Category: Nation USA

Much has been written about the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on big-city populations. Brookings Metro’s recent analysis of large metropolitan area declines makes plain that during the prime year of the pandemic (from July 2020 to July 2021) there were outsized population losses in the nation’s biggest metropolitan areas. But more recent Census Bureau estimates focusing on cities (rather than metropolitan areas) show the pandemic’s impact to be even more dramatic, with unprecedented losses across the 88 U.S. cities with populations exceeding 250,000 residents.  

This analysis places these estimates in the context of recent decades’ trends, when America’s big cities experienced noticeable ups and downs. It then shifts the focus to the suburbs of major metropolitan areas, which—while benefitting somewhat from recent city population losses—tend to display growth slowdowns of their own. 

As a group, big cities experienced an absolute population loss during the pandemic 

Big-city growth has shown variations since the turn of the century. In the first part of the 2000-10 decade, big cities took a downturn as easy credit and growth in metro areas with large, sprawling suburbs brought on a suburban boom. This trend was reversed later in the decade due to the 2007-09 Great Recession and near collapse of the housing market, which negatively impacted suburban growth. This led many would-be suburbanites—especially millennials—to instead remain in big cities as they delayed family formation and suburban homeownership, which extended higher city growth rates though the early 2010s. 

As the economy and housing market picked up in the mid-2010s, growth in big cities slowed. The pandemic began to affect city growth in 2019-20, and even more so in 2020-21—the first year this century when large cities in aggregate registered a population loss, declining by 1%. 

Cities that showed the greatest percentage losses were San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., and Boston. Substantial losses also occurred in St. Louis and Atlanta (see Figure 2). 

While pandemic decreases in both immigration and natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) brought lower national population, domestic migration played a primary role in city population losses, as shown in Figure 3 for San Francisco and New York. 

The sharp 2020-21 growth slowdown occurred in far more cities than just the above. Among the 88 U.S. cities with populations exceeding 250,000, 77 showed either slower growth, greater declines, or a shift from growth to decline over the previous year. Sixty-two cities registered their lowest growth since at least 2010 (see downloadable Table A). Fourteen cities experienced their first population losses since at least 2010, including Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, San Diego, and Seattle. Twenty-eight cites registered slower growth in 2020-21 than the previous year, including the high-growth cities of Fort Worth, Texas; San Antonio; Phoenix; Las Vegas; Jacksonville, Fla.; and Charlotte, N.C. (see Figure 4). 

Among the few cities that grew more rapidly in 2020-21 than in the previous year are four in interior California (Riverside, Stockton, Fresno, and Bakersfield), two in Nevada (Reno and North Las Vegas), as well as Gilbert, Arizona and Raleigh, N.C. Still, over the 2010-21 period, most cities achieved their highest growth rates in the earlier part of the 2010s decade (see downloadable Table A). 

A record number of big cities lost population 

Perhaps the most noteworthy finding for the prime pandemic year is the dramatic rise in the number of cities that lost population. In keeping with the ups and downs of city growth since 2000, there have been sharp changes in the number of big cities that lost population each year. 

The dispersion to smaller areas in the early 2000-10 decade led to increases in the number of big cities that lost population each year, ranging from 29 to 32 of all 88 cities between 2001 and 2005. This diminished to a range of just four to 10 population-losing cities during the post-recession period of 2009 to 2014. The number started to rise again in the mid-2010s, as 23 cities lost population in 2018-19 and 27 in the pandemic’s first year, 2019-20. Yet the sharp increase in number of population-losing cities in 2020-21 (to 51 of the 88 big cities) is of historic proportions for recent decades. 

Population-losing cities are located in all parts of the country, though those with greatest numeric losses (aside from Chicago) tend to be coastal or near coastal cities: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Calif., Philadelphia, Washington DC and Boston. Yet many are also in the center of the country, including cities with long-standing population declines (Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Buffalo, N.Y.) as well as newer entries such as Indianapolis and Omaha, Neb. Many others are in generally growing parts of the country, including Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Memphis, Tenn., and Miami in the South, and Denver and Albuquerque, N.M. in the West. 

It is also noteworthy how the list of population-gaining and population-losing cities changes over time (see downloadable Table B). In boom times for cities (such as 2000-01 and right after the Great Recession), New York ranked first in overall population gains, whereas during the down years, it ranked among the those with greatest population losses—fifth in 2005-06 and first in each year from 2016-17 to 2020-21. Los Angeles, Houston, and Dallas also flipped from being among the greatest population-gaining cities in 2010-11 to those with population losses in 2020-21. Note as well that Phoenix, San Antonio, and Fort Worth were among the 10 highest-gaining cities for most years since 2005-06, though each showed far lower growth in 2020-21 than in earlier years 

Suburbs of large metro areas registered growth declines in 2020-21 

The sharp decline in city growth during the pandemic’s prime year did not generally lead to equivalent rises in suburban growth in the nation’s 56 major metropolitan areas (those with populations exceeding 1 million). This is because these areas also showed substantial metropolitan-wide growth slowdowns, affecting the suburbs as well as cities. 

Nonetheless, most suburban portions of metropolitan areas (the areas that lie outside of primary cities) continued to grow more rapidly than those cities. Figure 6 shows the annual growth of the aggregated primary city and suburban populations for the nation’s major metro areas between 2010 and 2021.[2]  For the first half of the 2010s, overall primary city growth exceeded suburban growth. This shifted in 2015-16, as primary city growth rates declined, continuing though 2020-21, when that growth became negative. 

Among the nation’s 56 major metro areas, primary city populations grew faster than their suburbs in 29 during the first two years of the 2010s decade. This fell to just six in 2020-21 (see downloadable Table C). 

While suburban growth remained higher than primary city growth though this latter period, it too began to decline, especially over the past two years. The combined suburban populations grew by nearly 1% annually during the first five years of the 2010s, but that rate shrunk to just 0.26% in 2020-21. 

Although many suburban areas received some in-migration from their primary cities, they also saw smaller contributions from immigration and natural increase. Between 2019-20 and 2020-21, 43 of the 56 major metro area suburbs showed either declining growth or increased population losses, and 31 experienced their slowest annual growth since at least 2010. Nineteen of the 56 suburbs sustained population losses in 2020-21, compared with just six or fewer in the early years of the decade. 

Among major metro areas experiencing suburban population declines in the last year are Boston, Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Each displayed somewhat different patterns since 2010. All four areas showed negative primary city growth in the last year (Seattle for the first time). In the Boston metro area, primary cities grew more rapidly than suburbs until 2019-20, though its suburban population declined then as well. In the Cleveland metro area, both the primary city and its suburbs displayed negative growth throughout the period, with the city seeing a bigger 2020-21 decline. In the Los Angeles metro area, the primary city grew more rapidly (or declined less) than its suburbs throughout the decade, though both took a huge dip in 2020-21. And in the Seattle metro area, the primary city outgrew its suburbs each year until 2020-21, when both displayed sharp population declines—the city’s being slightly larger than the suburbs’. 

The future of big cities in the post-pandemic period 

The historic population declines in the nation’s largest cities raise the question of how unusual this prime pandemic period was. Examining data going back two decades, there was no individual year that comes close to showing the population declines that these cities witnessed in 2020-21, alongside slower growth in their entire metro areas and suburbs. 

Recent analyses of statistics from the U.S. Postal Service and other sources suggest that this 12-month period might be an aberration, and that some of the reasons for a dispersion away from these cities (such as an escape from density for pandemic-related safety reasons) may no longer be salient. Still, the patterns of telecommuting that have begun to take hold may make a “return to the city” less inevitable than it would otherwise be. 

While many of those who fled cities may not return, future city gains may well be in the hands of younger generations and new immigrant waves—groups that in the past tended to choose big cities as their destinations.

By, Stephen Groves

(AP) — Gov. Kristi Noem had pledged to “immediately” call a special legislative session to “guarantee that every unborn child has a right to life in South Dakota” if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. But nearly three weeks after that ruling, the first-term Republican remains unusually quiet about exactly what she wants lawmakers to pass.

Noem, widely considered a potential 2024 presidential candidate, isn’t the only GOP governor with national ambitions who followed up calls for swift action with hesitance when justices ended the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place for nearly 50 years.

In Arkansas, which like South Dakota had an abortion ban immediately triggered by the court’s ruling, Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he does not plan to put abortion on the agenda of next month’s special session focused on tax cuts. And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a top potential White House contender also running for reelection, has shied away from detailing whether he will push to completely ban abortions despite a pledge to “expand pro-life protections.”

Noem has given no indication of the date, proposals or whether a special session will even happen to anyone beyond a small group of Statehouse leaders. When asked whether the governor still plans to call lawmakers back to the Capitol, her office this week referred to a June statement that indicated it was being planned for “later this year.”

It’s a change of tack from when the Supreme Court’s decision first leaked in May and the governor fired off a tweet saying she would “immediately call for a special session to save lives” if Roe was overturned. The enthusiasm placed Noem, the first woman to hold the governor’s office in South Dakota, in a prominent spot in the anti-abortion movement.

However, as the abortion ban became reality last month, Noem kept her plans a secret besides saying “there is more work to do” and pledging “to help mothers in crisis.”

Some conservatives in the South Dakota Legislature wanted to take aggressive action, including trying to stop organizations or companies from paying for women to travel out of state for an abortion, changing the criminal punishment for performing an abortion and possibly clarifying state law to ensure the ban didn’t affect other medical procedures.

Republican state Sen. Brock Greenfield said many South Dakota lawmakers attending the state party’s convention on June 24, the same day as the Supreme Court ruling, expected Noem would call them back to Pierre this week for a special session, but “obviously that hasn’t come to fruition.”

“It might not be a bad idea to just let the dust settle and proceed very carefully, very strategically as we go forward,” said Greenfield, a former executive director of the state’s most influential anti-abortion group, South Dakota Right to Life.

The caution reflects the evolving landscape of abortion politics, as Republicans navigate an issue that threatens to divide the party while giving Democrats a potential election-year boost.

Nationwide polling conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research before the Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe showed it was unpopular, with a majority of Americans wanting to see the court leave the precedent intact. Subsequent polling since the ruling showed that a growing number of Americans, particularly Democrats, cited abortion or women’s rights as priorities at the ballot box.

In political battleground states, some other prominent GOP governors — including possible White House contenders — haven’t charged to enact abortion bans.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has said he considers the abortion question settled in his state, pointing to a 1991 law that protects abortion rights. However, he has resisted efforts by the Democratic-controlled legislature to expand abortion access.

Virginia’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, also considered a potential presidential contender, wants lawmakers in the politically divided General Assembly to take up legislation next year, saying he personally would favor banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

During an online forum with abortion opponents he said he would “gleefully” sign any bill “to protect life” but acknowledged that Virginia’s political reality might require compromise.  “My goal is that we … in fact get a bill to sign,” he said. “It won’t be the bill that we all want.”

In the wake of South Dakota banning abortions, Noem took a softer approach on the issue by launching a website for pregnant women. She even seemed warm to the idea of pushing for state-backed paid family leave.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is in a closely watched gubernatorial race with Democrat Beto O’Rourke, took a similar approach to the high court ruling that could make it the most populous state to ban abortions. He issued a statement saying Texas “prioritized supporting women’s healthcare and expectant mothers” and pointed to efforts to expand programs for women’s health as well as fund organizations that dissuade women from having an abortion.

States with the nation’s strictest abortion laws, such as Texas and South Dakota, also have some of the worst rates of first-trimester prenatal care, as well as uninsured children in poverty, according to an AP analysis of federal data.

South Dakota Right to Life’s current executive director Dale Bartscher suggested Noem’s action in a special session could be part of a turn in strategy: “An entirely new pro-life movement has just begun — we stand ready to serve women, the unborn and families.” He said he had been communicating with the governor’s office on her plans but declined to detail them.

But Noem in recent weeks has faced questioning for her stance that the only exception to the state’s abortion ban should be to save the life of a mother, even if she has been raped, became pregnant through incest or is a child. 

It’s also not clear where she stands on some conservative lawmakers’ desire to target organizations and companies that are helping women leave the state to access abortion services — a proposition that could undermine Noem’s efforts to attract businesses to the state.

Brockfield warned that a special legislative session could result in “a whole lot of arguments over whether we’re going too far, or whether we haven’t gone far enough.”

At the same time, abortion rights protesters have shown up at Noem’s campaign office and named her in chants decrying the state’s ban. They see momentum growing for an effort to restore some abortion rights in the state through a 2024 ballot measure, pointing out that South Dakota voters in 2006 and 2008 rejected Republican state lawmakers’ efforts to ban the procedure.

“I’ve lived in this state my whole life and I’ve never seen people show up to protest for this issue like they have in recent weeks,” said Kim Floren, who helps run an abortion access fund called Justice Empowerment N

The fund has also been strategizing for a special session, including hiring legal representation and planning protests in Pierre, Floren said.

Their desires may be dismissed in South Dakota’s Statehouse, where Republicans hold 90% of seats, but abortion rights advocates say there is a fresh urgency in alerting voters to the potential impact of the state abortion ban.

“We’re going to see people die,” said Callan Baxter, president of the South Dakota chapter of the National Organization for Women. “We’re going to see some real life consequences and the exposure is going to have a big impact legislatively going forward.”

The summer of 2022 is a season of deepening and widespread discontent, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. The survey finds the public’s outlook on the state of the country the worst it’s been since 2009, while its view on the economy is the worst since 2011. And nearly 7 in 10 say President Joe Biden hasn’t paid enough attention to the nation’s most pressing problems. 

Biden’s approval rating in the poll stands at 38%, with 62% disapproving. His approval ratings for handling the economy (30%) and inflation (25%) are notably lower. Rising costs are a primary economic pressure for most Americans: 75% call inflation and the cost of living the most important economic problem facing their family. Last summer, that figure stood at 43%.

With midterm elections approaching, the poll finds no indication that Biden’s standing with the public is improving — and among some critical constituencies, it is worsening. Among Democrats, for example, Biden’s approval numbers have softened by 13 points since the spring (from 86% in a late April through early May poll to 73% now), while his numbers among independents and Republicans have held about even. Biden’s approval rating among Democrats for handling the economy is also on the decline (62% approve, down from 71% this spring). And on inflation, it is barely above water (51% of Democrats approve, 47% disapprove).

Among people of color, 45% now approve of Biden’s overall performance, down from 54% in the spring. That decline includes a 6-point dip among Black adults and a 9-point decline among Hispanic adults. Biden’s approval ratings for handling the economy and inflation now break negative among Black adults, who have been among the President’s strongest backers (47% approve and 52% disapprove on the economy, while 34% approve and 65% disapprove on inflation).

Few Americans who approve of Biden’s overall performance say they do so strongly. Overall, just 12% strongly approve of the way Biden is handling the presidency compared with 43% who say they strongly disapprove of his work. Only 28% of Democrats strongly approve, while among Republicans, strong disapproval is nearly universal at 84%. 

The public’s perceptions of the economy and of how things are going in the country overall are deeply negative and worsening. Since the spring, the share saying things are going badly for the country has climbed 11 points to 79%, the highest since February 2009, and shy of the all-time worst reached in November 2008 by just four points. That shift comes largely among Democrats. Just 38% of Democrats now say things are going well in the country, down from 61% this spring. Likewise, there’s been a steep drop among people of color, from 41% saying things were going well in the spring to 27% now. 

