Category: Nation

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 adelle.nazarian@hindupact.org

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.