Vice President Kamala Harris has captured the attention of Republican donors, holds significant name recognition, and is gaining support from influential Democratic Party figures. Should President Joe Biden step aside from the 2024 election, Harris would be the natural successor, according to top Democrats. This raises a crucial question: Does Harris have a better chance than Biden of defeating Donald Trump? Despite Biden’s insistence on staying in the race, discussions about Harris’s potential candidacy are intensifying.
If Harris were to become the party’s nominee and win the November 5 election, she would be the first woman president of the United States, and the first African American and Asian individual to serve as vice president. Her tenure in the White House over the past three and a half years has been marked by a slow start, significant staff turnover, and challenging early assignments, such as addressing Central American migration, which did not yield major successes.
As recently as last year, concerns within the White House and Biden’s campaign team regarding Harris’s potential liability to the campaign were prevalent. However, her recent efforts on abortion rights and engagement with young voters have significantly altered this perception among Democratic officials.
The Biden-Harris campaign expressed, “She is proud to be his running mate and looks forward to serving at his side for four more years.” Recent polls indicate that Harris might have an edge over Biden in a potential matchup against Trump. A CNN poll released on July 2 showed Trump leading Biden by six percentage points (49% to 43%), while Harris trailed Trump by a narrower margin of 47% to 45%, within the margin of error. The poll also revealed that independents favor Harris over Trump (43% to 40%) and that moderate voters prefer her 51% to 39%.
Another poll by Reuters/Ipsos following a debate between Trump and a struggling Biden showed Harris and Trump nearly tied, with 42% supporting Harris and 43% backing Trump. Among possible alternatives to Biden, only former First Lady Michelle Obama, who has shown no interest in running, polled higher. Internal polling from the Biden campaign indicated that Harris has similar odds as Biden of beating Trump, with 45% of voters supporting her compared to 48% for Trump.
Several influential Democrats have signaled their support for Harris as the best option if Biden steps aside. These include U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, a key figure in Biden’s 2020 victory; Rep. Gregory Meeks, a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Summer Lee, a House Democrat from Pennsylvania. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has also reportedly indicated support for Harris in private discussions.
Republican donors are taking Harris seriously, with some preferring Trump to face Biden rather than her. Pauline Lee, a Trump fundraiser in Nevada, stated, “I would prefer Biden to stay in place,” and criticized Biden as “incompetent.” Wall Street, a crucial Democratic fundraising hub, is also beginning to show a preference for Harris. Sonu Varghese, global macro strategist at Carson Group, remarked, “Biden is already behind Trump, and is unlikely to overcome that gap given where his campaign is currently. Having VP Harris likely improves Democrats’ odds of taking the White House.”
However, a majority of Americans view Harris negatively, similar to their perceptions of Biden and Trump. Polling data from Five Thirty Eight shows 37.1% of voters approve of Harris while 49.6% disapprove, compared to Biden’s 36.9% approval and 57.1% disapproval, and Trump’s 38.6% approval and 53.6% disapproval.
Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to repeal the constitutional right to abortion, Harris has become the administration’s leading voice on reproductive rights. This issue is central to the Democrats’ strategy for the 2024 election. Harris could invigorate key Democratic-leaning groups whose enthusiasm for Biden has waned, including Black voters, young voters, and those dissatisfied with Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Tim Ryan, a former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, wrote, “She would energize the Black, brown, and Asian Pacific members of our coalition…she would immediately pull the dispirited youth of our country back into the fold.”
Harris’s stance on Israel is aligned with Biden’s, though she was the first senior U.S. leader to call for a ceasefire in March. Abbas Alawieh of the “Uncommitted” movement, which withheld votes for Biden over his support for Israel, stated, “Simply swapping out the candidate does not address the central concern.”
If Biden steps aside, other Democrats might compete for the nomination. However, choosing another candidate over Harris could alienate Black voters, crucial to Biden’s 2020 victory. Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, asserted, “There is no alternative besides Kamala Harris…Jump over the Black woman, the vice president, and I don’t think the Democratic Party actually recovers.”
Harris may struggle to win over moderate Democrats and independent voters who favor Biden’s centrist policies. Dmitri Mehlhorn, adviser to LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, noted, “Her greatest weakness is that her public brand has been associated with the far-left wing of the Democratic Party…and the left wing cannot win a national election.”