Only 18% of Americans describe the nation’s economy as in good shape, while 82% say economic conditions are poor. About 4 in 10 (41%) describe the economy as “very poor,” up 11 points since the spring and nearly doubled since December. As some economists warn of a looming recession, most Americans think the country is already there. The poll finds 64% of Americans feel the economy is currently in a recession, higher than the shares who said so just ahead of the Great Recession (46% felt that way in October 2007) and a recession that began in 2001 (44% said the country was already in a recession in February ’01). Majorities across parties say the country is already in a recession, including 56% of Democrats, 63% of independents and 76% of Republicans. 

Asked to name the biggest economic problem facing their family today, 75% call out an issue related to the cost of living or inflation, including 38% who mentioned inflation and rising costs generally, 29% who mention gas prices, and 18% who mention the cost of food. All of those figures have increased sharply since last summer. One poll participant said, “Prices on everything just keeps getting higher and higher. is it going to stop?” Another said, “I work 40+ hours and can barely afford to survive. With the price of gas and price of food so high, I don’t see how anyone can have extra money to do anything other than work.” And a third participant said, “Inflation causes so much pain with everything we buy and everything we do.” 

While the public’s attention has shifted sharply to inflation, few think the President’s focus has followed. In the poll, 68% say Biden has not paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems, up from 58% who said so last November. That outpaces the previous high in CNN polling saying a President’s attention has been misplaced (59% saying Donald Trump hadn’t paid attention to the most important problems in late summer 2017). 

On this question too, Biden is losing ground among his core support groups. Among Democrats, 57% say he has the right priorities, down nearly 20 points from 75% last fall. Among people of color, just 35% say he has the right priorities, and among those younger than 35, only 23% say the President has the right focus. 

The poll finds Biden’s approval ratings for handling immigration (39%) and the situation in Ukraine (46%) outperforming those for economic issues, but majorities disapprove on both issues. 

The survey also suggests both the President’s and vice president’s personal favorability has taken a hit. A year and a half ago, just before their inauguration, 59% held a favorable opinion of Biden and 51% had a favorable view of Kamala Harris. Now, those figures stand at 36% and 32% respectively. Meanwhile, the public’s view of first lady Jill Biden is mixed: 34% have a favorable opinion, 29% unfavorable and 37% are unsure how they feel about her. 

The new CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS June 13 through July 13 among a random national sample of 1,459 adults initially reached by mail, and is the third survey CNN has conducted using this methodology. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. (Courtesy; www.cnn.com)

West Virginia’s population shrank 3.7% to 1,782,959 in 2021, from the 1.9 million people who lived there in 2010. In contrast, as per a report by The Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, the population in the US grew 6.5% during that period to 330 Million people across all the 50 states and DC. The state of West Virginia ranks 50 out of all 50 US states in population. 

West Virginia’s gross state product (GSP) reached $72.2bn, with growth of 0.6% over the 5-years to 2019. West Virginia’s GSP growth ranks 45 out of all 50 US states. GSP is a measurement of a state’s output, or the sum of value added from all industries in the state. The state employs 0.9 million people with a growth rate of -0.2% over the five years to 2018, which ranks it 50 out of all US states.

Senator Joseph Manchin III, representing the state of West Virginia in the US Senate since 2010, is a politician and businessman. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the 34th governor of West Virginia from 2005 to 2010 and the 27th secretary of state of West Virginia from 2001 to 2005. As per his website, Senator Manchin currently serves as the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and also serves on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs – four critical committees that tackle the important work of addressing our nation’s energy needs, overseeing discretionary spending, standing up for our Veterans, and defending our nation.

Democrats now have a thin majority in the US Senate, and passing sweeping legislation is not easy, due to a rule requiring votes from 60 of the Senate’s 100 members.  With just 50 members and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate Democrats will have the power to confirm executive and judicial nominees and launch investigations in a range of areas.

The current predicament of a 50/50 split in the Senate gives the ruling Democratic party very little scope for legislating President Biden’s Agenda. And that makes every one of the 50 Democratic Senatorall a strong voice, allowing them to choose to support or reject any agenda or policy of the Biden administration. Manchin is powerful in part because of circumstance — in a 50-50 Senate, his party can pass almost nothing without him.

In order to advance any legislation, President Joe Biden’s administration may need to modify its priorities on economic relief, climate change, gun laws, electoral reforms, racial equity and immigration in order to gain support from Republicans and moderate Democrats like Manchin. 

One senator, who has exploited this position to suit his narrow political  agenda, is Sen. Manchin, who represents the less than 2 million people of West Virginia, against the well-being of the 330 million Americans. 

For instance, Manchin’s decision last week to move ahead with a reconciliation deal that doesn’t involve climate change and raising taxes on the wealthy, risks consigning the entire world to a warmer future, said scientists and advocates for a safer world, said while reacting to the news. Democrats, activists and scientists reacting to the news worried that the inability of Congress to take meaningful reaction would consign the U.S. to more heatwaves, floods, droughts and intense storms.  

 

Democratic senate leaders have been negotiating with Manchin for over a year to try to get him on board with investments that would dramatically reduce U.S. contribution to climate change.  But on Friday last week, Manchin said he’s not interested in immediately moving forward with a deal that includes those investments. Manchin, relaying a discussion he’d had telling Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) of his decision, suggested he might be able to agree to a deal at a later date. 

But those comments rang hollow with climate activists, who noted he has made similar remarks in the past. “Joe Manchin is waving the fate of human survival over our heads like a bone to hungry dogs and it’s really quite frightening,” John Paul Mejia, a national spokesperson for Sunrise Movement, told the media. 

Evergreen Action Executive Director Jamal Raad said in a statement that Manchin should not be considered a good-faith negotiator.  “Senator Manchin has lost all credibility and can no longer be trusted to prioritize the well-being of Americans and the planet over his own profiteering and political grandstanding,” Raad said.  

“Every ton matters,” said Dan Lashof, the U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, referring to tons of carbon emissions.  “Whether or not this bill gets done has a material impact on total emissions from the U.S. and that affects the magnitude of climate change that we will face,” he said.  Those who have studied the climate-saving potential of the Democrats’ climate bill agree that not passing it would likely lead to more emissions and a warmer planet.

Princeton professor Jesse Jenkins, who has modeled the potential emissions cuts of the legislation under consideration, told The Hill that based on what had been reported thus far, a climate deal would have probably cut emissions between 800 million and 1 billion metric tons in 2030. That’s the equivalent of taking between 172 million and 215 million cars off the roads for a year.  “We’re losing two-thirds to three-quarters of the progress we were hoping to make by 2030,” he said.  

Some argued that the rest of the world may be less inclined to take bold action without the U.S. participating as well.  “The U.S. is THE largest historical all-time emitter, and for that reason occupies a special role. We can’t expect other countries to act meaningfully if we fail to,” said climatologist Michael Mann.  

President Biden pledged “strong executive action” on climate change in reaction to Manchin’s move. But, with Trump appointed conservative Justices leading the US Supreme Court, Biden’s actions could be blocked and impact minimized. 

Most activists reacted in fury to the latest setback, castigating the West Virginia Democrat as potentially signing a death warrant for meaningful climate action against the backdrop of a generationally conservative court, the likely loss of a Democratic majority in Congress and the possible loss of the White House in 2025. 

“Joe Manchin has pretended to be supportive of certain investments for over a year now, and it turns out that that was bulls—,” Jamal Raad said.  “That will now be his lasting legacy — a person that tried to put his own profits and sense of his political standing over the planet.” 

This is not the first time, Manchin ditched Democrats. The 2018 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh were tumultuous even by the standards of the Trump era. Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative nominated to replace a more centrist figure, Justice Anthony Kennedy, faced sexual assault allegations dating back four decades from Christine Blasey Ford.

Republicans had held a 51-49 majority in the Senate, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would ultimately refuse to back Kavanaugh. That left Manchin and moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) as the crucial votes. Manchin was the only Democrat confirming him to the highest court. Last month, after the Supreme Court struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision, Manchin said he was “alarmed” by the actions of Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, the other Trump nominee for whom he voted.

Again in December 2021, the West Virginia Senator’s single most dramatic intervention may have been his announcement that he would sink President Biden’s keystone legislation, the “Build Back Better” bill. The fact that he chose to announce his opposition on Fox News drove liberal Democrats to even more intense outrage.

Manchin said in a statement reiterating his opposition to the legislation, which would have extended an expanded child tax credit, helped with child care costs, taxed high earners more and taken significant action on climate change, among other things.

In June 2021, Manchin destroyed the potential party unity on ‘For the People’ voting reform legislation, one of the major goals of Democrats when they won back the White House — and control of the Senate — in the 2020 election. Many in the party see American democracy as being in existential danger. Schumer declared the protection of voting rights, and of elections themselves, to be a “top priority.” The legislation never had a clear path through the Senate, requiring 60 votes to pass in the absence of filibuster reform. But Manchin denied Democrats even the claim that they were unified behind the proposal. Manchin reiterated his opposition to filibuster reform, driving the final nail in the coffin of the “For the People” proposal.

Manchin has all along thwarted filibuster reform ever since he was elected to the Senate. Democrats often become enraged with Manchin because they believe he acts in bad faith.  In one of many statements outlining his position, Manchin’s office detailed his steady stance dating back to 2013, when he opposed such reform while Democrats held the Senate majority.

Manchin is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate — and perhaps the most controversial, at least with the rest of his party. He won reelection to a second full Senate term in 2018, just two years after President Trump carried his state by more than 40 points.

“Manchin is not particularly concerned about President Biden succeeding. He’s not particularly concerned about the needs of working people,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told SiriusXM’s “Dean Obeidallah Show” last week.  

Manchin’s refusal to back any climate proposal could doom action for years to come, given the strong likelihood of Republicans flipping the House in November. Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) independently used the same term to describe Manchin’s stance this week: “Infuriating.”

Bowing to public pressure, anger and frustration after series of mass shootings across the nation has claimed tens of thousands of lives every year, finally a bipartisan group of US Senators announced an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation on June 12th, which includes “needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons.”

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators say they have reached a deal on a package of safety and gun-related measures narrowly focused on preventing future shootings similar to the one in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were killed in their school, media reports stated

The proposed legislation is expected to include support for state crisis intervention orders, funding for school safety resources, an enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21 and penalties for straw purchasing.

The agreement has the support of at least 20 senators, including the support of 10 Republican senators, who worked closely over the past several weeks to find the areas of common ground that could pass the closely divided Senate. The agreement is significant given how divided lawmakers have been over the gun issue, but the actual legislative text is not yet written.

Critically, the legislation includes a so-called red flag provision, with the government providing “resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others,” according to the release. The proposal would also include “major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery.”

The proposal, which has not been written into legislative text, includes money to encourage states to pass and implement so-called “red flag” laws to remove guns from potentially dangerous people, money for school safety and mental health resources, expanded background checks for gun purchases for people between the ages of 18 and 21 and penalties for illegal straw purchases by convicted criminals.

The negotiators called it a “commonsense” proposal that would reduce the threat of violence across the country. “Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons,” the group said in a statement. “Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.”

The framework calls for additional vetting for potential gun buyers between the ages of 18 and 21 to include previously blocked juvenile records on criminal activity and mental health. Lawmakers say the plan would also reduce what’s known as the “boyfriend loophole” to include dating partners in preventing convicted domestic abusers from buying a gun.

The school safety and mental health sections include funding for school-based programs like mental health support, violence prevention and training for students and educators. The plan would also expand telehealth for mental and behavioral treatment and investments in children and family mental health services through community health centers.

However, mental health experts, like the National Alliance for Mental Illness, say the majority of gun violence is not perpetrated by people with a history of mental illness. Aides have said that it could take weeks to go through the legal and technical process of turning a preliminary deal into a final bill. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the lead Democrat in the negotiations, told Reuters that aides would begin that work on Monday morning.

Growing support, despite detract

Senators have been broadly optimistic that any bipartisan agreement will eventually pass the Senate, but the ultimate fate of the bill is not entirely clear. President Biden expressed support for the deal in a statement. “Obviously, it does not do everything that I think is needed, but it reflects important steps in the right direction, and would be the most significant gun safety legislation to pass Congress in decades,” Biden said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pledged to put a bill on the floor as soon as possible once legislation is written. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., released a statement praising the negotiators but stopped short of pledging support to an eventual bill.

At least two prominent gun safety advocacy groups are backing the legislation. Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action both released statements supporting the proposal.

“If the framework announced today gets enacted into law, it will be the most significant piece of gun safety legislation to make it through Congress in 26 long and deadly years,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement.  Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, called the framework “a major step in finally getting federal action to address gun violence.”

The National Rifle Association has not yet released a position on the proposal. In a statement, the group said they do not weigh in on frameworks and will wait until the final bill is complete. “We encourage our elected officials to provide more resources to secure our schools, fix to our severely broken mental health system and support law enforcement,” the statement said. “The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation.”

Other gun rights groups are already opposing the plan and criticizing the 10 Republican senators who are backing it. If they are able to convince any one of them to back away from the deal as the legislative details are hammered out, it could kill the legislation if no other Republicans join Democrats to support the proposal.

The former US attorney general, Bill Barr says, Donald Trump was “detached from reality” after the 2020 election, a congressional panel has heard. Testimony from Bill Barr played at the 6 January Capitol riot inquiry revealed deep divisions at the Trump campaign over his election fraud claims.

Two camps emerged – a “Team Normal” that accepted Mr Trump’s loss, and loyalists who did not. The panel has accused Mr Trump of an attempted coup to remain in power.

The second of a series of public hearings, Monday’s session was preceded by the announcement that a star witness – Mr Trump’s former campaign manager Bill Stepien – would not be appearing because his wife had gone into labor

Instead, his lawyer gave a statement on his behalf and Mr Stepien’s previous private testimony was publicly played by the Democratic-led US House of Representatives select committee.

In it, Mr Stepien revealed that members of Mr Trump’s inner circle had advised him to not declare victory in the November 2020 election.

A faction of the campaign he dubbed “Team Normal” told the former president that he had lost the election, Mr Stepien said, but another group refused to accept the outcome.

It became known as “Rudy’s team”, after former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was among the most vocal of Mr Trump’s supporters to claim the election was stolen.

Both Mr Stepien and another witness, former Trump adviser Jason Miller, testified that Mr Giuliani appeared to be inebriated on the night of the election.

Mr Miller said that even with results still coming in, Mr Giuliani suggested that Trump “go and declare victory and say that we’d won it outright”.

Through a spokesman on Monday, Mr Giuliani denied that he was intoxicated on election night, saying he did not know why Mr Miller would “make such a false claim”.

Among those who warned the then-president not to declare victory was former Attorney General Bill Barr, who in videotaped testimony said that he had repeatedly told Mr Trump there was no basis to claims of rigged voting machines or ballot “dumps” – which Mr Barr referred to as “crazy stuff”.

Mr Trump, however, refused to acknowledge these concerns and continued to spread fraud claims, Mr Barr said. He testified that he was “demoralised” by his boss’ claims.

“I thought, ‘Boy if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact with – he’s become detached from reality, if he really believes this stuff,'” he said.

The 6 January select committee is seeking to show that the ex-president’s election fraud claims directly led to an attack on the US Capitol.

“He and his closest advisers knew those claims were false,” California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren said, referring to Mr Trump. “But they continued to peddle them anyway”.

The committee is scheduled to hold more hearings on Wednesday and Thursday later this week. Members of the select committee are laying out further evidence for their case that the former President Donald Trump was responsible for the chaotic attack on the US Capitol last year.

