned by the developments we are seeing on the ground in the ROK [Republic of Korea].”The US state department’s principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said in a press conference today: “We are watching the recent developments in the ROK with grave concern. We are seeking to engage with our Republic of Korea counterparts at every level … This is an incredibly fluid situation.”You can read more about this development on our South Korea blog here.Donald Trump has reportedly offered the job of deputy secretary of defense to a billionaire investor whose firm has taken stakes in companies that do business with the Pentagon. Should Stephen Feinberg accept the nomination, it will be the latest to stir controversy, particularly among Democrats concerned that his nominees lack experience, have conflicts of interest or will pursue dangerous policies. Meanwhile, the fallout from Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden continues. A Delaware federal judge cited the pardon in ending Hunter Biden’s prosecution on charges related to lying to buy a gun, while a top Trump adviser refused to say if the incoming president would opt to pardon himself of recently dismissed charges over allegedly hiding classified documents and plotting to overturn the 2020 election.Here’s what else has happened today:

    Chuck Schumer will continue to lead Democrats in the Senate after a close-door election by his colleagues. He will be the minority leader starting next year, when Republicans take control of the chamber.

    Traveling in Angola, Biden was asked about his decision to pardon his son. He refused to answer, and has not said anything else about the decision since making it public on Sunday evening.

    Democrats who might seek the presidency in 2028 did not want to share with Politico their views on Hunter Biden’s pardon. Party officials seeking to lead the Democratic National Committee were more talkative.
    Donald Trump has offered the post of deputy secretary of defense to Stephen Feinberg, the billionaire co-founder and CEO of investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, which has stakes in companies that do business with the military, the Washington Post reports.It is not clear if Feinberg accepted the job, the Post reports, and Trump has not yet publicly announced the nomination.Cerberus this year disclosed an investment in M1 Support Services, which provides military aircraft training and maintenance services. In 2018, Cerberus took a majority stake in Navistar Defense, which manufactures military vehicles.Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth will be back on Capitol Hill today, meeting with Republican senators who will consider his appointment.Politico reports that he is scheduled to meet Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina and James Risch of Idaho. Hegseth will also probably run into plenty of reporters who will be asking about his drinking, treatment of women and financial management of two veterans non-profits he reportedly was forced out of.A judge has ordered an end to Hunter Biden’s prosecution on charges of lying about his drug use when buying a gun, after Joe Biden pardoned him on Sunday.Delaware federal judge Maryellen Noreika terminated the case against Hunter Biden in a decision issued today, after a jury found him guilty of three gun-related charges earlier this year. Biden was also pardoned of tax fraud charges leveled against him in California, which he pleaded guilty to. He was awaiting sentencing in both cases before the controversial presidential pardon.Here’s more about the gun case: More

  • in

    Trump lawyers file papers to request dismissal of hush-money case

    Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed paperwork pushing for dismissal of his Manhattan criminal hush-money case.The dismissal pitch came after Judge Juan Merchan’s decision on 22 November to indefinitely postpone the president-elect’s sentencing so lawyers on both sides can argue over its future, given Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.While Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly pushed for dismissal to no avail, his impending return to the presidency has presented an opportunity for them to make their case once again.Merchan said in his postponement decision that Trump’s lawyers had a 2 December deadline to file their argument for dismissal. Prosecutors had a week to submit their response.Trump’s lawyers have been calling on Merchan to toss the case outright after he defeated Kamala Harris on 5 November. In previous papers seeking permission to file a formal dismissal request, Trump’s attorneys said that dismissal was required “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power”.Todd Blanche, Trump’s main attorney and selection for deputy US attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, his choice for principal associate deputy attorney general, said that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course”.They had noted that the US justice department was poised to abandon Trump’s federal cases and referred to a departmental memo that bars prosecution of sitting presidents.“As in those cases, dismissal is necessary here,” their filing argued. “Just as a sitting president is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as president-elect.”Special counsel prosecutors who were pursuing the federal cases against Trump indeed filed paperwork on 25 November asking for their dismissal – citing justice department policy that his team has repeatedly invoked.“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” wrote Molly Gaston, the top deputy for special counsel Jack Smith.“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”Manhattan prosecutors have argued against dismissal in prior court papers and have suggested a solution that would obviate any concerns about interrupting his presidency – including “deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term”. More