Harris would inherit Biden’s campaign infrastructure and funds, a crucial advantage with only four months until election day. However, Democratic strategists emphasize the need to raise hundreds of millions more dollars. A Democratic National Committee source remarked, “I can tell you we have a really tough time raising money for her.”
During the 2020 presidential race, Harris lagged behind Biden in fundraising, dropping out in December 2019 after reporting $39.3 million in total contributions compared to Biden’s $60.9 million. However, Biden’s campaign raised a record $48 million in 24 hours after naming Harris as his running mate.
Some Democrats believe Harris’s prosecutorial background could shine in a debate against Trump. Mehlhorn commented, “She is incredibly focused and forceful and smart, and if she prosecutes the case against the criminality of Donald Trump, she will rip him apart.”
Republican attacks on Harris are increasing as she is considered a possible replacement for Biden. Conservative media are reviving criticism from the 2020 race, including claims that she laughs too much and is untested and unqualified. The New York Post, owned by News Corp, ran a column titled “America may soon be subjected to the country’s first DEI president: Kamala Harris,” criticizing her rise due to the party’s diversity initiatives.
Kelly Dittmar, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said, “Unfortunately, the reliance on both racist and sexist attacks and tropes against women running for office is historically common and persists to this day.”
Democrats have been deeply concerned about President Biden’s candidacy and his ability to defeat Donald Trump following his poor debate performance last week.
To address these concerns, Biden sat for an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Friday night.
Whether the interview alleviated these concerns will become clearer in the coming days. Here are six key takeaways from the interview:
Biden’s Performance and Age
Biden’s performance in the interview was better than in the debate, but his age is increasingly apparent. While he may have reassured some political allies, he did not display the clarity and coherence that Democrats hoped for. His thoughts were occasionally scattered and unclear.
“I just had a bad night,” Biden explained regarding the debate. “I don’t know why.” He mentioned that he had been traveling, had a cold, and had even tested for COVID.
The critical question is whether Democratic officials and persuadable voters will accept this explanation and believe he is capable of another term. Biden asserts he is fit for the job, but his age is becoming more noticeable at a crucial time. Before the debate, expectations were low. Biden only needed to show some energy and vigor, but he failed to do so. Now, expectations are higher, and every public appearance, speech, and debate will be scrutinized.
Biden’s Stubbornness
Biden reaffirmed that he is not withdrawing from the race, asserting that no one else could do the job as well or be a better candidate against Trump.
Biden dismissed questions about his political standing and doubts about his ability to lead or defeat Trump. “I’ve seen it from the press,” he said. “I don’t think the vast majority are there. I don’t believe that’s my approval rating.”
Understanding Biden’s refusal to step aside requires understanding his politics and personal resilience. He has faced numerous challenges both personally and politically, which have shaped him. Biden is accustomed to people doubting him, and he believes these naysayers have been wrong for a long time.
However, these challenges differ from his current one because, as the saying goes, Father Time is undefeated.
Historian Douglas Brinkley once said of former President George W. Bush, “Stubbornness is a positive quality of presidential leadership—if you’re right about what you’re stubborn about.” This sentiment applies to Biden or any president.
The Role of Biden’s Closest Allies
Biden stated that only a divine intervention could force him out of the race — or possibly his closest allies in Democratic leadership.
“If the Lord Almighty came down and said, ‘Joe, get out of the race,’ I’d get out of the race,” Biden said. “The Lord Almighty’s not coming down.”
While divine intervention is unlikely, Biden seemed to leave open the possibility of exiting if key congressional allies, such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jim Clyburn, and Senate leader Chuck Schumer, advised him to do so.
None of these allies have called for him to drop out. However, Pelosi recently acknowledged that it is legitimate to question whether Biden’s debate performance was an “episode” or a “condition.”
Stephanopoulos asked Biden, “If you are told reliably from your allies, from your friends and supporters in the Democratic Party in the House and Senate, that they’re concerned you’re going to lose the House and the Senate if you stay in, what will you do?”
Biden responded, “I’m not going to answer that question. It’s not going to happen.”