The hearing is quieter today – the second time that committee members are presenting their case to the public – and fewer members of Congress are here.

The challenge for the committee members is convincing Republicans of their point of view. About half of Republicans believe that the people who stormed the Capitol are patriots, according to a CBS News poll.

They have a deep animosity towards the federal government, and the number of “persuadables” – political-speak for those who can be convinced of another point of view – is small. On the way into the building, a protester held up a sign that seemed to sum up the feelings of many of these Republicans.  “Wake Up Federal scum,” it said.

On June 1, 2020, then-President Donald Trump marched across Lafayette Square outside the White House, trailed by an anxious-looking team of advisers and military aides. The group shuffled past detritus left by racial justice protesters after a frantic mass expulsion executed by police minutes prior with clubs, pepper balls and tear gas.

The dignitaries stopped in front of St. John’s Church, where presidents, including Trump, have traditionally attended services on their Inauguration Day. St. John’s, which had suffered a minor fire the day before, was closed. But Trump took up a position in front of its sign and turned toward the cameras, a Bible held aloft.

“We have the greatest country in the world,” Trump said. In the distance, sirens wailed.

Washington’s Episcopal bishop, whose diocese includes St. John’s, condemned Trump’s stunt, saying it left her “horrified.” But White House chief of staff Mark Meadows declared he was “never prouder” of the president than in that moment, calling it a rejection of “the degradation of our heritage or the burning of churches.” Trump’s evangelical Christian advisers were similarly effusive, lauding the photo op as “important” and “absolutely correct.”

In retrospect, the “symbolic” message of Trump’s Bible photo op, as he termed it, operates as a bookend to the Christian nationalism on display at the attack on the U.S. Capitol seven months later. It communicated, however histrionically, that the president was leading an existential fight against politically liberal foes calling for a racial reckoning, but at the center of which was an attack on Christian faith. From that moment on, Christian nationalism — in the broadest sense, a belief that Christianity is integral to America as a nation and should remain as such — provided a theological framework for the effort to deny Democrats the White House.

As Trump’s poll numbers dipped the same month as the photo op, his campaign redoubled efforts to stir up support among his conservative Christian supporters. Then-Vice President Mike Pence embarked on a “Faith in America” tour, while Trump conducted interviews with conservative Christian outlets and held rallies at white evangelical churches.

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, a man holds a Bible as Trump supporters gather outside the Capitol in Washington. The Christian imagery and rhetoric on view during the Capitol insurrection are sparking renewed debate about the societal effects of melding Christian faith with an exclusionary breed of nationalism. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Referring to “American patriots,” Trump told rallygoers at Dream City Church in Phoenix: “We don’t back down from left-wing bullies. And the only authority we worship is our God.”

In August at the Republican National Convention, Trump described early American heroes as people who “knew that our country is blessed by God and has a special purpose in this world.” Pence, in his speech, adapted Christian Scripture by swapping out references to Jesus with patriotic platitudes.

Despite then-candidate Joe Biden’s public discussion of his Catholic faith, and the overt religiosity of the Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump Jr. told the GOP crowd that “People of faith are under attack” in the United States, pointing to restrictions on large gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet it was Trump’s religious supporters who did the attacking the final night of the RNC. After leaving the convention’s fireworks-filled celebration at the White House, conservative Christian commentator and Trump loyalist Eric Metaxas was filmed punching an anti-Trump protester off his bike and fleeing into the night, only admitting to the assault days later in an email to Religion Unplugged.

After Trump lost the election in November, a report from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Freedom From Religion Foundation concluded that Christian nationalism, also referred to as white Christian nationalism, was used to “bolster, justify and intensify the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” according to BJC’s Amanda Tyler.

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, Pastor Paula White leads a prayer in Washington, at a rally in support of then-President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

In the days after the vote, Florida pastor Paula White, leader of the White House faith office, preached a sermon from her home church in which she called on “angels” from Africa and other nations to assist in overturning the election results. The next night, insisting she was only addressing “spiritual” matters, White vacillated between the ethereal and the electoral: She entreated the Almighty to “keep the feet of POTUS in his purpose and in his position” and decry any “fraud” or “demonic agenda” that “has been released over this election.”

“We override the will of man for the will of God right now, and we ask, by the mercy and the blood of Jesus, that you overturn it, overturn it, overturn it, overturn it, overturn it, overturn it, overturn it,” she said.

The religious rhetoric ramped up with the effort to “Stop the Steal.” Thousands of Trump’s supporters descended on Washington in mid-November for the “Million MAGA March,” where Ed Martin, a conservative politician and an executive at the Eagle Forum, flanked by signs reading “Jesus matters,” argued that the United States was “founded on Judeo-Christian values” and should not be led by “CNN … or fake news.” Martin called on God to “bless us in our work” and asked God to “strengthen us in our fight” to defend Trump because the “powers of darkness are descending.”

Around the same time, activists began planning a series of  “Jericho Marches” across the country, invoking the biblical story of Israelites besieging the city of Jericho. In Pennsylvania, demonstrators marched around the state Capitol waving Trump flags and blowing on Jewish ritual horns called shofars. Verses of the hymn “How Great Is Our God” mixed with chants about electoral fraud.

The largest “Jericho March,” on Dec. 12 in Washington, was emceed by Metaxas and included Trump-circle figures such as disgraced former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and current Pennsylvania gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano. Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the militant group Oath Keepers, who now faces sedition charges for his alleged role in the Capitol attack, called for the marchers to join him in a “bloody war” if the election results weren’t overturned.

Several groups took on a religious bent as Jan. 6 approached. Members of the Proud Boys, a right-wing group known for clashes with leftist protesters, prayed near the Washington Monument in December, comparing their “sacrifice” to Jesus’ crucifixion. “God will watch over us as we become proud,” one man shouted into a bullhorn. (The next evening, Proud Boys — after being prayed over by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — tore “Black Lives Matter” signs from Washington-area churches, setting one on fire.)

Jericho Marchers were among the thousands who descended on Washington in January, some traveling on buses paid for by Mastriano. On Jan. 5, a group processed around the U.S. Capitol, holding signs emblazoned with Trump’s face while once again blowing shofars and singing “How Great Is Our God.” That night, Tennessee pastor Greg Locke —in addition to lifting up prayers for the Proud Boys — preached to a raucous crowd, describing America as “the last bastion of Christian freedom” and declaring that Trump would stay “for four more years in the White House.”

The next day on the National Mall and the Capitol steps, Christian nationalist iconography was unavoidable. Men and women waving flags that read “An Appeal to Heaven” or “Proud American Christian” surged past Capitol police as the officers tried to halt those entering the Capitol building. When people adorned in Oath Keepers attire stormed into the Capitol rotunda, they appealed to the Almighty for “letting us stand up for our country.”

In the Senate chamber, the invaders invoked Jesus’ name and bowed their heads as a self-described “shaman” associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory movement thanked Jesus for “allowing” them “to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors within our government.”

As District of Columbia police officer Daniel Hodges, who was crushed in a door by insurrectionists that day, put it: “It was clear the terrorists perceived themselves to be Christians.”

That was certainly the case with Jenny Cudd, who was later tried and convicted for her actions at the Capitol. In a video posted to Facebook on Jan. 6, Cudd, draped in Trump-branded gear, said: “We were founded as a Christian country. And we see how far we have come from that. … We are a godly country, and we are founded on godly principles. And if we do not have our country, nothing else matters. “To me, God and country are tied — to me they’re one and the same,” said Cudd.

“Some 156 days into 2022, the country has now seen at least 246 mass shootings, according to the group’s tally. That puts the U.S. on track for one of the deadliest years on record since the archive began tracking gun deaths. The site defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are killed or injured by a gun,” wrote Ela Lee of the USA Today, summarizing the American lives lost to Gun Violence in the year 2022 alone.

Since May 14, when a racist attack at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket took the lives of 10 people, there have been at least four dozen mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the group. That includes the attack on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 students and two teachers dead.

A string of shootings left at least 15 people dead and more than 60 others wounded in eight states last weekend, a spasm of gun violence that came as the nation continues mourning the lives lost in mass shootings last month in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.

In Pennsylvania, police say multiple shooters fired into a crowd late Saturday night on South Street, a famous Philadelphia drag known for its nightlife, character and vibrancy. Authorities said three people were killed by the gunfire, and at least 11 others were wounded. Police said multiple handguns were recovered at the scene, but no arrests have been made.

“Once again, we see lives lost and people injured in yet another horrendous, brazen and despicable act of gun violence,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement on Sunday. In Chattanooga, Tenn., police responded early Sunday to a shooting near a nightclub. Three people were killed and 14 others were injured, according to police chief Celeste Murphy.

Two people died from gunshot wounds, while a third person died of injuries after being hit by a vehicle, Murphy said. The police chief said multiple people are thought to have opened fire, but no arrests had been made as of Sunday afternoon. Last week, six people were wounded in a gunfire exchange in downtown Chattanooga.

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, at least eight people were shot at a graduation party in what authorities in Clarendon County described as a suspected drive-by shooting. A 32-year-old woman was killed, while seven others were wounded. Six of the seven injured were age 17 or younger, authorities said.

A 14-year-old girl was killed and eight others were injured during a shooting early Saturday at a Phoenix strip mall, The Associated Press reported. Nine people were hospitalized, including the 14 year-old girl, who later died. Two women were transported with life-threatening injuries.  The next day, a shooting outside a bar in Mesa, Ariz. early Sunday morning left two people dead and two others injured, according to the AP.  Mass shootings also happened in Texas, Georgia, New York and Michigan over the weekend, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a group that tracks mass shootings.

All these murders and losses of precious lives seem to move US lawmakers to rethink the need for Gun Control Legislation. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that negotiations on gun control legislation with Republican senators in the aftermath of multiple mass shootings have so far remained on track, though it seems unlikely that the talks will result in sweeping gun reform.

“We’re not going to do anything that compromises people’s Second Amendment rights,” Murphy said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’re not going to do anything that compromises the ability of a law-abiding Americans to be able to buy a weapon. What we’re talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don’t have their hands on weapons.”

Murphy listed popular gun control reforms like an assault weapon ban and comprehensive background checks as measures that are not being considered. But the Connecticut senator, whose district includes Sandy Hook, suggested moving forward on any type of legislation is better than nothing and that “people in this country want us to make progress.”

Though Murphy admitted it’s possible that the gun reform negotiations could fall through, he said that Republican Party members are taking the conversation seriously, discussing a “meaningful change” on gun laws, mental health issues and school security.

“I’ve never been part of negotiations as serious as these,” Murphy said. “There are more Republicans at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook now.”

India has stated in a statement, “It is unfortunate that vote bank politics in practiced in international relations.”

The leader of the far-right Proud Boys group and four associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack that was intended to block Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election, the Justice Department said on Monday.

A federal grand jury in Washington also charged them with conspiring to prevent an officer from discharging any duties.

It’s the second group tied to the deadly siege on the U.S. Capitol to face the rare and serious charge of conspiring to overthrow the government or prevent the execution of U.S. law. Eleven members of the Oath Keepers group, including leader Stewart Rhodes, were charged with seditious conspiracy earlier this year.

Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio wasn’t on the Capitol grounds during the insurrection, but prosecutors say he helped coordinate the violent effort to disrupt the electoral count that day. As the violence unfolded, Tarrio allegedly posted “Proud of my boys and my country” on social media.

Tarrio was already arrested in March for his alleged role in planning the attack. Besides Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola were charged.

All five men faced previous federal charges related to the insurrection. The latest two bring their tallies up to nine, according to the Justice Department. Pezzalo has also been charged with robbery.

They have been detained and pleaded not guilty. The five are scheduled for a hearing on June 9, the same day that the House select committee investigating the deadly riot will hold its first public hearing on what it has found so far.

The new indictment, handed down Monday by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., doesn’t appear to contain explosive new details about the riot or the planning.

But in one passage, the court filing quotes correspondence from a private messaging group for the Proud Boys on the evening of Jan. 6.  “Dude, did we just influence history?” an unnamed person texted Tarrio at 7:39 p.m.  Tarrio replied, “Let’s first see how this plays out.” The Senate returned around 8 p.m. that evening to resume the certification process.

President Joe Biden told reporters on May 30^th that he spent more than three and a half hours with survivors and the families of victims of last week’s mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School.

The president spoke with reporters moments after stepping off Marine One, a day after his visit to Uvalde, where he told a crowd of demonstrators “we will” as they chanted for him to “do something” about gun violence.

The massacre in Texas was preceded less than two weeks earlier by another mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. Ten Black people were killed in a grocery store in what authorities suspect was a racially motivated attack.

Returning to Washington, Biden said the pain he witnessed in Uvalde was “palpable” and “unnecessary” and that he was — and always had been — committed to gun control efforts intended to reduce more violence.

But there was only so much he could do as a president, he said. Major changes would need to be authorized by Congress, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers are again in negotiations over a possible bill despite how divided they remain over guns.

When a reporter asked Biden outside the White House if he felt more motivated to act on legislation now, in the wake of recent shootings such as Uvalde, he said he has been “motivated all along. I’m going to continue to push and we’ll see how this works,” he said.

“I can’t outlaw a weapon. I can’t change the background checks,” he said. This is where the legislature should act, he said. For example, he said, “It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds.”

He told reporters how as a senator he once spoke with trauma doctors who showed him an X-Ray of the damage a high-caliber weapon can inflict on the body — how “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in a lung and we could probably get it out, may be able to get it and save the life, [but] a 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. The idea of these high-caliber weapon, there’s simply no rational basis for it, in terms of whether this be about self-protection, hunting,” he said.

“The Constitution, the Second Amendment, was never absolute,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a canon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons.”

Those killings have prompted a group of bipartisan senators — four Republicans and five Democrats — to engage in initial conversations about new gun laws. Democrats need at least some GOP support, though conservatives largely oppose legislating the issue, instead focusing on the so-called “hardening” of school security and other measures.

The group of lawmakers intended to meet via video over the recess to continue hashing out where they stand and where a possible compromise could be brokered. “We’re getting started to try to figure out if there’s a path to getting to a consensus, and we’ll see where it takes us,” Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said last week.

The White House, which took a more direct role in previous legislative priorities, has said the president will observe the process as it proceeds. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked repeatedly what the administration saw as its role in pushing for a new law.

“We really, truly leave the mechanics up to Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi,” Jean-Pierre said last week, referring to the Senate majority leader and House speaker. “We are confident that Sen. Schumer will bring this forward. And again, it is time for Congress to act. This is what the president has been calling for since the beginning of his administration.”

Biden, who based his 2020 campaign in part on his record of working across the aisle as a senator, was asked on Monday if he thought Republicans would approach the issue differently this time. He said that he hadn’t spoken to any of them, “but my guess is yes, I think they’re going to take a hard look.”

After the latest massacre in America — this time in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two adults were killed — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed his chamber would again take up legislation to address gun violence despite Republican opponents arguing the regulations are misguided.

Congress’ current divide on the issue is deeply rooted, tracing back to the mid-1990s, and has been shaped by electoral politics including the Democratic rout in the 1994 midterms that saw them lose the House for the first time in 40 years.

While Democratic lawmakers have at various times urged more federal gun reforms — mostly focused on assault-style or military-grade weapons and munitions and expanding the screening process for who can and cannot have a gun — Republicans say the focus should be elsewhere, on increasing public security and awareness of mental health and social issues.