  • in

    Trudeau meets rivals as he seeks united front in face of Trump tariff threat

    Canada’s federal government has redoubled its efforts to ward off potentially disastrous tariffs from its closest ally, but provincial leaders have hinted at divergent strategies in response to the protectionist threat from president-elect Donald Trump.Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, convened a rare, in-person meeting with his political rivals on Tuesday to brief them on a surprise meeting with Trump at his Florida resort over the weekend.The gathering in Ottawa was attended by Trudeau’s one-time ally Jagmeet Singh of the New Democratic party and Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader and Trudeau antagonist vying to become prime minister in the coming months.Last week, Trump threatened in a social media post to apply devastating levies of 25% on all goods and services from both Mexico and Canada, vowing to keep them in place until “such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country!”Most of Canada’s provinces share a land border with the United States and roughly 75% of the country’s exports are bound for American markets.That figure varies wildly when it comes to provincial economies. The Atlantic provinces send as little as 20% down to their southern counterparts. Alberta, on the other hand, sends nearly 90% of its exports to the US, the vast majority of which are oil.If Ontario were a country, it would be the US’s third-largest trading partner.The province’s premier, Doug Ford, has appealed to a shared history with his American neighbours – and nearly C$500bn of annual trade – in a 60-second ad which will run in the US market including on Fox News and during National Football League games with millions of viewers.Ford also repeated warnings that the measure would rebound on US consumers, telling local media: “1,000% it’s gonna hurt the US. Nine thousand Americans wake up every single morning to build products and parts for Ontario, and customers in Ontario … My message to [Trump] is: Why? Why attack your closest friend, your closest ally?”As much as 85% of Ontario’s exports are sent south, with the vast majority related to the automotive industry.But in British Columbia, where less of its economy is tied to the US, the premier, David Eby, has pledged to search out other export markets.Roughly half of the province’s exports, including softwood lumber and metallurgical coal, from BC is bound to the US, according to provincial trade figures.“We’re going to continue to do our work to expand those trading opportunities,” Eby told reporters, a nod to the growing lure of overseas markets for a province on the Pacific Ocean.Given Trump’s previous follow-through on tariff threats, his latest warning prompted a scramble in Ottawa, with Trudeau securing a meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, becoming the first G7 leader to meet the president-elect since the US election.The meeting, attended by key advisers from both camps, was described as a “very productive meeting” by Trump. Trudeau, who flew to Florida with the aim of dissuading the president from imposing tariffs, described the meeting as “excellent conversation” – but left without any assurances.Without that promise, experts say Canada will need a unified voice to lobby elected officials in the US.“Coordinating Canadian leaders to conduct extensive outreach in the US – which worked well during Trump’s first term – will be harder this time, because an election is looming in Canada, because Trudeau is behind in the polls,” said Roland Paris, a former foreign policy adviser to Trudeau and director of the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.“Discord at home makes this advocacy campaign tougher, but that’s the situation that we face now. It’s a different moment in the political life cycle of this government.Poilievre has spent the last week suggesting the prime minister was caught off-guard by Trump’s win in November, despite assurances from federal officials that contingency plans for a Trump or Kamala Harris win were in place.The Conservative leader also criticized Trudeau’s emergency meeting with provincial premiers last week. “Justin Trudeau’s plan to save the economy? A Zoom call!” he posted on social media.Paris cautioned too much against playing domestic politics with a sensitive trade relationship.“Party leader leaders in Canada are going to have to be careful, because if they’re perceived to be working against the national interest in pursuit of their partisan objectives, then that could blow up in their faces too.” More

  • in

    Can we keep the Elon Musks of the world out of British politics? Only if we act now | Oliver Bullough