Thus, Biden’s future in the race is not solely his decision.
Questions About Vice President Harris
Biden contended, “I don’t think anybody’s more qualified to be president or win this race than me.”
He later questioned who else has the “reach” with allies and can handle foreign policy as well as he can, despite his diminished capacity compared to a few years ago.
Stephanopoulos did not follow up on whether Biden believes Vice President Harris could win or do the job as well. Biden’s remarks raise questions about his confidence in Harris. Despite Biden’s public displays of support for Harris, such as raising her arm at a Fourth of July event, the doubts about his age make it worth considering whether he implicitly lacks confidence in Harris’s ability to win or govern.
Biden’s Resilience and Self-Belief
Biden’s steadfast belief in his capabilities stems from a lifetime of overcoming obstacles. He has faced significant personal and political challenges, and his resilience has been a defining characteristic. This tenacity is evident in his refusal to step aside despite concerns about his age and performance.
Throughout his career, Biden has been told he couldn’t or shouldn’t do something, and he has consistently proved the doubters wrong. This deep-seated belief in his own resilience and abilities is a core part of who he is as a politician and person.
The Impact on the Democratic Party
Biden’s decision to remain in the race has significant implications for the Democratic Party. His performance and public appearances will be closely scrutinized, and any perceived weaknesses could impact the party’s prospects in the upcoming elections.
The concerns about Biden’s age and performance are not just about his candidacy but also about the broader implications for the Democratic Party. If Biden’s campaign falters, it could have ripple effects on down-ballot races, potentially affecting the party’s control of the House and Senate.
Biden’s interview with Stephanopoulos highlighted key aspects of his candidacy: his age and performance issues, his stubbornness and resilience, the role of his closest allies, and the implications for the Democratic Party. Whether this interview will quell concerns about his candidacy remains to be seen, but it underscores the critical challenges he faces as he seeks another term in office.
President Joe Biden is facing a challenging struggle to affirm his strength and cognitive capacity for a second term, a personal and national ordeal that has become increasingly agonizing. His recent appearance on primetime television, where he candidly addressed questions about his health, felt like a breach of presidential dignity, exposing his vulnerability to the public eye. Despite his respected status among many Americans, witnessing Biden confront the harsh realities of aging so publicly evokes empathy.
Biden’s recent presidential debate performance, marked by moments of incoherence, has sparked significant concern and forced a national dialogue about his fitness for reelection. Although his interview following the debate showcased a more composed demeanor compared to the debate itself, it did little to dispel mounting doubts about his health and the stability of his Democratic support base. The growing pressure within his party suggests a potential crisis, with calls from Democratic leaders for Biden to step aside in favor of a younger candidate intensifying.
During his interview with ABC News, Biden aimed to refute criticisms stemming from his debate performance and solidify his position as the Democratic nominee for 2024. He presented a robust defense of his presidency and dismissed concerns about his health, asserting his readiness to continue his campaign despite calls for him to reconsider. Biden emphasized his longstanding commitment to resilience in the face of adversity, a stance that complicates the Democratic Party’s internal deliberations.
Despite Biden’s insistence that his health remains intact, questions persist about his ability to withstand the rigors of another term. His admission of feeling “terrible” before the debate, coupled with moments of uncertainty during the interview, only heightened anxieties about his physical and mental stamina. Concerns over his age and capacity to effectively serve as president have become focal points in discussions about his candidacy.
The interview highlighted Biden’s defensive posture against criticisms of his debate performance and polling trends indicating a decline in his national and swing state support. Democratic leaders, increasingly anxious about the implications for the upcoming election, have urged Biden to engage more directly with the public to demonstrate his vitality and capability to lead.
Amidst the debate over Biden’s candidacy, supporters argue that his accomplishments in office and the imperative to counter Trump’s potential reelection outweigh concerns about his age and performance. They contend that Biden’s experience and policy achievements should not be overshadowed by a single debate performance, emphasizing the stakes of the upcoming election and the broader implications for American democracy.
However, the persistent doubts about Biden’s ability to navigate another term in office have cast a shadow over discussions about his candidacy. Critics within the Democratic Party assert that while Biden has made significant contributions during his tenure, his continued candidacy risks jeopardizing the party’s prospects in November. They argue for a leadership transition that reflects the changing dynamics of American politics and addresses the challenges posed by Trump’s reelection campaign.