Still the shootings continue, with new rounds of legislation often proposed in the wake of the worst killings: in Uvalde and in a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school a decade earlier; and at Columbine High School 13 years before that, among other examples.

The prospect of a new federal law appears at the least very uncertain, given the partisan split. But legislators on both sides of the aisle are again talking, led by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy. Areas of focus and possible agreement include expanding background checks on gun sales — which has been voted down in Congress multiple times — and so-called “red” and “yellow flag” laws that would prevent someone from possessing a firearm if they have certain histories of concerning behavior.

Here is a look back at notable pieces of federal gun legislation that either passed or were defeated in Congress. The timeline reflects in part how the politics around guns, and the coalitions of politicians focusing on it, have shifted over time — from anxieties about crime in the ’90s that drew bipartisan backing to major support for gun manufacturers in the early 2000s to outcry about reducing school killings, and beyond.

2021: The House Democratic majority passes two lightly bipartisan measures expanding background checks, despite Republicans reiterating objections on Second Amendment grounds. One bill increases the window for review on a sale from three to 10 business days; the other bill essentially requires background checks on all transactions by barring the sale or transfer of firearms by non-federally licensed entities (closing so-called private loopholes). House Democrats vote to approve the first bill along with two Republicans (and two Democrats voting no). All Democrats except for one along with eight Republicans vote yes on the second bill, which previously passed the House in 2019, also under Democratic control.

2018: Congress passes and President Donald Trump signs into law an incremental boost to the federal background check system for potential gun owners. (The legislation is included as part of a necessary government spending package approved by wide bipartisan margins.)

2017: Trump signs into law a congressional reversal of an Obama-era rule which would have added an estimated 75,000 people to the federal background check system who were receiving Social Security mental disability benefits through a representative. Republican majorities in the House and Senate are joined by a few Democrats — four in the Senate and and six in the House — in blocking the impending regulation, which is opposed by both civil liberties and gun rights advocates.

2017: The House Republican majority is joined by six Democrats — with 14 Republicans opposing, arguing federal overreach — in backing a measure expanding concealed carry permits across the country via a reciprocity law requiring states to honor permits issued elsewhere. The bill dies in the Senate.

2013-2016: Partially prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Pulse nightclub killings, Congress takes up and then votes down various measures to expand background checks for sales online and at gun shows and to block people on no-fly and terrorism watch lists from being able to buy firearms. In one representative set of votes, in 2016, Democratic and Republican senators (with Republicans in the majority) each advance two proposals that are blocked along party lines. While some of those measures garner a majority, none get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster as a potential winning compromise is frayed by differences over tactics and approach. Still, Susan Collins, R-Maine, reiterates hope — somewhere down the line — citing “tremendous interest from both sides of the aisle.”

2013: A bipartisan group in the Senate fails to approve their own expansion of concealed carry permits across the country, similar to what the House later takes up in 2017 and earlier tries to pass in 2011. Republicans, then in the minority, are joined by 12 Democrats — many of whom later say they oppose the expansion as the party and its base recommits to messaging around reducing guns and shootings.

2005: Congress’ Republican majority is joined by dozens of Democrats in passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The legislation shields gun manufacturers from legal liability in almost all instances where their firearms are criminally used — with exceptions for defects in gun design, breach of contract and negligence. (PLCAA has since become a major target of Democratic ire, singled out by President Joe Biden, though such protections are not unheard of for other industries.)

1999: Previewing failed efforts to come, Congress votes down legislation to institute background checks and waiting periods for purchases at gun shows.

1994: In what would become the last major piece of federal gun legislation enacted by Congress, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban bars the manufacture and possession of a broad swath of semiautomatic weapons. The provision is included as part of the sweeping 1994 crime bill, shepherded by then-Sen. Biden and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Gun legislation in this era is politically intertwined with federal efforts to curb crime. While the House narrowly passes the assault ban on its own and then later, successfully, via the overall crime legislation — in the first case, with most of the Democratic majority being joined by 38 Republicans; later, along with 46 Republicans — the crime bill is approved overwhelmingly in the Senate, with only two Democrats and two Republicans voting against and one Democrat, North Dakota’s Byron L. Dorgan, abstaining. The Senate approves with slimmer margins a reconciled version with the House in late 1994, with seven Republicans joining the Democratic majority. Clinton signs it shortly after. The assault ban includes some exemptions on the outlawed weapons along with a sunset date after 10 years, in what were seen as necessary concessions. Subsequent efforts to reauthorize the ban have failed.

1993: A year before the assault weapon ban, and amid sharp public concern about street-level crime, the House and Senate back the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (named for President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who was gravely wounded in Reagan’s attempted assassination in 1981). Commonly known as the Brady bill, it institutes background checks for federally licensed sellers and initially imposes a five-day waiting period on sales — a provision that is later sunset with the launch of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Two-thirds of House Democrats are joined by a third of House Republicans in voting yes on the legislation. Although eight Democratic senators vote no (and one abstains), 16 Senate Republicans approve its passage along with the Democratic majority. President Clinton signs it into law.

The leaked news about the reported Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide,  based on the Constitution that protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose abortion without excessive government restriction, has divided the nation, which has been already polarized and divided in recent times.

As per reports, a draft opinion written by conservative US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is expected to fundamentally alter reproductive rights, states’ authority and American politics, startled Supreme Court lawyers, court experts, members of Congress and journalists. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

If the nation is divided on one of the most important cases that has been debated in the top Court, the justices who occupy the highest court are even more divided on the case and its implications for the millions of women who are impacted by the court that has once again proved to be a political organization, based on the ideologies of the Justices rather than the true spirit of the Constitution.

As per the leaked documents, all the Republican appointed Justices on the Court, except Chief Justice John Roberts are said to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, and in the process denying women their right decide on their health and wellbeing. The justices voting with Alito are all Justices appointed by Republican Presidents: Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanagh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Democratic-appointed justices on the court, Stephen Breyer, who will retire this summer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, are working on one or more dissents, Politico reported, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts’ ultimate vote is unclear.

According to CNN sources, Roberts did not want to overturn Roe and would likely side with Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. Instead, he is willing to uphold the Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, per the report.

Overturning Roe would strike down what many abortion rights defenders, including Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents of both political parties, have long described as settled law. It would limit access to abortions across much of the country, including parts of the South and Midwest. In at least 13 states, abortion would immediately become illegal. As Alito’s opinion notes, the ruling would allow each state to set its own laws and restrictions. One of those restrictions deals with medication abortion, accompanied by criminal penalties.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the Alito draft states. “Roe and [1992’s Planned Parenthood v.] Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The document was labeled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

An AP-NORC poll in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government. Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases.

Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don’t think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.

Alito, in the draft, said the court can’t predict how the public might react and shouldn’t try. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico.

People on both sides of the issue quickly gathered outside the Supreme Court waving signs and chanting on a balmy spring night, following the release of the Politico report.

Planned Parenthood, in a statement late Monday, said, “The leaked opinion is horrifying and unprecedented, and it confirms our worst fears.”  A majority of Americans oppose overturning the 49-year-old ruling, according to recent surveys. A CNN poll in January found that 69 percent of respondents were against doing away with Roe while 30 percent were in favor.

The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court’s ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), in a joint statement, said a majority vote to overturn Roe “would go down as an abomination,” adding that it would be “one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

Senate Judiciary Committee member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) tweeted Monday night that the published Alito opinion pointed to a role for Congress. “It is a fundamental right for a woman to make her own health decisions. We must protect the right to choose and codify Roe v Wade into law,” she said.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, said people seeking abortions could head to New York. “For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe & accessible in New York,” Hochul said in a tweet.

On the GOP side, lawmakers were incensed with the disclosure of the high court’s draft. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said that the court and the Justice Department “must get to the bottom of this leak immediately using every investigative tool necessary” (The Hill).

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said in a statement, “We will let the Supreme Court speak for itself and wait for the Court’s official opinion.” But local officials were praising the draft. “This puts the decision making back into the hands of the states, which is where it should have always been,” said Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie.

A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year’s elections. But it’s unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word on the matter — opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process. The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.

Republicans lose ground when it comes to which party voters see themselves casting ballots for in November and the parties are now at rough parity. President Biden’s standing with Americans has improved slightly over the past two months, but he remains in negative territory in most assessments of his performance in office and Republicans hold substantial advantages over Democrats on key economic indicators that are shaping the midterm election year, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey, while better for the president and his party than his low point two months ago, nonetheless underscores the head winds Democratic candidates are facing ahead of the November balloting. With a 42 percent approval rating overall, Biden gets low marks on his handling of the economy and inflation and Republicans are significantly more trusted than Democrats on both measures.

More than 9 in 10 Americans say they are concerned, at minimum, about the rate of inflation, which has been at a 40-year high in recent months. That includes 44 percent who categorize themselves as “upset.” Republicans are far more likely to call themselves upset over inflation than either independents or Democrats.

At the same time, half of all Americans (50 percent) say good-paying jobs are easy to find in their communities, findings that reflect the unemployment rate standing near a half-century low and, anecdotally, the many “hiring” signs in business windows across the country. A lesser 43 percent say those jobs are hard to find. Republicans, who generally rate the economy more negatively than Democrats, are, perhaps surprisingly, more likely to say good-paying jobs are easy to find.

In a positive indicator for Biden and his party, the Post-ABC poll also shows Democrats moving to rough parity with Republicans on intentions to vote in House races in November, often seen as a key indicator of the size of the potential shifts in the balance of power. Republicans need a net gain of five seats to capture control of the House from the Democrats, which would allow them to block Biden’s agenda for the last half of his term.

Today, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their congressional district, compared with 45 percent who say they would vote for the Republican. Based on historical patterns, Democrats would likely need a bigger advantage to avoid losing their majority.

Yet last fall, Republicans held a 10-point edge and in February led by seven points on this question, known as the generic ballot. Nearly all of the change since February is the result of a shift toward the Democrats among self-identified independents, a group that can be volatile in public opinion polls.

Democrats have a 12-point margin among voters ages 18 to 39; in February, those voters were split about evenly between the two parties. Democrats have an advantage with these younger voters even though they disapprove of Biden’s performance by a 13-point margin, 52 percent to 39 percent.

The same pattern appears among independent registered voters. This group disapproves of Biden by a 21-point margin but splits 42-42 on the congressional vote.

Despite the vanishing gap between the two sides on which party people say they will support in November, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents continue to say they are more certain to vote in November than Democrats, by a margin of 10 percentage points in the latest poll.

Biden’s overall approval rating among voting-age adults is five points higher than in February, when 37 percent of Americans said they approved of his job performance. His disapproval rate is now at 52 percent, slightly lower than February’s 55 percent, but that shift is within the margin of error. He has ticked up among men and women and shown improvement among independents and slight improvement among Democrats — but has made no gains among Republicans.

Still, there is a significant difference in the passions people bring to their assessments of the president. Overall, 42 percent say they strongly disapprove of his job performance, while 21 percent say they strongly approve.

Biden gets higher marks for his handling of the war in Ukraine than two months ago — up from 33 percent approval in February to 42 percent in the latest survey. But 47 percent disapprove, identical to February. The improvement is due primarily to a drop in the percentage of people who had no opinion two months ago.

An even bigger change comes in assessments of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Currently, 51 percent approve of his performance in this area, compared with 44 percent in February. Overall there has been a shift of 14 points in two months, taking Biden from negative to positive territory on the coronavirus, and the approval level is now similar to where he stood last September.

On the economy, however, there has been no real change, as 38 percent say they approve of Biden’s handling compared with 37 percent two months ago. His ratings on job creation are better but still net negative overall, with 41 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving.

Biden’s worst ratings come on the dominant issue of inflation, with 68 percent saying they disapprove compared with 28 percent who give him positive marks. The president is notably weak on this issue among independents, who could hold the key to the outcome in many contested House and Senate races in November. Just over 1 in 5 independents, 22 percent, say they approve of how Biden has been dealing with rising prices.

Each political party enjoys advantages in how the public sees their ability to deal with different issues and problems, but Republicans hold the edge on some of the issues that are driving the election.

On the economy, 50 percent of Americans say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job, compared with 36 percent who say they trust the Democratic Party more. On inflation, 50 percent say they trust the GOP more compared with 31 percent who say that of the Democrats. Republicans hold a 12-point advantage (47 percent to 35 percent) on the issue of crime, which many GOP candidates are stressing in their campaigns.

On immigration, the public is closely divided, with 43 percent saying they trust Republicans and 40 percent saying they trust Democrats. Republicans and Democrats are deeply polarized on this issue while independents are evenly split, with 39 percent saying they trust Democrats and 39 percent siding with the GOP.

Education issues came to the forefront of political debate over the past year and played a role in the victory of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) last November. Democrats were put on the defensive over a variety of aspects of education, from the teaching of the history of racism to the role of parents in school curriculums to school closings and mask mandates due to the pandemic.

Democrats long have held an advantage on the issue of education, but that eroded in Post-ABC surveys after last November’s elections and in February, with Democrats holding just a three-point advantage in both cases. The new poll finds Democrats with an eight-point advantage (47 percent to 39 percent). While an improvement, the margin is still significantly smaller than the average advantage Democrats had in polls dating back to 1990.

The biggest Democratic advantages are on the issue of equal treatment of racial and ethnic groups (52 percent to 31 percent over Republicans) and on equal treatment of groups regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity (55 percent to 26 percent).

The latter have become political flash points, with Republican governors and Republican-led legislatures moving to restrict discussion of gender issues to schoolchildren and taking action to bar transgender students from participating in school sports.

With the Supreme Court nearing a decision on Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law, Americans say they trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the issue, by 47 percent to 37 percent.

Democrats regained a slight advantage in party identification after losing ground over the past year. The current poll finds 48 percent identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic, which is identical to last April but up from a low of 43 percent in February. Meanwhile, 43 percent identify as Republicans or Republican leaners, ticking down slightly from 46 percent in February but still above the 40 percent mark of one year ago.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted April 24-28 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, reached on cellphones and landlines. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for overall results and among the sample of 907 registered voters.

A New York state judge has found former President Trump in contempt of court for not turning over documents after he was ordered to comply with a subpoena from the New York attorney general’s office.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay $10,000 a day until he’s shown that he’s complied with the document demands.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) applauded the ruling. “Today, justice prevailed,” James said in a statement. “For years, Donald Trump has tried to evade the law and stop our lawful investigation into him and his company’s financial dealings. Today’s ruling makes clear: No one is above the law.”

Engoron had rejected Trump’s challenge to the subpoena for his records and testimony in February, ordering the former president to sit for a deposition and turn over any requested records in his control. Trump appealed the part of the ruling requiring him to be deposed, but didn’t challenge the order to turn over documents.

Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney, said the former president will appeal Engoron’s contempt ruling. “We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” Habba said in a statement. “All documents responsive to the subpoena were produced to the attorney general months ago. The only issue raised by the attorney general at today’s hearing was with an affidavit submitted which copied the form mandated by the attorney general. This does not even come close to meeting the standard on a motion for contempt and, thus, we intend to appeal.”

Earlier this month, James’s office asked Engoron to hold Trump in contempt after he blew a deadline for providing the documents and said that the former president’s attorney had even objected to the terms of the subpoena weeks after the judge found it to be valid.