    It is an inevitable consequence of the inequality inherent to the “special relationship” that, as soon as someone wins the election in the US, the British government has to swallow its objections to anything they do. Donald Trump may have been “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” six years ago, but it’s 2024 now and the once and future president has become “a very gracious host” with a soft spot for the royal family. Tech billionaire Elon Musk might compare Keir Starmer’s Britain to Stalin’s Russia but, as long as he’s Trump’s new best friend, “he’s far too important to ignore”.This kind of toadying must be as embarrassing for the politicians doing it as it is for those of us watching it, but it is at least understandable. Being friends with the US is not just the foundation of our national security policy, it’s pretty much the whole thing.What is not understandable is successive governments’ failure to learn from the US experience, and to act to prevent our own democracy from being drowned in dark money. British politicians will no doubt say that overhauling regulations around political donations isn’t a priority, that they’re focused on delivering policies that will improve ordinary people’s lives instead.But reports now suggest Musk is considering giving $100m to Reform UK as what has been described as a “f*** you Starmer payment” that would in effect install Nigel Farage as leader of the opposition. The Guardian reported on Monday that Labour might consider closing some of the loopholes that make such a wild suggestion possible – but only in the second half of this parliament, which can only mean the government has failed to understand how urgent this is.For any US billionaire, let alone the richest man in the world, spending on British politics would be like the owner of a Premier League club deciding to invest at the bottom end of the football pyramid: he could buy not only an awful lot of players, but in short order he’d probably own the whole competition.Total spending on the US presidential and congressional elections this year topped $15bn. In Pennsylvania alone, the two main parties spent almost $600m on advertising, so Musk’s $100m wouldn’t make much difference. In Britain, on the other hand, it would be transformational. The Electoral Commission is yet to publish its report on 2024’s general election, but it is unlikely that any of our parties spent much more than that – on central costs, candidate costs and staff costs – in the whole country over the whole year.A pressing need, therefore, is to limit how much political parties can spend. We do already have restrictions, which were introduced after the 1990s “cash for questions” scandal. But, under Boris Johnson, the Tories increased the limits by almost half to a combined total of about £75.9m on the central party and its candidates. The increase was transparently intended to help the Conservative party since, in the 2019 election, no other party came close to raising enough money to reach the previous threshold.The government must reduce the limit back to its old level. As with a football league, healthy competition and financial propriety suffer when one or two participants can vastly outspend the others, and the stakes are far higher in democracy than they are in sport.If politicians are constantly battling to raise more money than each other, then they will be focused on raising funds for themselves rather than on solving the problems of everyone else. They will also, inevitably, be tempted to offer their donors concessions in exchange for that money. It is in the interests of everyone – apart, of course, from the big donors – to stop that from happening.We also need to reduce the amount that any individual can give. If one man can give £5m to a political party, it inevitably undermines trust. Wealthy people may be different, but few ordinary voters would give away that kind of cash without expecting something in return. In an excellent analysis of the past two decades of political giving published this week, Transparency International suggests a yearly donation cap to any one party of £10,000, while the Labour-aligned thinktank the Institute for Public Policy Research apparently intends to recommend a higher limit ofAlthough these changes might stop Musk from throwing his $100m molotov cocktail into the House of Commons, it would not stop him – or other ill-intentioned foreign billionaires – from giving money at all, and this is where I think we need to be radical.The US culture of massive electoral spending has deep roots, but the problem was super-sized in 2010 when the supreme court ruled that corporations have the right to free speech, that spending is a form of speech, and therefore that stopping companies from making donations was unconstitutional. The result was a huge increase in donations to groups supposedly independent of political candidates, but in practice closely aligned with them.In the UK, only individuals registered to vote can donate money to political parties, but this restriction (along with others) can be avoided by making donations via a British-registered company, partnership or “unincorporated association”, an obscure kind of structure that can allow you to disguise who you are.Many observers have proposed complicated arrangements to plug these loopholes, but rich people have lawyers to circumvent complicated arrangements, so I would just ban corporate giving altogether. Companies are not people. They can’t vote, and I see no reason why they should be able to fund political campaigns either. Our democracy belongs to the voters, to no one else, and we need to keep it that way.The final step to plutocrat-proof our political system would be to re-empower the Electoral Commission, which was defanged – again, by Boris Johnson – in 2022. It needs to have its independence from government restored, and to be able to impose the kind of fines that would make even a US billionaire think before seeking to undermine the integrity of our elections. We also need to toughen the law to impose serious criminal penalties for anyone who breaks the law anyway.Democracy is in retreat everywhere, and we cannot be complacent that Britain’s version will survive today’s challenges just because it has in the past. But if we use Trump’s election as the impetus to finally build defences for our political system against dark money and its owners, then at least some good will have come out of it.