As Biden continues to confront skepticism about his candidacy, he remains steadfast in his determination to highlight his administration’s achievements and combat doubts about his capacity to lead. His efforts to redirect attention towards his policy agenda underscore his commitment to advancing his campaign despite the formidable challenges he faces.
In conclusion, Biden’s struggle to affirm his candidacy for a second term reflects broader anxieties within the Democratic Party about his ability to effectively compete against Trump. The debate over his health and fitness for office underscores the complexity of his reelection bid and the competing perspectives within his party regarding the path forward.
Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, has assumed the role of Britain’s Prime Minister, displacing Rishi Sunak following a decisive electoral defeat for the Conservatives. As Labour returns to power after an absence since 2010, the initial phase of Starmer’s premiership will be marked by intensive international engagements. These include anticipated meetings with US President Joe Biden and various European leaders.
According to David Lammy, the prospective foreign secretary, Labour aims to adopt a foreign policy of “progressive realism,” acknowledging the world’s volatility “as it is, not as we wish it to be.” This stance underscores Labour’s intention to navigate international affairs with pragmatism and foresight.
Labour’s agenda also prioritizes ensuring the success of Brexit and pursuing an ambitious security pact with the European Union. Starmer’s vision extends to enhancing UK-India relations, acknowledging historical challenges such as Labour’s past positions on issues like Kashmir. He has committed to forging a new strategic partnership with India, emphasizing initiatives such as a free trade agreement (FTA) and expanded cooperation in technology, security, education, and climate change. These efforts aim to elevate ties with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.
In his manifesto, Starmer outlined plans for a “new strategic partnership” with India, focusing prominently on trade agreements and bilateral cooperation. To address domestic concerns and garner support from the British-Indian community, Starmer has engaged in outreach efforts during his campaign. These include condemning Hinduphobia and participating in cultural celebrations like Diwali and Holi, aimed at fostering inclusivity and trust within this crucial demographic for Labour’s electoral prospects.
However, challenges lie ahead in realizing Starmer’s ambitious foreign policy objectives, particularly concerning immigration policies and trade negotiations. Amidst bipartisan consensus on the need to curb immigration, Labour faces delicate negotiations regarding temporary visas for Indian workers in the UK service sector.
Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party attempted a last-minute appeal to voters, warning of potential tax increases under Labour’s leadership. Despite these efforts, Labour has secured a commanding lead with 403 seats, compared to the Conservatives’ 109 seats in the 650-member House of Commons. Winning 326 seats is required for a parliamentary majority.
To paraphrase the article while including the original quotes and maintaining the content integrity within approximately 1000 words:
The U.S. housing market, grappling with elevated interest rates and sluggish sales, is poised to exert significant drag on the economy leading up to the upcoming election.
Recent reports paint a grim picture of a housing sector that once held promise as a substantial contributor to the economy, constituting up to 18 percent of it. Existing home sales have declined, and pending sales have plummeted to unprecedented lows. May’s housing starts have hit their lowest point since June 2020, coinciding with the pandemic-induced economic slowdown. Amid the highest borrowing costs seen in over two decades, residential investment has sharply decreased.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, highlighted the severity of the situation, noting, “Home sales activity is at a 30-year low — it’s essentially stuck at that level, so all of the economic activity associated with home sales is at a depressed level.”
Initially optimistic at the start of the year, market expectations were for the Federal Reserve to begin cutting interest rates as inflation subsided. However, this expectation has not materialized, keeping the Fed’s rates elevated and thereby increasing the costs of construction and financing for home purchases.
Simultaneously, soaring home prices due to a nationwide supply shortage have barred many prospective first-time buyers from entering the market. Surveys indicate that the escalating housing costs rank among the top concerns for young voters, with over 90 percent identifying affordability as a pivotal factor influencing their voting decisions this year. This issue is not confined to the U.S. alone; other affluent democracies such as the U.K., France, and Canada are also contending with housing affordability as a pressing political issue.
The Biden administration has faced challenges in addressing this crisis, with significant barriers to new housing development predominantly arising at the local and state levels.
Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin, emphasized the unprecedented nature of the current housing dilemma, stating, “It’s unprecedented, it’s never been such an issue. I think this is the first time housing could actually matter in the swing states — before it was mostly in the coastal areas.” Fairweather underscored President Biden’s acknowledgment of housing costs in his debate with former President Trump, highlighting its newfound prominence in national discourse.
Residential investment, which accounts for a substantial portion of the GDP, could diminish by up to 5 percent as a result of declining spending in this sector, further exacerbating economic slowdown amidst already tepid consumer spending.
Although housing inventory is showing slight signs of increase, it remains insufficient to meet demand, exacerbated by a prolonged supply shortage dating back several years. This shortage is compounded by homeowners opting to retain their 3 percent mortgages secured in 2020 rather than refinancing at current rates nearing 6.9 percent, creating what Fairweather termed as a “mortgage rate lock-in effect.”
Fairweather cautioned against expecting a quick resolution to the housing market’s challenges, suggesting, “I don’t think that the problems with the housing market are going to clear up in a matter of years. It could take a decade.”
Acknowledging that many of the barriers driving up housing costs are localized, the White House announced initiatives in June. The Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to allocate $85 million in grants to help local governments identify and eliminate obstacles to affordable housing production and preservation. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced a $100 million allocation over three years to support affordable housing production through the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
These measures represent the latest attempts by the Biden administration to tackle the affordability crisis exacerbated by housing shortages following years of below-average construction rates in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. As of April, home prices in the 20 largest U.S. metro areas reached record highs according to the Case-Shiller home price index, contributing to increased official inflation indexes and raising concerns among voters already grappling with the highest inflation rates in four decades.
Despite the record highs in home prices, there are signs that the pace of price growth is moderating, suggesting a more stable market compared to the unsustainable growth observed in 2022, according to Zillow senior economist Orphe Divounguy. Divounguy noted, “Today I think we’re in a much better place than we were in 2022, when prices were growing unsustainably. That overheated pace could result in a crash, which is why the Fed had to act when it did.”
Looking forward, Divounguy predicted that mortgage rates would remain elevated for some time, attributing part of the problem to the role of high interest rates in driving up housing costs, as highlighted by Robert Dietz, chief economist for the National Association of Homebuilders. Dietz remarked, “You’ve got a market that’s got a lot of potential for growth that is continuing to lag due to higher-for-longer interest rates.”
Dietz emphasized the importance of addressing the housing supply issue, predicting that housing would be a critical issue in the upcoming 2024 election. He stated, “If pollsters and candidates are out there talking to people, they’ll hear pretty quickly that increasing the attainable housing supply is a must-do.” However, he cautioned against expecting a simple, scalable solution, acknowledging, “There’s kind of a lot of challenges that have to be addressed in the housing market.”
The U.S. housing market’s current challenges, compounded by elevated interest rates and persistent supply shortages, threaten to weigh heavily on the economy ahead of the election. Despite recent efforts by the Biden administration to address affordability through targeted initiatives, the complex nature of local barriers and entrenched economic factors suggest that resolving these issues will require sustained effort and innovative solutions.
CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, has called for President Joe Biden to undergo comprehensive cognitive and movement disorder testing and make the results public. Gupta, a prominent neurosurgeon, wrote in a Friday article that he and several colleagues noticed worrisome signs during Biden’s debate with former President Donald Trump that warrant closer examination of Biden’s health. The symptoms Gupta observed include Biden’s halting speech, quiet voice, slack-jawed appearance, and occasional inability to finish sentences on the debate stage.
“Are we looking at episodes of something? Or is this a condition that should be more fully investigated? And it really seems to be more of the latter,” Gupta remarked on CNN.
Gupta emphasized that the current disclosures about Biden’s health are inadequate for a remote diagnosis. However, following Biden’s concerning debate performance, Gupta and other neurologists agreed that the president needs a detailed evaluation of his cognitive functions, memory, and other potential risk factors.
“In 2020, Biden claimed he was ‘constantly tested’ by the demands of campaigning. ‘All you’ve got to do is watch me,’ he said then,” Gupta pointed out. “The country is watching now, and that assessment gives cause for concern — and a need for transparent testing.”