Derek Chauvin asks court to overturn conviction in George Floyd killing Trump appeals NY judge’s contempt ruling

“Mr. Trump’s purported ‘Response’ violates the Court’s order; it is not full compliance, or any degree of compliance, but simply more delay and obfuscation,” James’s office wrote in its contempt motion.
Trump’s attorney Alina Habba told the court that a search for any relevant documents in Trump’s possession found that they were all under the control of his company.

“After conducting a diligent search and review, Respondent’s counsel determined that Respondent was not in possession of any documents responsive to the Subpoena and that all potentially responsive documents were in the possession, custody or control of the Trump Organization,” Habba wrote in a court filing last week.

It is not often that the State of the Union address coincides with a major turning point in history, but Joe Biden’s first State of the Union did just that. When the Russian invasion of Ukraine began just a few days ago—the first major ground war in Europe since World War II—the speech that had been in the works for weeks acquired a new and important opening. Biden had no choice but to open with a stern warning to Putin and friends—“Tonight I say to the Russian oligarchs and corrupt leaders—no more!”—and to characterize the moment as a battle “between democracies and autocracies,” a battle where “freedom will always triumph over tyranny.”

Although the speech contained a strong defense of Biden’s record, a plan for economic renewal and the usual laundry list of hopes, the question that no one, including the president, could answer last night hung over everything—will a new Cold War begin, or something else?

We saw a similar sequence of events 75 years ago.

After the Second World War ended, it took a while for Americans to see the Soviet Union for what it was. In the immediate post WWII years, the American media initially portrayed our Russian allies in the fight against the Nazis as “one hell of a people who look like Americans, dress like Americans and think like Americans.” They described Stalin’s brutal secret police, the NKVD, as akin to our own FBI. Life magazine ran a cover story called “A Guy Named Joe”, which was sympathetic to Stalin.

But it took only a few months for the perception of the Soviet Union as a friendly nation to change.  As Cold War historian Martin Walker writes:

“This shift in perception took place among the governing establishments in both London and Washington in the last weeks of 1945 and the first two months of 1946. In the course of one hundred days, the West’s view of the Soviet Union changed … into a conviction that the West was being conscripted into a new crusade.”

Fast-forward to 2022. At the beginning of the Biden presidency, not many Americans (except perhaps former President Trump) saw Russia as a friendly nation. We knew that they tried to meddle with our elections and that they were still trying to exploit our differences. But the Biden administration continued to hope that our relations with Russia could be stabilized—until the threats against Ukraine intensified late in 2021. And then that perception changed, as abruptly as it had changed three quarters of a century ago.

In 1947 President Truman crystallized this change towards the Soviets in what became known as the Truman Doctrine, spelled out to Congress in a joint session on March 12, 1947. He pledged aid to Greece and Turkey. But he went farther, declaring that “I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”

A threat to two countries on the shore of the Mediterranean led to the creation of a new global mission for the United States that dominated US policy for the next four decades.

Once the Cold War had begun, no State of the Union address could ignore the looming threat presented by the Soviet Union. This changed in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, and with it, the Soviet Union as we knew it. President George H.W. Bush’s 1990 State of the Union address was a victory lap. Recalling the past year and the emergence of Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany from Soviet domination, Bush called them:

“Remarkable events—events that fulfill the long-held hopes of the American people.… America stands at the center of a widening circle of freedom—today, tomorrow, and into the next century. Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever set foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free. This nation, this idea called America, was and always will be a new world—our new world.”

The question is, what next? Will Russian aggression fail at the hands of an energized Ukrainian resistance? If it succeeds, will Vladimir Putin challenge our NATO allies—especially Poland and the Baltics, whom we are sworn to defend, a pledge President Biden underscored in his speech? This is not a question that Biden could answer yet. The war is too young. Like Truman before him, it may take a full year to articulate the Biden doctrine.

We know that the invasion of Ukraine marked the end of the post-Cold War era. We know that the attitudes and policies of European countries and of the EU have been transformed with a speed that astounded veteran observers. What we do not know is the form that the new stand-off between Russia and the West will take. It may not look exactly like the Cold War. As the saying goes, history does not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes.

It is not often that the State of the Union address coincides with a major turning point in history, but Joe Biden’s first State of the Union did just that. When the Russian invasion of Ukraine began just a few days ago—the first major ground war in Europe since World War II—the speech that had been in the works for weeks acquired a new and important opening. Biden had no choice but to open with a stern warning to Putin and friends—“Tonight I say to the Russian oligarchs and corrupt leaders—no more!”—and to characterize the moment as a battle “between democracies and autocracies,” a battle where “freedom will always triumph over tyranny.”

Although the speech contained a strong defense of Biden’s record, a plan for economic renewal and the usual laundry list of hopes, the question that no one, including the president, could answer last night hung over everything—will a new Cold War begin, or something else?

Civil lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump accountable for the January 6, 2021, insurrection can move forward in court, Amit Mehta, a federal judge said last week in a ruling outlining how the former President could conceivably be responsible for inciting the attack on the US Capitol.

Trump’s statements to his supporters before the riot “is the essence of civil conspiracy,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a 112-page opinion, because Trump spoke about himself and rallygoers working “towards a common goal” of fighting and walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. “The President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta said.

Two of the lawsuits were brought by Democratic House members, while a third was filed by Capitol Police officers. Democratic members of the House and police officers who defended the US Capitol on January 6 sued Trump last year, claiming he prompted his supporters to attack. Friday, Mehta wrote that the three lawsuits could move to the evidence-gathering phase and toward a trial — a major loss in court for Trump. “To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent,” Mehta wrote.

“After all, the President’s actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch,” Mehta added. “They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the President’s broad immunity are not present here.”

While he homed in on Trump’s legal liability, the judge ruled in favor of three close allies to Trump who also spoke at the rally on January 6 — his attorney Rudy Giuliani, his son Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, saying he would dismiss the claims against them.

When the Senate failed to convict Trump last year in the impeachment proceedings examining his role in the attack, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — who voted against convicting Trump — noted that “civil litigation” was an avenue through which Trump’s conduct could be addressed.

The lawmakers allege that they were threatened by Trump and others as part of a conspiracy to stop the congressional session that would certify the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, according to the complaints. They argue that Trump should bear responsibility for directing the assaults.

Trump’s legal team is likely to appeal the decision, which was made at the trial-level DC District Court. Representatives for Trump didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mehta’s ruling on what he calls a “one-of-a-kind case” sets up a rare instance where the former President could face concrete consequences for the insurrection.

But Mehta’s opinion, essentially melting away the protections of the presidency and the First Amendment because of the context of Trump’s speech and specific words and actions that day, could have further implications, including creating a new avenue to subpoena Trump and ask him questions and establishing where immunity for presidents ends.

How Donald Trump’s February just got way worse

At this time, there are no public indications that the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into January 6, which includes several sets of conspiracy charges and a sedition case, has reached Trump. And after Republican lawmakers blocked Trump’s impeachment conviction, the GOP has largely fallen back in line behind the former President. The two House Republicans now serving on the committee to investigate the insurrection have faced calls for their ouster from the party, and Trump may very well be Republicans’ 2024 nominee for the White House.

The decision, Friday, however, sets in motion a path to the judge weighing the factual allegations and evidence against Trump in the cases as well as possible civil trials months or years from now, where Trump is at the defense table.

Lawyers for the Democratic lawmakers and police were elated with the ruling Friday, though they likely face a long road of additional court tangles ahead.

“Today is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability,” said Joseph Sellers, who represents a group of Democratic members of Congress that was first to allege a civil conspiracy against Trump in court.

The NAACP, working alongside Sellers, also applauded the ruling, and the group’s president Derrick Johnson called for accountability for Trump and the right-wing groups.

Matthew Kaiser, a lawyer for Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, called it a “great ruling” to potentially be able to take Trump to trial.

And Patrick Malone, representing the police officers, called it a victory for democracy. “It’s good to see that no one is above the law. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions,” Malone’s client, the Capitol Police Officer James Blassingame Jr., said in a statement. Swalwell said in a statement that he would seek to depose Trump and gather evidence about January 6.

Role of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers

Mehta wrote that it’s plausible the lawsuit could prove Trump entered into an agreement with far-right groups the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who are criminally charged for conspiracy and also named in the lawsuit.

The judge noted how Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” at a debate before the election, and that he likely was aware of the Oath Keepers attending his rallies and of violence planned because of his election loss.

“It is reasonable to infer that the President knew that these were militia groups and that they were prepared to partake in violence for him,” the judge said. “The President thus plausibly would have known that a call for violence would be carried out by militia groups and other supporters.”

The cases will proceed against the Oath Keepers organization and against Enrique Tarrio, the recently incarcerated leader of the Proud Boys. They sought to get the case dismissed but the judge concluded that the allegations — of a conspiracy between Trump and the extremist groups and leaders — were plausible enough to allow the litigation to move forward.

Partial victory for other Trump allies

Some of his allies who were named as co-defendants succeeded in getting the civil suits against them dismissed. This includes his eldest son and his former attorney, who were named as defendants in some of the cases, but successfully argued that the lawsuits should be thrown out.

The judge indicated he would also eventually dismiss the case against Brooks, an Alabama Republican. They have all denied wrongdoing related to January 6.

In the ruling, Mehta said the case against Brooks was weak enough that he would simply dismiss it if he asked him to do so, teeing up the congressman for a victory. “Brooks’s remarks on January 6th were political speech protected by the First Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability,” Mehta wrote.

But Mehta on Friday sidestepped the question of whether Brooks should have been protected in the litigation by the Justice Department — because, according to the congressman, he was acting in his official duties as an elected official when he spoke at the Trump rally before the riot.

The Justice Department so far has refused to protect Brooks, a revealing position for the agency that is conducting its own sweeping investigation of January 6.

The Department argued that Brooks’ role at the rally was “campaign activity” and not related to his official duties. Still, Brooks had asked Mehta to rule that he was acting as a government official and thus shield him from liability. Mehta said on Friday he would defer deciding on that issue.

Judge: Giuliani conspired to peddle disinformation

Regarding Giuliani, the judge said “there is little doubt” that he “was involved in a conspiracy” to peddle disinformation about the 2020 election — but that he couldn’t be held liable for the laws at issue in this lawsuit.

Democrats and police officers who filed the lawsuits “fall short” of establishing that Giuliani directly conspired to stop Congress from certifying the election on January 6 by force or intimidation, Mehta ruled.

Even though Giuliani spoke at the “Save America” rally before the riot, and told the crowd, “Let’s have trial by combat,” the judge ruled that those comments weren’t strong enough to establish a conspiracy.

“Critically, Giuliani uttered no words that resembled a call to action. ‘Trial by combat’ was not accompanied by a direction to do anything,” Mehta wrote, calling it “constitutionally protected speech,” and pointing out that Giuliani didn’t know Trump would direct his supporters to march on the Capitol.

The judge said the allegations against Trump Jr. were even weaker, and thus should be dismissed.

“The allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a co-conspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its duties,” Mehta wrote.

That situation was much different than Trump’s — who not only spoke about the crowd marching to the Capitol and fighting, but also failed to tell his rioting supporters to stand down as the violence unfolded. Instead, Trump criticized then-Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the electoral college certification, on Twitter, 12 minutes into the attack.

“When the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, ‘We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,’ moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President’s speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory,” Mehta wrote.

Former US Vice-President Mike Pence has dismissed claims by Donald Trump that he could have stopped Joe Biden becoming president last year. In his strongest rebuttal yet, he said Trump was wrong to suggest he had had the right to overturn the election.

A mob stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to confirm President Joe Biden’s poll win on 6 January last year.  Four people died during the riots, and a police officer who suffered two strokes while defending the building died the following day.

The two legislators, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, are the only Republicans on a congressional select committee investigating the riots. While censuring  the two, the statement by the Republican National Committee (RNC) accused the pair of helping to persecute “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse”.

The RNC appeared to suggest rioters had been involved in legitimate political actions but RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel clarified that it was a reference to “legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol”.

The vote was passed by an overwhelming majority of the 168 RNC members at their winter meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, reports say.

The committee said it would “immediately cease any and all support of them” as party members without removing them from the party.

Both lawmakers issued statements in advance of the vote. “The leaders of the Republican Party have made themselves willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election and suggests he would pardon 6 January defendants, some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy,” Ms Cheney said.

They also received support from other opponents of Mr Trump in the party. Senator Mitt Romney tweeted: “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol.”

‘I had no right’

Speaking in Orlando, Florida, Mr Pence was responding to Mr Trump’s comments on Sunday that he could have overturned the election if he had wanted to. Mr Trump has falsely claimed that the election was stolen by Mr Biden.

Days later Mr Trump said the select committee should be investigating Mr Pence instead of the rioters.

“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone,” Mr Pence said.

“And [current Vice-President] Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024.”

Last May, House Republicans voted to remove Congresswoman Liz Cheney from her leadership position because, they said, her criticism of Donald Trump prevented the party from focusing on upcoming elections.

On Friday, however, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution that will put Mr Trump, the 6 January Capitol riots and shifting Republican attitudes toward both into national headlines again.

The committee also did so in a way that will generate storms of criticism, by censuring Ms Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger for, in part, helping Democratic “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse”. Republicans say the line – added in a last-minute revision – was meant to reference individuals who protested the election results and not those who attacked the Capitol, but its inartful wording will ensure it is construed to include both.

The resolution is just the latest example of the grip Mr Trump holds on the Republican Party apparatus, even if polls indicate that the loyalty of some conservatives may be slipping.

The practical purpose behind the committee’s move is that it frees the party to shift financial support from Ms Cheney to her Republican primary opponent. The political fireworks were a collateral – if not unintended – effect.

Joe Biden began his presidency with positive job ratings and broad public confidence in his ability to deal with a number of major challenges – particularly the public health impact of the coronavirus. He starts his second year with diminished job approval and majorities expressing little or no confidence in him on many of these same issues, the coronavirus included.

Currently, 41% of U.S. adults approve of Biden’s job performance, which is down slightly from September (44%) and substantially lower than last April (59%).

With the omicron variant continuing to spread across the United States, fewer than half of Americans (44%) now say they are very or somewhat confident in Biden to handle the coronavirus; that share is down 21 percentage points since March (65%).

A new national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 10-17 among 5,128 adults on the nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds that Biden and his party are facing a difficult political environment with the midterm elections 10 months away:

Just 21% of the public is satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. That is 12 points lower than last March (33%) and 15 points lower than in February 2018 (36%), near the beginning of the previous midterm year. For more, see Americans broadly negative about the state of the nation, but most see a better year ahead.

The public’s views of the nation’s economy remain quite negative; just 28% say economic conditions are excellent or good. Overwhelming majorities say that prices for food and consumer goods (89%) and gas prices (82%) are worse than they were a year ago, with more than half saying they are “a lot” worse (60% food and consumer goods, 54% gas prices). However, a 56% majority says the availability of jobs has improved compared with a year ago.

Nearly two years after the coronavirus first began spreading in the United States, majorities continue to say COVID-19 is a major threat to the economy (69%) and to the health of the U.S. population (57%). When thinking about the pandemic, Americans are split over whether the worst is still to come (50% say this) or the worst is over (49%).

While opinions about Biden and the state of the nation continue to be deeply divided along partisan lines, Democrats have become less supportive of the president and less satisfied with the way things are going in the country. Just 29% of Democrats express satisfaction with the state of the nation, down 18 points since March.