    Oliver Bullough is the author of Butler to the World: How Britain Became the Servant of Tycoons, Tax Dodgers, Kleptocrats and Criminals, and Moneyland: Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World and How to Take It Back More

  • in

    How anti-woke spin hit home for Donald Trump | Letters

    While Nesrine Malik is right in stating that woke talking points weren’t a key part of Kamala Harris’s campaign, she is incorrect in concluding that progressive stances on social issues were in no way responsible for Donald Trump’s election victory (‘Woke’ didn’t lose the US election: the patrician class who hijacked identity politics did, 25 November). Like Malik, I see structural issues as the primary determining factor, my focus as a Democratic activist being on an economy touted as thriving but in fact failing to benefit a populace struggling with obscenely high grocery prices. But having heard Harris equivocate rather than reject controversial statements that were catnip to Trump, I can assure you that there was palpable cultural antagonism too.Those ads of Trump packed a punch, not least “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you”, which capitalised on Harris’s failure to clarify her 2019 support (based on a reading of constitutional law) for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners. But just as Harris failed in this regard in 2024, the Democratic leadership has mangled election messaging over many years – opening itself to charges of cultural (certainly not economic) extremism.I find it interesting that Malik has to define “defund the police” after claiming that “even a cursory glance shows” it “is not to abolish policing”. No, a cursory glance at this ludicrous slogan implies, however unintentionally, just that. And to refuse to believe that anti-woke propaganda, sometimes false but often made possible by Democrats’ own missteps, played a part in the disastrous 2024 election results is to refuse the obvious.Karen Thatcher-SmithSonoma, California, US Nesrine Malik argues that a “cursory glance” would show that “defunding the police” was never about abolishing the police but rather a call to invest in preventive measures. This rather begs the question: why on earth did progressives campaign with such a slogan? It is hard to imagine populist agent provocateurs coming up with a more effective means of separating well‑meaning progressives from the public at large.Alex CampbellBrighton, East Sussex Nesrine Malik is right that the “common enemy is the way in which society itself is designed”. The economic moguls ruling the patrician class successfully sold to many a self-fulfilling investment in a fearful characterisation of wokeness as an absurd and impertinent intrusion in our lives. It is a compelling, too-easy answer when an underlying fear of loss of privilege or self‑challenging the pain of false beliefs around our rightful place in the social order is at stake. Inertia rules – for the moment.Genuine, universal change is hard. It’s hard for the privileged to give up their luxuries and for the oppressed to imagine deserving and enjoying a better life in a truly egalitarian society.Wokeness itself is not the problem. There is no such thing as woke, there is only waking. It is a never-ending process. It is a journey that we must all undertake – towards a society that fully values and expresses the spirituality, democracy, caring, sharing, learning and joy inherent in a naturally evolving life, and no one must be left behind.Daniel O’SullivanMcLeans Ridges, New South Wales, Australia More