The doctors’ call for testing comes amid growing doubts about Biden’s ability to run for president, defeat Trump in November, and serve until he is 86. These concerns were heightened by Biden’s recent performance, where he had a raspy voice and gave several incomplete responses. Gupta’s analysis is part of an ongoing media focus on Biden’s age and the transparency of the White House regarding his health.
“It wasn’t that what we noticed was necessarily new but that it was particularly pronounced, and right from the start of the debate,” Gupta wrote, acknowledging that Trump has also previously rambled and confused names or events.
Gupta suggested that factors like low sleep, low blood sugar, or illness could have contributed to Biden’s debate appearance, but testing is necessary to determine the exact cause of the “symptoms displayed” by Biden. He noted that identifying any “possibility of underlying dementia” would ultimately benefit Biden, as early diagnosis and treatment have improved in recent years.
Biden has not been diagnosed with a cognitive disorder. In his annual physical in February, his doctor reported that Biden underwent an “extremely detailed” neurologic exam, which found no symptoms of Parkinson’s and described him as fit for his duties. The exam indicated Biden was being treated for several age-related ailments and had a stiffer gait.
This week, Biden informed a meeting of Democratic governors that he had a medical check-up for a cold after the debate. However, previous health reports have not mentioned any cognitive tests. To reassure voters about his health, Biden is making several public appearances this weekend, including a highly anticipated interview with ABC News scheduled to air on Friday.
The issue of Biden’s health has become a focal point as the election approaches. Gupta’s concerns reflect a broader debate about the transparency of presidential candidates’ health information. Gupta’s commentary underscores the need for detailed cognitive testing to address public concerns about Biden’s fitness for office.
By making his health records more transparent, Biden could potentially alleviate some of the public’s worries. Gupta and his colleagues believe that a thorough examination and sharing the results would provide clarity on Biden’s health status. This approach would help in dispelling doubts and reinforcing the public’s trust in the president’s ability to serve effectively.
The scrutiny of Biden’s health is not new but has intensified with the upcoming election. The media and public are closely watching Biden’s appearances and statements, looking for any signs of health issues. The debate performance brought these concerns to the forefront, prompting medical experts like Gupta to call for more transparency and detailed health assessments.
Gupta’s call for cognitive and movement disorder testing for President Biden reflects the ongoing concerns about the president’s health and the need for transparency. As the election draws nearer, the public and media will continue to scrutinize Biden’s health, making it crucial for the president to address these concerns openly.
In June, American employers demonstrated the U.S. economy’s robust nature by adding 206,000 jobs, indicating its resilience against persistently high interest rates. While this number shows a slight decrease from May’s 218,000, it still represents solid job growth, underscoring the steady, consumer-driven nature of the American economy despite a gradual slowdown.
The Labor Department’s report released on Friday also revealed a slight uptick in the unemployment rate from 4% to 4.1%. Additionally, the department significantly revised its earlier estimates of job growth for April and May, reducing them by a total of 111,000 jobs.
The economic landscape is becoming a critical issue for voters as the presidential campaign heats up. Despite consistent hiring, low layoffs, and slowly cooling inflation, many Americans remain frustrated by the high cost of living and hold President Joe Biden responsible for these economic pressures.
Economists have repeatedly anticipated a slowdown in the job market due to the Federal Reserve’s high interest rates. Nevertheless, hiring has continued to surpass expectations. There are, however, indications of a broader economic deceleration in response to the Fed’s rate hikes. The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), which measures the total output of goods and services, grew at a sluggish annual rate of 1.4% from January to March, marking the slowest quarterly growth in nearly two years.
In the wake of Joe Biden’s debate performance, many Democratic insiders are now discussing who Kamala Harris might choose as her running mate. A growing number of party officials, operatives, and donors are doubtful that Biden’s campaign can recover, based on CNN’s interviews with two dozen Democratic politicians and operatives.
Biden often says to compare him to the alternative, not the almighty, which is what more Democrats are doing with Harris. Harris and her team have largely ignored the influx of calls and texts, maintaining a firm stance on their support for Biden. However, Harris did make some adjustments, like joining Biden for the Fourth of July picnic and fireworks, a first for her.