Since September, Biden’s job approval has declined 3 percentage points among the public overall, but 7 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (from 75% to 68%); over the past six months his job rating among Democrats has fallen 20 points (from 88%). The falloff in this period has been less pronounced among Republicans and Republican leaners (10 points since July), who already overwhelmingly disapproved of the president’s performance.

In addition, favorable views of Congress have declined, with the change largely driven by Democrats. Overall, 28% of the public expresses a favorable opinion of Congress, compared with 36% last April. While Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to have a favorable view of Congress (36% vs. 18%), the share of Democrats who view the Democratic-led Congress favorably has fallen 14 points since last April (from 50%); Republicans’ views are little changed (21% then, 18% now).

Nonetheless, the public continues to have a more positive image of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, though majorities have unfavorable impressions of both. Currently, 43% view the Democratic Party favorably and 35% have a favorable view of the GOP. Ratings for both parties have slipped slightly since last year; notably, both coalitions continue to view their own parties somewhat less favorably than they did in March 2021.

And larger shares of Americans say they agree more with the Democrats than with Republicans on several key policy areas, including policies to deal with the health impact of the coronavirus (41% agree with the Democratic Party, while 27% the Republican Party; 31% agree with neither). Significantly more Americans also say they agree with the Democratic Party than the GOP on policies of climate change (by 22 points), health care (16 points), abortion (10 points) and education (8 points). Comparable shares agree with both parties on economic, immigration and gun policy. Among eight policy areas included in the survey, there is none on which a significantly larger share agrees with the GOP than the Democrats.

Democrats also are more widely seen as governing honestly than Republicans (45% vs. 39%), and a larger share of the public says the Democratic Party (51%) than the Republican Party (46%) respects the country’s democratic institutions. Yet majorities view both parties as “too extreme” in their positions; 57% say this describes the Democratic Party very or somewhat well, while 60% say it describes the Republican Party.

The year begins with members of both parties less willing to support their parties’ leaders making concessions to achieve results than they were a year ago. Nearly half of Democrats (48%) want Biden to “stand up” to Republicans even if it makes it harder to address key problems; 37% said this last year, shortly before his inauguration.

Republicans, who were more resistant to making concessions a year ago, have become even more so; 72% want GOP leaders to stand up to Biden, up 13 points from last year.

Former President Trump is creating new headaches for Republicans after he floated pardons for Jan. 6 attack participants and lashed out at Vice President Mike Pence for not overturning the 2020 election.

Trump’s comments — made separately during a rally in Texas on Saturday and in a statement on Sunday — injected back into the spotlight the attack on the Capitol, carried out by a mob of the former president’s supporters, and a rehash of the 2020 election.

GOP lawmakers, including allies like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), immediately distanced themselves from comments by Trump, who is flirting with a 2024 comeback bid as he falsely claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

“I just think people who broke the law on January 6 need to be held accountable, period,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Trump floated the pardons during a rally in Texas, saying that “so many people have been asking me about it.” Trump indicated that he was willing to use pardons, if he is back in the White House after 2024, for people involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol “because they are being treated so unfairly.”

More than 700 individuals have been charged related to the Jan. 6 riot on the Capitol, which forced the evacuation of the House and Senate chamber and sent lawmakers running for cover in the complex.

Graham, during an interview with CBS News, warned that pardoning individuals tied to the attack would be “inappropriate.”

“I don’t want to send any signal that it was okay to defile the Capitol,” Graham added. “There are other groups with causes that may want to go down to the violent path that these people get pardoned.”

Graham’s pushback is notable because he’s remained one of the president’s most vocal allies in the Senate GOP caucus, including publicly warning Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that he needs to be able to work with the former president. Graham recently visited Trump, and has predicted that he’ll be the party’s 2024 GOP presidential nominee if he wants to be.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said he aligned with Graham’s view.

“I just don’t think you want to encourage unlawful behavior,” Thune said.

Trump’s use of pardons garnered controversy during his White House tenure.

Though Trump used his pardon power less frequently than his immediate predecessor, he did use it to benefit some of his allies including pardoning his former chief strategist Steven Bannon, former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, operative Roger Stone and Charles Kushner, the father of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The New York Times reported last year that Trump also discussed pardoning himself, something a president has never done before and a step that would likely spark a fierce legal battle. 

Trump’s decision to raise the issue of pardons for individuals tied to the Jan. 6 attack comes as Senate Republicans, in particular, are eager to move past the 2020 election as they shape their message heading into the November midterm election.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he wants the November election to be squarely focused on Biden and his administration.

Even as McConnell — who was a close ally of the former president during most of his tenure — has tried to stay focused on Biden, loyalty to Trump has emerged as a litmus test for many Republicans including in key battleground GOP primaries.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) immediately hit back at Graham saying that he was “pretending to be a friend” to Trump.

In addition to floating pardons, Trump on Sunday night lashed out at Pence for not unilaterally throwing out the results of the 2020 election when he was presiding over Congress’s formal count of the Electoral College results last January.

“If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had ‘absolutely no right’ to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?” Trump asked.

“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away,” he added.

Earlier on Sunday before Trump issued his statement, Collins said she was ‘unlikely’ to support Trump if he ran in 2024, becoming one of the rare Senate Republicans to make that notion public.

Trump led a public and private pressure campaign to try to get Pence to throw out the results from key battleground states. Pence, however, refused saying the Constitution tied his hands — an interpretation that many senators agreed with.

“That‘s not my understanding of the law,” Cornyn said, asked about Trump’s claim.

A bipartisan Senate group, led by Collins and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), are currently negotiating potential changes to the 1887 law, which lays out how the Electoral College results are counted.

Among the changes they are considering is codifying that the vice president’s role is ceremonial and increasing the number of members from the House and Senate that have to object before they can force a vote on a challenge to a state’s results.

The group, which now includes approximately 16 senators, met on Monday night in the Capitol and are expected to meet with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the chairwoman and top Republican on the Rules Committee.

“I’m very much of the view with Mike Pence that he didn’t have the authority,” Thune said, adding that Senate Republicans can’t “control what the former president does on that or other issues.”

Thune added that there was “some interest” in making changes to the Electoral Count Act.  “I think there are some questions and ambiguities around that century and a half old statue that probably need to be clarified,” Thune added.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the court’s senior liberal jurist, is reportedly stepping down at the end of the 2021-2022 term. Breyer, 83, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, is the oldest justice on the court, and his retirement would give President Joe Biden a potential opportunity to make good on a campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to fill the seat.

There are several candidates whose names have been circulating as potential nominees. They include Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the D.C. Circuit, who is considered a leading candidate; Justice Leondra Kruger, of the California Supreme Court; and Judge Michelle Childs, of the South Carolina District Court.

Regardless of whom Biden picks to fill the vacancy, the balance of power will remain unchanged, with conservatives holding six seats to the liberals’ three. But the president’s nomination is sure to encounter resistance from Republican leadership in the Senate, who bent over backwards to ensure former President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, did not even receive a hearing to fill the vacancy created by the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s upcoming departure from the Supreme Court hands President Biden the chance to tap a replacement who is expected to bring youth, diversity and a more liberal outlook than the retiring 83-year-old jurist known for his unique brand of judicial modesty and pragmatism.

The seating of Biden’s nominee, who he has said would be the country’s first Black female justice, will not fundamentally shift the balance of the 6-3 conservative majority court. But replacing Breyer with a justice who is ideologically to his left could reshape the three-member liberal minority and alter the court in more subtle ways.

“I think it likely that whoever is appointed will likely be more liberal than Justice Breyer, who often had a decidedly conservative bent,” said Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University, who described Breyer overall as “mildly progressive.”

Biden announced Breyer’s retirement Thursday at a White House event, saying he planned to pick a nominee before the end of February.

The president also said he would seek input on his judicial selection from a variety of sources — including senators from both parties, legal academia and Vice President Harris — while standing firm on his 2020 campaign pledge to nominate the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

“I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character experience and integrity,” Biden said. “And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue in my view.”

Among the likely candidates to replace Breyer are Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Leondra Kruger, 45, who has served on the California Supreme Court since 2015; and J. Michelle Childs, 55, a federal district court judge in South Carolina whom Biden recently nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court.

Biden’s nominee is expected to round out the court’s liberal wing, which also includes Sonia Sotomayor, 67, and Elena Kagan, 61.

Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said that compared to Breyer, the next justice is likely to be less deferential to the government when it appears as a party before the Supreme Court.

“Breyer’s replacement is likely to be a little more progressive, especially on criminal justice issues,” Adler said. “Justice Breyer has likely been the most pro-government justice on the court, and so there is likely to be a slight change there.”

But an even more important shift, in Adler’s view, has to do with a change in status among the justices: Breyer’s departure means Sotomayor will become the court’s senior-most liberal justice.

Significantly, the senior-most justice in the majority selects which justice writes the opinion. The same goes for the losing side, with the senior-most justice assigning authorship of the dissenting opinion — with the option to write it themselves.

Given the court’s conservative supermajority, liberal justices are often relegated to the dissenting minority on hot-button issues, from disputes over abortion restrictions and religious liberty to voting rights.

Sotomayor, now the court’s most liberal member by a wide margin, has shown herself to be uncowed by the court’s ideological lopsidedness, frequently blasting conservative rulings with fiery dissents.

“The biggest effect of Breyer leaving is that the senior-most liberal justice will now be Sotomayor, instead of Breyer, and that will likely have effects on opinion assignments, which may change the tone of how some issues are handled or discussed,” Adler said.

And since the new justice is likely to find herself in the minority on divisive, politically charged cases, dissent may be a major force in shaping the role.

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart, once remarked that a forcefully written dissenting opinion can exert pressure on other justices, causing the authors of majority opinions to refine and clarify their argument. In rare cases, a dissenting view has even garnered enough support to supplant the majority opinion.

Dissent can also lay down an important historical marker, Ginsburg said during a 2010 speech. She illustrated the point with a quote from the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal … to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”

Steven Schwinn, a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School, said the role of frequent dissenter could alleviate some pressure on the Supreme Court’s new arrival.

“This could give a new Justice a unique opportunity to develop her own voice and approach early in her tenure, as she may need to worry less about writing to keep or gain a majority,” he said. He also held open the possibility that a new justice could create “new opportunities for work across the ideological aisle.”

On the other hand, if the next justice proves more progressive than Breyer, it could put pressure on Kagan, now the court’s most moderate liberal, to take on an even greater role as a consensus-seeker.

“I would expect Justice Kagan to try to move into the role of ‘bridge builder’ between the two camps,” said Kobil, “if that is even possible anymore on hot-button issues.”

Another possibility, he said, is that the two sides will move further apart still, producing more acrimony.

“I anticipate the troubling prospect of an increasingly partisan divide among the justices, with [Republican and Democratic appointees] lining up squarely against each other on most ideological issues,” he said. Such a pattern, he said, would mean “Chief Justice Roberts has his work cut out trying to maintain the perception of the court as an institution of integrity rather than simply another instrument in partisan culture wars.”

Nominees need 51 votes in the Senate to be confirmed. Currently, the Senate is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats), but Democrats have a majority because Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris casts the deciding vote in the Senate in the event of a tie.

Breyer’s decision to leave the court comes as the court faces questions of legitimacy given the tactics Republicans deployed to secure three additional conservative  seats in recent years.

“What Mitch McConnell did with Merrick Garland was unprecedented,” Paul says, “a politicization of the confirmation process unlike anything we’ve seen before.” Garland is now serving as U.S. attorney general.

A moderate liberal, Breyer has provided a key check against a majority-conservative court for most of his time on the bench. He has been a reliable defender of administrative agencies, deferring to their expertise; notably, he voted in the majority to legalize gay marriage in 2015, endorsed pro-choice positions on abortion, and wrote a majority opinion striking down an effort to overturn to the Affordable Care Act as recently as last term.

This Time Prosecutors Take Him At His Word. Literally And Seriously.

This weekend Trump accused four Black prosecutors of attacking him because he’s White (well, white-ish) and threatened to send rioters into their cities if he’s indicted.

“These prosecutors are vicious, horrible people. They’re racists and they’re very sick, they’re mentally sick,” he told Texas rally goers Saturday. “They’re going after me without any protection of my rights from the Supreme Court or most other courts. In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you.”

These new tools can not only accomplish far more than the average human in far less time but also produce better, more reliable results.

In reality, New York Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Washington, DC District Attorney Karl Racine, and Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis are investigating Trump for, among other things, lying on financial documents. Which is exactly the same crime that Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, an African American woman, was just indicted for.

But back in Conroe, Texas, Trump was undeterred by minor details.

“If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had in Washington, D.C, in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere,” he told the crowd.

Which was not all that dissimilar from Trump’s statements leading up to the January 6 Riot. Most famously, he tweeted on December 19, 2020, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

But there were plenty of calls for his supporters to flood the streets and fight, as on January 4, 2021 when the president told a crowd in Georgia, “If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now.”

And so this time the targets of his incendiary rhetoric are taking him seriously and literally, with DA Willis requesting FBI support to protect her investigators.

In a letter addressed to the Special Agent in charge of the Atlanta Field Office, Willis referred to Trump’s comments this weekend, including his promise to pardon the Capitol rioters for engaging in political violence.

“I am asking that you immediately conduct a risk assessment of the Fulton County Courthouse and Government Center, and that you provide protective resources to include intelligence and federal agents,” she said, noting that the grand jury impaneled to investigate Trump’s “perfect” phone call urging state officials to find him 11,780 votes begins its work on May 2.

“It is imperative that these resources are in place well in advance of the convening of the Special Purpose Grand Jury,” she wrote. “We must work together to keep the public safe and ensure that we do not have a tragedy in Atlanta similar to what happened in the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

Willis reports that she’s already had to step up security protocols “considering the communications we have received from persons unhappy with our commitment to fulfill our duties,” but that “my staff and I will not be influenced or intimidated by anyone as this investigation moves forward.” These are dangerous times.

The Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective (HinduPACT) is circulating a petition to U.S. Senators requesting critical amendments be made to Senate Bill 3384 (known colloquially as the Islamophobia Act) prior to its passage as the bill in its current form fails to protect human rights globally, including the rights of religious minorities, underage girls, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities.  This petition is now signed by close to 1200 citizens, generating about 2400 letters to the Senators. “The bill in its current form does not do justice to reflect American values,” said HinduPACT Executive Director Utsav Chakbrabarti. “If passed as is, it will diminish America’s role as a purveyor of justice and democracy for all communities, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation.”

“To present a bill that aims to eliminate discrimination against one particular religion or faith without including the entire gamut of religious groups is fundamentally un-American,” said HinduPACT Director of Legislative Outreach and Communications Adelle Nazarian. “The United States is a global leader as a defender of human rights and religious freedom and does not hold any religion, faith, gender or creed superior to another. Equality for one is equality for all.”

Ajay Shah, President of World Hindu Council of America and the Convenor of HinduPACT said, “Hindus inherently value freedom of religion, spiritual diversity and respect towards all faiths. We believe that this Bill will aggrandize the freedom of religions around the world. For example, those who abduct and forcibly convert girls from Hindu, Christian and Sikh communities in Pakistan will now seek to silence their opponents and threaten them with the consequences of being designated as “Islamophobic” by the US government. We believe that the Bill will enable an arbitrary designation of organizations from Hindu and other communities outside the US, as Islamophobic. The Senate must either reject the Bill or amend the Bill to comprehensively address ‘phobias’ against all the faiths.”