  • in

    ‘He loves to divide and conquer’: Canada and Mexico brace for second Trump term

    Stone-faced as he stared into a gaggle of cameras on Tuesday, the leader of Canada’s largest province laid bare how it feels to be America’s northern neighbour and closest ally this week.“It’s like a family member stabbing you right in the heart,” said Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford. A day before, president-elect Donald Trump had pledged hefty tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the US’s two largest trading partners. “It’s the biggest threat we’ve ever seen … It’s unfortunate. It’s very, very hurtful.”For both Mexico and Canada, whose economic successes are enmeshed in their multibillion-dollar trade relationships with the United States, the forecasted chaos and disruption of a second Trump term has arrived. And the first salvo from Trump has already forced leaders from Mexico and Canada to revisit their relationship with the US – and with each other.Both have maxims to describe living in the shadow of the world’s largest economic and military superpower, which sees nearly $2tn worth of goods and services pass through its two land borders.“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant,” the late prime minister Pierre Trudeau told then US president Richard Nixon. “No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”For Mexicans, it is the words of the 19th-century dictator Porfirio Díaz: “Poor Mexico: so far from God, so close to the United States.”The vagaries of the relationship were tested again this week when Trump threatened in a social media post to apply devastating levies of 25% on all goods and services from both countries, and to keep them in place until “such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country!”Although in 2018 the US, Canada and Mexico renegotiated the Nafta trade pact that Trump had long blamed for gutting US manufacturing, the three countries still have deeply intertwined supply chains – especially an automotive industry that spans the continent – making a levy of that magnitude potentially devastating to all.In Canada, Trump’s demands have left the government scrambling to make sense of the threat – and how seriously to take it.“‘Good-faith negotiator’ is not usually a descriptor of Donald Trump. He loves to disrupt it. He loves to divide and conquer,” said Colin Robertson, a former senior Canadian diplomat who has had numerous postings in the US. “Trump is determined to truly make his mark. Last time he was disorganized. This time, he’s certainly started off demonstrating a high degree of organization.”Even before Trump’s announcement, the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and a handful of provincial premiers had mused openly about cutting Mexico out of future trade talks, instead pivoting towards a Canada-US trade pact – a move that Mexico’s lead negotiator called a “betrayal”.On Wednesday, Trudeau held an emergency meeting with all 10 premiers to push a “Team Canada” approach to the confrontation, pledging hours later to invest more in border security – a nod to Trump’s criticism of Canada’s patrolling of its border.A challenge for Canada is a need to approach Trump with skepticism, but also to take the threats seriously, says Robertson, adding that Canada’s trade relationship with the US is immensely lopsided. “The reality is, we need them. They’re big, we’re small.”Still, Trump’s demands “are perverse, but unfortunately predictable”, says Roland Paris, director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and former foreign affairs adviser to Trudeau.He notes that only a sliver of the fentanyl entering the US comes from Canada, a figure so small the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) does not even mention Canada in a report from 2020. As for migrants entering the US, Canada’s federal minister says yearly interceptions are similar to a “significant weekend” at the Mexico border.“This is [Trump’s] modus operandi,” said Paris. “He’s not wasting any time throwing America’s principal trading partners off balance, before he even enters office.”Ottawa’s efforts to smooth things over with Trump are also hampered by domestic politics. Trudeau remains immensely unpopular in polls, and the rival Conservatives have cast the prime minister as weak and ill-equipped to both preserve what Nixon called Canada’s “special relationship” with the US and to face off against a mercurial president.Paris imagines the prime minister’s cabinet, especially veterans of bruising negotiations with Trump during his first term, as “determined” to manage relations with a country that for decades has remained a staunch ally. He says years of close work has produced a significant overlap in policy goals for the two nations, including skepticism of China and a need to secure critical mineral and energy supply chains.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Canada is going to need resolve, patience and the most far-reaching advocacy campaign this country has ever conducted in the United States,” he said. “But everybody knows that Trump is so unpredictable that there’s no saying what he might do this time.”For Mexico, which has long borne the brunt of Trump’s ire, Monday’s tariff threat comes amid already tense relations, including a reform to elect almost all judges by popular vote that has drawn sharp criticism from the US. At the same time, the arrest in July of two top Sinaloa cartel bosses in Texas, a move that surprised Mexican officials, has triggered a bloody gang war that the Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, blames on the US.On Wednesday, Sheinbaum spoke with Trump, a conversation which the US president-elect characterised as “wonderful” after he claimed the Mexican president pledged to “stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border”. Sheinbaum later gently clarified that she wouldn’t close the border, but that the call was “very kind” and had convinced her that no tariffs would happen.Martha Bárcena, a former Mexican ambassador to the US, said Trump’s tariff suggestion has kicked off “panic” in the Mexican community living in the US. “How can you hit your partners in a free trade agreement with tariffs 25% higher than what you put on the rest of the world? It’s crazy,” she said.“What was his ceiling is now his floor,” she said of his previous negotiating position on trade. “The lesson? Never yield to a bully.”Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, a Mexican diplomat who oversaw migration when Trump first came to power, says the bombast of the next US president can be easier to work with than more traditional allies.“The Biden administration is a little more diplomatic, but this can actually make the discussion more complicated, because you don’t know what the terms of negotiation are,” he said. “Maybe it’s just my style of negotiation. It’s simpler when it’s more open. They put the cards on the table: ‘This is what we want.’ Then you can respond.”Both Mexico and Canada have scores of diplomats already experienced with Trump, but both sides also expressed concern that many of the key figures in Trump’s first term, who acted as a “check” on the president’s whim-based policy decisions, will be absent from the second administration, replaced by loyalists and idealogues who will do whatever he says.Still, for Mexican officials, there is a glimmer of hope that those in positions of power are more reasonable when they’re not in the media spotlight. Alcántara noted that “border czar” Tom Homan, who recently pledged to carry out a “mass deportation’, is known for his controversial positions, “but if you take the facts to him and explain them, he understands. He has a certain discourse in the media that’s very aggressive, but when you sit down together, you can talk.”For Mexico and Canada, a recognition that their fates remain tied to the US has forced them to redouble their efforts, not to reconsider their relationship.“In the end, we need to bet on a strong North America,” said Alcántara. It’s simple: make North America great again. As a region, not just the United States.” More

  • in

    Abandoning Ukraine means ‘infinitely higher’ long-term security costs, MI6 chief says

    Abandoning Ukraine would jeopardise British, European and American security and lead to “infinitely higher” costs in the long term, the head of MI6 has warned in a speech that amounted to a plea to Donald Trump to continue supporting Kyiv.Richard Moore, giving a rare speech, said he believed Vladimir Putin “would not stop” at Ukraine if he was allowed to subjugate it in any peace talks involving the incoming US Republican administration.“If Putin is allowed to succeed in reducing Ukraine to a vassal state, he will not stop there. Our security – British, French, European and transatlantic – will be jeopardised,” Moore said during an address given in Paris alongside his French counterpart.The spy chief was touted earlier this week as a possible surprise appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the US, though he is not thought to be pressing for the job. The former Labour minister Peter Mandelson is considered the frontrunner for a critical role at a delicate time in transatlantic relations.Moore has served as the head of MI6 for four years in what is normally considered a five-year job. At the start of his tenure he overlapped with the Trump adviser Richard Grenell, who was the acting director of national intelligence.Trump has complained about the expense of supporting Kyiv and said repeatedly that he wants to end the war, claiming he could do so “within 24 hours”. JD Vance, the vice-president-elect, has suggested freezing the conflict on the current frontlines, and denying Ukraine Nato membership for an extended period.“The cost of supporting Ukraine is well known,” said Moore. “But the cost of not doing so would be infinitely higher. If Putin succeeds, China would weigh the implications, North Korea would be emboldened and Iran would become still more dangerous.”A key British argument to the incoming Trump administration is to try to link the war in Ukraine with US concerns about the rising military might of China, emphasising that the arrival of North Korean troops is bringing authoritarianism from Asia into what was previously a European conflict.Moore emphasised the UK’s history of intelligence cooperation with France in a speech to commemorate the 120th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, but he was also careful to emphasise that he expected UK-US intelligence cooperation to be unchanged regardless of any political tensions.“For decades the US-UK intelligence alliance has made our societies safer; I worked successfully with the first Trump administration to advance our shared security and look forward to doing so again,” Moore told his audience at the UK embassy, a short walk from the Élysée Palace, the official home of the French president.The spy chief’s public presence in the French capital reflects a wider political rapprochement between the British prime minister and the French president. After Trump’s victory, Keir Starmer met Emmanuel Macron in France where the two discussed Ukraine amid reports that the Republicans would like European soldiers to act as peacekeepers if a ceasefire was agreed.Moore said Putin’s goal was to “challenge western resolve” and that western spy agencies had “recently uncovered a staggeringly reckless campaign of Russian sabotage in Europe” – a reference to a mixture of arson, assassination and kidnap plots, which included a fire at a DHL warehouse in Birmingham caused by an incendiary device hidden in a package sent at the behest of Russia.Moscow has said its demands regarding Ukraine remain unchanged. Earlier this month, the Kremlin said its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was the “direct result” of a Nato policy that aimed at “creating a staging ground against Russia on Ukrainian soil”.Russia continues to demand “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, and in previous peace negotiations said Kyiv’s military should be reduced to 50,000. It also claims the territory of four eastern and southern Ukrainian provinces, Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Luhansk, of which only the fourth is fully occupied. More