Part of the addendum requested by HinduPACT says, “No funds made available pursuant to this Act, or an amendment made by this Act may be used to boycott, promote or endorse discrimination or hatred against members of Yezidi, Coptic Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Evangelical, Jewish, Bahai, Druze, Alawite, Sabian-Mandean, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh individuals, businesses or institutions operated by these communities.” It also requests that “No funds made available pursuant to this Act, or an amendment made by this Act may be used to promote or endorse marriage, specifically marriage of girls under the age of 18.”
The HinduPACT petition can be found and signed here: https://hindupact.org/islamophobiaact2022/
For media inquiries, contact [email protected]

Rashad Hussain has been confirmed as the U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, making him the first Muslim American in the role. Hussain was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Thursday (Dec. 16) by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 5.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom hailed the decision on Hussain, who has been director for partnerships and global engagement at the National Security Council.

“With his years of knowledge and experience, Ambassador Hussain is well placed to advance the U.S. government’s promotion of international religious freedom,” said USCIRF Chair Nadine Maenza in a statement.

Hussain, 42, previously served as a White House counsel during the Obama administration, as special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and as U.S. special envoy for the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.

When President Joe Biden announced his nomination of Hussain in July, the White House noted his work on countering antisemitism and defending religious minorities in countries with Muslim majorities. Hussain, who has served as a judicial clerk in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and as the editor of the Yale Law Journal, speaks Spanish, Arabic and Urdu. He also is a hafiz, or someone who has memorized the entire Quran in Arabic.

“(A)s a Muslim American, I have seen the impact of bigotry and guilt by association tactics used against minority communities, including the message it sends and dangers it poses to young people,” Hussain said in his prepared remarks during the October confirmation hearing.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council welcomed Hussain’s new role. “Rashad has served our community and country at the highest level of integrity and intelligence,” said MPAC President Salam Al-Marayati. “Above all, he has served as a mentor and role model to Americans of all backgrounds, sharing with them the importance of public service and serving our country.”

Sam Brownback, who served as religious freedom ambassador during the Trump administration, had cheered the recent movement of the confirmation process for Hussain and applauded its outcome.

“Religious persecution is rampant around the world, and the international community looks to the United States for leadership that can make a difference,” Brownback, now a senior fellow at international persecution watchdog Open Doors USA, said in a statement. “That’s why I’m glad Rashad Hussain has been confirmed by a bipartisan Senate majority.”

An earlier religious freedom ambassador, Rabbi David Saperstein, joined Princeton University professor Robert P. George in supporting Hussain at the time of his confirmation hearing. The two men, who noted in a Religion News Service commentary that they have vastly different political perspectives, said Hussain was committed to protecting Christian rights and had garnered deep respect in the Muslim community.

“Hussain has enormous credibility across a broad range of faith groups, built on years of leadership in efforts for religious freedom,” they wrote. “His nomination has brought enthusiastic praise from groups ranging from the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the Baptist World Alliance to the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Union for Reform Judaism, as well as widespread commendations from the Muslim community.”

The Secular Coalition for America also joined in congratulating Hussain on the confirmation vote. “The Ambassador has the potential to be a powerful voice for the rights of nontheists & apostates who face persecution abroad,” tweeted the organization, which represents atheist, humanist and freethinking groups. “SCA looks forward to working with him.”

The White House’s nominee for antisemitism envoy, Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, has yet to have a confirmation hearing after she was nominated in July on the same day as Hussain.

Ubiquitous gun violence in the United States has left few places unscathed over the decades. Still, many Americans hold their right to bear arms, enshrined in the US Constitution, as sacrosanct. But critics of the Second Amendment say that right threatens another: The right to life.

America’s relationship to gun ownership is unique, and its gun culture is a global outlier. As the tally of gun-related deaths continue to grow daily, here’s a look at how gun culture in the US compares to the rest of the world.

Note: Gun ownership rates are estimates as of 2017. Some entries have been combined to calculate rates for Cyprus, United Kingdom and Somalia. Data not available for Christmas Island, Nauru and Vatican City.

There are 120 guns for every 100 Americans, according to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (SAS). No other nation has more civilian guns than people.

The Falkland Islands — a British territory in the southwest Atlantic Ocean, claimed by Argentina and the subject of a 1982 war — is home to the world’s second-largest stash of civilian guns per capita. But with an estimated 62 guns per 100 people, its gun ownership rate is almost half that of the US. Yemen — a country in the throes of a seven-year conflict — has the third-highest gun ownership rate at 53 guns per 100 people.

While the exact number of civilian-owned firearms is difficult to calculate due to a variety of factors — including unregistered weapons, the illegal trade and global conflict — SAS researchers estimate that Americans own 393 million of the 857 million civilian guns available, which is around 46% of the world’s civilian gun cache.

About 44% of US adults live in a household with a gun, and about one-third own one personally, according to an October 2020 Gallup survey.

Some nations have high gun ownership due to illegal stocks from past conflicts or lax restrictions on ownership, but the US is one of only three countries in the world where bearing (or keeping) arms is a constitutional right, according to Zachary Elkins, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and director of the Comparative Constitutions Project. Yet the ownership rate in the other two — Guatemala and Mexico — is almost a tenth of the United States.

The gun debate in those countries is less politicized, Elkins said. In contrast to the US, Guatemala and Mexico’s constitutions facilitate regulation, with lawmakers more comfortable restricting guns, especially given concerns around organized crime, he said. In Mexico, there’s only one gun store in the entire country — and it’s controlled by the army.

In the US, firearm manufacturing is on the rise, with more Americans buying guns.

In 2018, gun makers produced 9 million firearms in the country — more than double the amount manufactured in 2008, according to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). More recently, January 2021 marked the biggest annual increase since 2013 in requests for federal background checks necessary for purchasing a gun — a nearly 60% jump from January 2020.

And in March 2021, the FBI reported almost 4.7 million background checks — the most of any month since the agency started keeping track more than 20 years ago. Two million of those checks were for new gun purchases, making it the second highest month on record for firearms sales, according to the National Shooting Sports Federation, the firearms industry trade group that compares FBI background check numbers with actual sales data to determine its sales figures.

The US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the developed world

In 2019, the number of US deaths from gun violence was about 4 per 100,000 people. That’s 18 times the average rate in other developed countries. Multiple studies show access to guns contributes to higher firearm-related homicide rates.

Almost a third of US adults believe there would be less crime if more people owned guns, according to an April 2021 Pew survey. However, multiple studies show that where people have easy access to firearms, gun-related deaths tend to be more frequent, including by suicide, homicide and unintentional injuries.

It is then unsurprising that the US has more deaths from gun violence than any other developed country per capita. The rate in the US is eight times greater than in Canada, which has the seventh highest rate of gun ownership in the world; 22 times higher than in the European Union and 23 times greater than in Australia, according to Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) data from 2019.

The gun-related homicide rate in Washington, DC — the highest of any US state or district — is close to levels in Brazil, which ranks sixth highest in the world for gun-related homicides, according to the IHME figures.

Globally, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean suffer from the highest rates of firearm homicides, with El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia and Honduras topping the charts.

Drug cartel activities and the presence of firearms from old conflicts are both contributing factors, according to the 2018 Global Mortality From Firearms, 1990-2016, study.

But gun-related violence in Latin America and the Caribbean is also exacerbated by weapons that come from the US. About 200,000 firearms from America cross Mexico’s border every year, according to a February 2021 US government accountability office report, citing the Mexican government.

In 2019, about 68% of firearms seized by law enforcement in Mexico and sent to the ATF for identification were traced back to the US. And around half of guns the ATF checked after they’ve been seized in Belize, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama were manufactured in or officially imported to the US.

The US was home to 4% of the world’s population but accounted for 44% of global suicides by firearm in 2019

The country recorded the largest number of gun-related suicides in the world every year from 1990 to 2019.

Gun-related suicides

United States 23,365 44% of global suicides by firearm in 2019 Mexico914 Argentina1,204 Brazil1,259 Pakistan710 India6,145 France1,748 Venezuela702 Russia1,053 Germany899 Nigeria458 Canada686 Turkey585 Iraq428 SouthAfrica397 Ukraine525 Italy507 Colombia478 China (mainland)467 DRCongo395

While personal safety tops the list of reasons why American gun owners say they own a firearm, 63% of US gun-related deaths are self-inflicted.

Over 23,000 Americans died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 2019. That number accounts for 44% of the gun suicides globally and dwarfs suicide totals in any other country in the world.

At six firearm suicides per 100,000 people, the US rate of suicide is, on average, seven times higher than in other developed nations. Globally, the US rate is only lower than in Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with relatively high gun ownership (22 guns per 100 people).

Multiple studies have reported an association between gun ownership and gun-related suicides.

One of those studies, conducted by researchers at Stanford University, found that men who owned handguns were almost eight times as likely to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds as men who didn’t own a gun. Women who owned handguns were 35 times as likely to die by firearm suicide, compared to those who didn’t, according to the 2020 study, which surveyed 26 million California residents over a more than 11-year period.

No other developed nation has mass shootings at the same scale or frequency as the US

Half of the world’s developed countries had at least one public mass shooting between 1998 and 2019.* But no other nation saw more than eight incidents over 22 years, while the United States had over 100 — with almost 2,000 people killed or injured.

Number of mass shooting casualties, by year

2000 ’02 ’03 ’01 ’04 ’06 ’08 ’10 ’12 ’14 ’16 ’05 ’07 ’09 ’11 ’13 ’15 ’17 ’18 ’19 ’98 ’99 2000 ’02 ’03 ’01 ’04 ’06 ’08 ’10 ’12 ’14 ’16 ’05 ’07 ’09 ’11 ’13 ’15 ’17 ’18 ’19 ’98 ’99 France Germany Canada Finland Switzerland Netherlands Italy Czech Rep. Belgium United Kingdom Slovakia Norway New Zealand Lithuania Croatia Australia Austria US 561 145 159 131 592† †

* Mass shootings are defined as gun-violence incidents in a public locations within a 24-hour period that result in four or more deaths, excluding the perpetrator, with victims chosen at random or for their symbolic value. They exclude incidents involving profit-driven criminal activity, state-sponsored violence and familicide. † The dataset includes casualties from the only three mass shootings involving organized terrorism that occurred in the developed world in the timeframe (May 2014 Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting, January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and November 2015 Paris attacks). Note: Developed countries are defined based on the UN classification and those with no mass shootings are not shown.

Source: Jason R. Silva of William Paterson University

Regular mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomenon. The US is the only developed country where mass shootings have happened every single year for the past 20 years, according to Jason R. Silva, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at William Paterson University.

To compare across countries, Silva uses a conservative definition of a mass shooting: an event that leaves four or more people dead, excluding the shooter, and that excludes profit-driven criminal activity, familicide and state-sponsored violence. Using this approach, 68 people were killed and 91 injured in eight public shootings in the US over the course of 2019 alone.

A broader definition of mass shootings reveals an even higher figure.

The Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit based in Washington, DC and which CNN relies on for its reporting of mass shootings, defines a mass shooting as an incident leaving at least four people dead or injured, excluding the shooter, and does not differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

They counted as many as 417 mass shootings in 2019. And this year, 641 incidents have been recorded.

State gun policies also appear to play a role. A 2019 study published in the British Medical Journal found that US states with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings.

President Joe Biden’s administration has renewed calls for gun reform after mass shootings in Colorado, South Carolina and Texas this year. In March, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would require unlicensed and private sellers, as well as all licensed sellers to do federal background checks before all gun sales — and to ensure that buyers are fully vetted before making the sale.

The bills are now stuck in the Senate where, despite some Democrats’ efforts to build bipartisan support, there has been no indication they have the votes to overcome the 60-vote filibuster.

For decades, political roadblocks have stalled such efforts in the US. And that partisan divide is reflected in the population as well, with 80% of Republicans — and 19% of Democrats — saying gun laws in the country are either about right or should be less strict, according to the April Pew survey.

Meanwhile, mass shootings continue to drive demand for more guns, experts say, with gun control activists arguing the time for reform is long overdue.

Researchers from Washington University at St Louis’ Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute presented this argument to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2018, saying that the US government’s “failure” to prevent and reduce gun-related violence through “reasonable and effective domestic measures has limited the ability of Americans to enjoy many fundamental freedoms and guarantees protected by international human rights law,” including the right to life and bodily integrity.

UN bodies have also underlined these concerns, pointing to America’s “stand your ground” laws, which allow gun owners in at least 25 states to use deadly force in any situation where they believe that they face an imminent threat of harm, without first making any effort to deescalate the situation or retreat. A 2019 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report said that the law can encourage people to respond to situations with lethal force, rather than use it as a last resort.

In a 2020 essay published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank, gun control advocate Rukmani Bhatia said that the US gun lobby has seized a rights-based narrative “to justify, dangerously, the right to bear, carry, and use firearms.”

Stand your ground legislation, she said, “warps people’s understanding about their rights to security and, in the worst cases, empowers them to take away another person’s right to life.”

Gun-related deaths reduced after the introduction of stricter laws in these countries

Shortly after a mass shooting in Tasmania, Australia banned rapid-fire rifles and shotguns and tightened licensing rules. Over the next decade, gun deaths dropped by 51%.

A decade of rising gun deaths in South Africa prompted the government to pass new laws prohibiting certain firearms, mandating background checks and tightening licensing requirements, which capped gun ownership numbers.

A mass shooting in 1996 prompted the UK Parliament to further tighten the country’s gun laws and ban private gun ownership.* Gun-related deaths fell by a quarter over the decade that followed.

Three mass shootings in three years prompted Finland to overhaul its gun laws in 2011. Gun deaths were already falling, yet there was an additional 17% drop between 2011 and 2019.

After a 2002 shooting by a 19-year-old, Germany’s parliament passed gun restrictions for young people, including banning large-caliber weapon sales and requiring psychological evaluation before purchase. It later mandated gun registration and storage security checkups after another mass shooting.

2010 ’19 2000 1990 Deaths by firearm:Homicide Suicide Unintentional Mass shooting UNITED KINGDOM 0 100 200 300 400 April 2, 1991Following the 1987 Hungerford spree shooting,Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 came into force Feb. 27, 1997Firearms (Amendment)Act 1997 becomes law March 13, 1996Dunblane school massacre,17 killed June 3, 2010Cumbria shootings,12 killed FINLAND 0 200 400 600 Feb. 11, 2011Firearms Act amended Sept. 23, 2008Kauhajoki schoolshootings,10 killed Nov. 7, 2007Jokela school shooting,eight killed Dec. 31, 2009Helsinki mallshooting, five killed GERMANY 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 April 1, 2003A revamped WeaponsAct was enacted July 25, 2009Weapons Act amended May 16, 1999Five killed Nov 1, 1999Four killed April 26,2002Erfurtschoolshooting,16 killed March 11, 2009Winnendenschool shooting,15 killed July 22, 2016Munich shooting,nine killed SOUTH AFRICA 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 October, 20002000 Firearms ControlAct passed AUSTRALIA 0 200 400 600 800 May 10, 1996National Firearms Agreement established April 28, 1996Port Arthurmassacre,35 killed June 4, 2019Darwin shooting, four killed

Note: Additional gun legislation may have been passed that is not visualized here. Deaths reported in mass shootings exclude the perpetrator.

Meanwhile, countries that have introduced laws to reduce gun-related deaths have achieved significant changes.

A decade of gun violence, culminating with the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, prompted the Australian government to take action.

Less than two weeks after Australia’s worst mass shooting, the federal government implemented a new program, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, and unifying gun owner licensing and registrations across the country. In the next 10 years gun deaths in Australia fell by more than 50%. A 2010 study found the government’s 1997 buyback program — part of the overall reform — led to an average drop in firearm suicide rates of 74% in the five years that followed.

Other countries are also showing promising results after changing their gun laws. In South Africa, gun-related deaths almost halved over a 10-year-period after new gun legislation, the Firearms Control Act of 2000, went into force in July 2004. The new laws made it much more difficult to obtain a firearm.

In New Zealand, gun laws were swiftly amended after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. Just 24 hours after the attack, in which 51 people were killed, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that the law would change. New Zealand’s parliament voted almost unanimously to change the country’s gun laws less than a month later, banning all military-style semi-automatic weapons.

Britain tightened its gun laws and banned most private handgun ownership after a mass shooting in 1996, a move that saw gun deaths drop by almost a quarter over a decade. In August 2021, a licensed firearms holder killed five people in Plymouth, England, marking the worst mass shooting since 2010. After the incident, police said the gunman’s firearm license had been returned to him just months after it was revoked, due to assault accusations. The British government then asked police to review their licensing practices and said that they would be bringing forward new guidance to improve background procedures, including social media checks.

Many countries around the world have been able to tackle gun violence. Yet, despite the thousands of lost lives in the US, only around half of US adults favor stricter gun laws, according to the recent Pew survey, and political reform remains at a standstill. The deadly cycle of violence seems destined to continue.

How CNN reported this story:

For gun ownership rates, CNN relied on the Small Arms Survey (SAS), a project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. It estimates civilian arm stocks using a combination of gun sales and registration figures, public surveys, expert estimates and cross-country comparisons. The gun ownership rate per 100 people is not the same as the share of people that own guns, as some may own multiple guns and others may own none.

For firearm deaths totals and rates, CNN used the Global Burden of Disease database compiled by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington. Firearm-related deaths include physical violence (homicide), self-harm (suicide) and unintentional injuries. While rates are preferable for cross-country comparisons, in the case of suicides we illustrated the totals to highlight the gap between the US and other countries.

When comparing US statistics with other developed countries we used a UN definition found in the United Nations’ World Economic Situation and Prospects report — which intends “to reflect basic economic country conditions” and is not strictly aligned with the UN Statistics Division’s classification known as M49.

To estimate numbers on mass shootings, including incidents, fatalities, and injuries in the US, CNN typically relies on data from the Gun Violence Archive. To enable international comparisons for this story, we also used data compiled by Jason R. Silva, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at William Paterson University. Silva’s definition is narrower than CNN and the GVA’s because it excludes incidents involving profit-driven criminal activity, familicide and state-sponsored violence.

The US House of Representatives voted to hold Steve Bannon, a longtime ally and aide to former President Donald Trump, in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee investigating the violent Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. The vote was 229-202.

Nine Republicans voted with all 220 Democrats to pass the resolution: House Select Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, Reps. Adam Kinzinger, Nancy Mace, Fred Upton, Peter Meijer, John Katko, Brian Fitzpatrick, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, and Jaime Herrera Beutler. Rep. Greg Pence — the brother of former Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the electoral vote count on January 6 — did not vote.

In a rare show of bipartisanship on the House floor, the committee’s Democratic chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, led the floor debate along with Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of two Republicans on the panel. Still, the vote Thursday was 229-202 with all but nine GOP lawmakers who voted saying “no.”

The House vote sends the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, where it will now be up to prosecutors in that office to decide whether to present the case to a grand jury for possible criminal charges. It’s still uncertain whether they will pursue the case — Attorney General Merrick Garland would only say at a House hearing on Thursday that they plan to “make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

The partisan split over Bannon’s subpoena — and over the committee’s investigation in general — is emblematic of the raw tensions that still grip Congress nine months after the Capitol attack.

Democrats have vowed to comprehensively probe the assault in which hundreds of Trump’s supporters battered their way past police, injured dozens of officers and interrupted the electoral count certifying President Joe Biden’s November victory. Lawmakers on the panel say they will move swiftly and forcefully to punish anyone who won’t cooperate with the probe.

“We will not allow anyone to derail our work, because our work is too important,” Thompson said ahead of the vote.  Republicans call it a “witch hunt,” say it is a waste of time and argue that Congress should be focusing on more important matters.

Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, leading the GOP opposition on the floor, called the probe an “illicit criminal investigation into American citizens” and said Bannon is a “Democrat party boogeyman.”

Cheney and Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger are the only two Republicans on the Jan. 6 panel, and both have openly criticized Trump and his role in fomenting the insurrection while the majority of House Republicans have remained silent in the face of Trump’s falsehoods about massive fraud in the election. Trump’s claims were rejected by election officials, courts across the country and by his own attorney general.

The Jan. 6 committee voted 9-0 Tuesday to recommend the contempt charges after Bannon missed a scheduled interview with the panel last week, citing a letter from Trump’s lawyer that directed him not to answer questions. The committee noted that Bannon did not work at the White House at the time of the attack, and that he not only spoke with Trump before it but also promoted the protests on his podcast and predicted there would be unrest. On Jan. 5, Bannon said that “all hell is going to break loose.”

Lawmakers on the panel said Bannon was alone in completely defying its subpoena, while more than a dozen other subpoenaed witnesses were at least negotiating with them.

“Mr. Bannon’s own public statements make clear he knew what was going to happen before it did, and thus he must have been aware of — and may well have been involved in — the planning of everything that played out on that day,” Cheney said ahead of the vote. “The American people deserve to know what he knew and what he did.”

Now the responsibility to prosecute Bannon falls on US Justice Department. There’s still considerable uncertainty about whether the department will pursue the charges, despite Democratic demands for action. It’s a decision that will determine not only the effectiveness of the House investigation but also the strength of Congress’ power to call witnesses and demand information.

While the department has historically been reluctant to use its prosecution power against witnesses found in contempt of Congress, the circumstances are exceptional as lawmakers investigate the worst attack on the U.S. Capitol in two centuries. Even if the Justice Department does decide to prosecute, the case could take years to play out — potentially pushing past the 2022 election when Republicans could win control of the House and end the investigation.

The White House said on October 22^nd that it would delay the release of long-classified documents related to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy. President Joe Biden wrote in a statement that the remaining files “shall be withheld from full public disclosure” until December 15 next year — nearly 60 years after Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas in 1963.

In 2017, former president Donald Trump released several thousand secret files on the assassination, but withheld others on national security grounds. The White House said the national archivist needs more time for a review into that redaction, which was slowed by the pandemic.

Biden also said the delay was “necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations” and that this “outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.”

The assassination of the 46-year-old president was a “profound national tragedy” that “continues to resonate in American history and in the memories of so many Americans who were alive on that terrible day,” the statement said.

A 10-month investigation led by then-Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine who had lived in the Soviet Union, acted alone when he fired on Kennedy’s motorcade.

But the Commission’s investigation was criticized for being incomplete, with a Congressional committee later concluding that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”

U.S. law requires that all government records on the assassination be disclosed “to enable the public to become fully informed.” The National Archives has released thousands of documents to the public as part of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, informally known as the JFK Act. The files are accessible online.

“Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure,” the president said.

Biden said some documents will be released on Dec. 15 of this year, but not earlier “out of respect for the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination,” which took place Nov. 22, 1963. The remaining documents will undergo an “intensive 1-year review” and be released by Dec. 15, 2022.

Under the 1992 John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, all assassination records should have been publicly disclosed within 25 years – or by October 2017 – but postponements were allowed in instances that national security concerns outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The National Archives notes about 88 percent of the records have been released since the late 1990s.

Earlier this month, some members of Congress wrote to Biden urging him to fully release all of the JFK files, including 520 documents that remain withheld from the public and 15,834 documents that were previously released but are partially or mostly redacted. The letter was signed by Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo of California, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sara Jacobs of California, Joe Neguse of Colorado and Raul Grijalva of Arizona.

“Democracy requires that decisions made by the government be open to public scrutiny,” the lawmakers wrote. “Yet excessive secrecy surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination continues to inspire doubt in the minds of the American public and has a profound impact on the people’s trust in their government.”

Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they would like to see former President Donald Trump continue to be a major political figure for many years to come, including 44% who say they would like him to run for president in 2024, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Sept. 13 to 19.

About one-in-five Republicans (22%) say that while they would like Trump to continue to be a major political figure in the United States, they would prefer he use his stature to support another presidential candidate who shares his views in the 2024 election rather than run for office himself. About a third of Republicans (32%) say they would not like Trump to remain a national political figure for many years to come.

How we did this The share of Republicans who say Trump should continue to be a major national figure has grown 10 percentage points – from 57% to 67% – since a January survey that was conducted in the waning days of his administration and in the immediate wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Views among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are essentially unchanged over this time period. Today, 92% of Democrats say they would not like to see Trump continue to be a major national political figure in the future, while just 7% say they would like to see this. Among Republicans, views on whether Trump should continue to be a major political figure or run for office in the next presidential election vary by age, education and ideology.

For example, 72% of Republicans with some college experience or less (who make up a clear majority of Republicans) say Trump should be a major figure, with half saying he should run for president in 2024. By contrast, a narrower majority (54%) of Republicans with a college degree or more say Trump should remain a prominent figure, including just 28% who say he should run for office in the next presidential election.

Among conservative Republicans, there is widespread support for Trump remaining a national political figure: Three-quarters prefer this, including 49% who say he should run for president again in 2024. Moderate and liberal Republicans are more divided: 51% say he should play an ongoing political role, with 33% saying he should run for president himself in 2024; 47% say he should not continue to play a major political role. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say their party should not be accepting of elected officials who criticize Trump

A 63% majority of Republicans say their party should be not too (32%) or not at all (30%) accepting of elected officials who openly criticize Trump, according to the new survey. Just 36% of Republicans say the GOP should be very (11%) or somewhat (26%) accepting of officials who do so. By contrast, about six-in-ten Democrats say the Democratic Party should be very (17%) or somewhat accepting (40%) of Democratic elected officials who openly criticize President Joe Biden.

Majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say their party should be accepting of elected officials who agree with the other party on important issues. Two-thirds of Democrats say the Democratic Party should be accepting of Democratic officials who agree with the GOP on important issues. A slimmer majority of Republicans (55%) say the GOP should be accepting of officials who agree with Democrats on some important issues. The survey also asked about the acceptability of elected officials from one party calling their counterparts in the other party “evil.” A majority of Democrats (57%) and about half of Republicans (52%) say their parties should be not too or not at all accepting of officials who do this.

About four-in-ten Democrats (41%) say their party should be accepting of elected officials in their own party who call GOP officials evil, with 13% saying their party should be very accepting of this. Among Republicans, 46% say their party should be accepting of officials who call their Democratic counterparts evil, including 18% who say the party should be very accepting of these officials. The share of Republicans who say their party should be accepting of elected officials who openly criticize Trump has declined since March. Today, 36% of Republicans say it is at least somewhat acceptable for Republican elected officials to openly criticize Trump, down from 43% earlier this year.

There has also been a decline in the share of Democrats who say their party should be accepting of Democratic elected officials who openly criticize Biden. A narrow majority of Democrats (57%) say this is acceptable, down from 68% in March.

Newswise — As the Supreme Court’s fall term begins, a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds that more than a third of Americans say they might be willing to abolish the Supreme Court or have Congress limit its jurisdiction if the court were to make decisions they or Congress disagreed with.

The nationally representative survey conducted in September found sharp increases in the proportion of Americans willing to consider getting rid of or reining in the nation’s highest court. The survey found that 34% of Americans said “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it “started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with.” And 38% said that when Congress disagrees with the court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”

“Respect for judicial independence appears to be eroding,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). “The willingness of more than 1 in 3 Americans to entertain the idea of abolishing the court or stripping jurisdiction from it is alarming.”

The findings are consistent with trends in other recent surveys that posed related questions. Gallup reported in September that the Supreme Court’s approval rating plunged to 40%, a new low, from 49% in July. A Marquette Law School Poll in September found the court’s approval rating falling to 49% from 60% in July.

The Annenberg Civics Knowledge Survey was conducted September 7-12, 2021, among 1,008 U.S. adults. The survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, and has a margin of error of ± 4.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

A turbulent year

The findings follow a contentious year with increased media coverage of the powers, functions, and prerogatives of the three branches of government. Among the past year’s events were a pandemic in which legislatures and courts grappled with health and safety restrictions; a disputed election and unsuccessful efforts to overturn the results in the courts, including the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court rulings on controversial issues, including a ruling that rejected efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and the court’s refusal to review the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for students and employees at Indiana University. Just before the September survey was fielded, the Supreme Court refused, 5-4, to block a Texas law restricting abortion access.

In recent months, four justices have made public statements defending the independence of the court. One justice, Stephen Breyer, was nominated by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, and three by Republicans: Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who were nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump.

In September, following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas abortion law, Barrett appeared before an audience in Kentucky at the 30th anniversary of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she said, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she added.

‘Do away with’ the Supreme Court

Abolish the court: One-third of respondents (34%) strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “If the Supreme Court started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with, it might be better to do away with the Court altogether.” That is a significant increase from the last time we asked this question, in 2019, when 20% agreed. From 2005 to 2018, those who agreed ranged from 17% to 23%.

Jurisdiction stripping: 38% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.” That is significantly higher than the 28% who agreed when the question was asked in 2018. The response was 22% to 23% from 2007 to 2013.

What motivates Supreme Court justices

Personal and political views: Asked to think about individual Supreme Court justices, 59% of Americans said the justices set aside their personal and political views and make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. That is about the same as in 2020 (56%), and significantly higher than in 2019 (49%).

Party leanings: Over a third of Americans (37%) say that justices are more likely to make rulings that reflect the political leanings of the presidents who nominate them – that justices nominated by Democratic presidents are more likely to make liberal rulings and justices nominated by Republicans are more likely to make conservative rulings, regardless of the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. The response is about the same as in the prior two years.

Civics knowledge and the high court

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Constitution Day Civics Survey, part 1 of this Civics Knowledge Survey, which was conducted in August and released in advance of Constitution Day (September 17), found that a growing number of Americans correctly named the three branches of government and the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This year, 56% of Americans named all three branches, which is a new high in the survey and significantly higher than the 51% in 2020 and 39% in 2019.

But the survey also found that a sizable number of Americans misunderstood other basic facts about government. While 61% knew that when the Supreme Court rules 5-4 in a case “the decision is the law and needs to be followed,” a third of respondents (34%) said the decision is either sent back to the federal court of appeals to be decided or to

Congress for reconsideration.

An analysis of the Supreme Court survey data by Ken Winneg, Ph.D., APPC’s managing director of survey research, finds that taking a high school civics course has a significant indirect effect on protecting the Supreme Court. Using path modeling, we found that people who said they took a high school civics course are more likely to have higher levels of civics knowledge. Those who have higher levels of civics knowledge are more likely to disagree with statements calling for abolishing the court or having Congress strip the court of some of its jurisdiction.

This analysis is compatible with findings reported in a 2008 article by Jamieson and Bruce Hardy in the journal Daedalus, which found that high school civics predicts increased knowledge; increased knowledge predicts increased trust in the judiciary; and with increased trust comes “a heightened disposition to protect judges from impeachment for popular rulings and the judiciary from stripped jurisdiction. Trust also increased the belief that the Supreme Court should be retained in the face of unpopular rulings.”

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.