Despite her support, the Democratic landscape is shifting around Harris, with former President Donald Trump’s campaign already targeting her. Officials have begun advising donors to back Harris, arguing that a unified party support is essential. Some plans are in motion to convince Biden to endorse Harris immediately, release his Democratic delegates, and request their support for her. This strategy aims to prevent a contentious primary fight.
If the race opens, Democrats hope Harris’ running mate will be a prominent governor. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear are frequently mentioned, along with Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker, and Minnesota’s Tim Walz. However, this could complicate matters by not allowing Harris to select her own running mate, a privilege typically given to presidential nominees.
A Democratic senator compared the situation to a football game, with Biden as a star quarterback who might need to be replaced by his backup, Harris. “The backup knows our team, the backup knows the plays, the backup has played in the NFL,” the senator said, highlighting Harris’ familiarity with the political landscape.
Some Democrats fear losing their seats with Harris at the top of the ticket, but others have changed their views, preferring her over Biden. The leader of one major Democratic group said, “Are you kidding?” when asked about preferring Harris, emphasizing that while Biden is in bad shape, Harris could unify the party if she becomes the nominee.
A document titled “Unburdened by What Has Been: The Case for Kamala,” written by senior Democratic operatives, is circulating among donors and coalition groups. It argues that Harris is the only viable candidate to win, stating, “Kamala Harris has the strongest claim to Democratic legitimacy. She is the only candidate who can take the reins right now… She has significant and widely underplayed electoral advantages. She can win.”
Rep. Nanette Barragán, who supported Harris in 2019, noted the shift in conversations about Harris. “It’s nice to see that people are finally recognizing the value of her work and what she brings to the partnership,” she said.
Biden’s sparse public schedule post-debate has increased doubts about him and bolstered Harris’ case. Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, said Harris already has more credibility than Biden on key issues like abortion rights, and emphasized, “You can’t win this election without Kamala.”
Harris loyalists are frustrated by discussions of Biden replacements not centering on her and angered by donors questioning her chances. Recent polls showing a tight race between her and Trump have only heightened their frustrations. Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, emphasized the need for voters to have confidence in Harris, stating, “It’s foolish and counterproductive to defend Biden by tearing down Harris.”
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has mostly supported Biden, but members indicate they would quickly back Harris if Biden steps aside. Rep. Gregory Meeks said, “I actually don’t think that anybody else other than her would beat Trump because of what you’d lose in the base,” stressing the importance of Black voter turnout.
Harris has contemplated a Trump challenge before. In 2018, her aides asked how she’d handle a town hall debate with Trump. Her response: “Why are you being so weird?” This showcases her readiness to confront Trump head-on.
Despite her reputation for verbal gaffes, Harris has been on an upswing with voters. After Biden’s debate, she spontaneously told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that a bad 90 minutes shouldn’t overshadow Biden’s three and a half years as president. This line was so effective that it was repeated by Jill Biden and multiple campaign aides.
Harris has focused on Trump for months, planning to target his running mate by highlighting their alignment with Trump’s extremist agenda. Brian Fallon, Harris’ campaign communications director, reaffirmed, “The president is and will remain our party’s nominee, and Vice President Harris is proud to be his running mate and looks forward to serving at his side for four more years.”
The running mate conversation often includes Cooper and Beshear, both former state attorneys general with bipartisan support. Cooper has a long-standing relationship with Harris, calling her “whip smart” and stating, “I think she’s ready to do this job.” Beshear, popular in Kentucky and nationally recognized for his communication skills, has also been invited to speak at Democratic events across the country.
The Democratic party is grappling with Biden’s faltering campaign and looking to Harris as a potential successor. While the transition is fraught with challenges and uncertainties, many believe that Harris, with the right support, can lead the party to victory.
Vice President Kamala Harris stands as the leading alternative to replace President Joe Biden if he opts out of his reelection campaign, as per insights from seven senior sources associated with the Biden campaign, the White House, and the Democratic National Committee. These sources reveal ongoing discussions about potential replacements.
Biden’s recent faltering and often incoherent debate performance against Republican Donald Trump has sparked widespread panic within the Democratic party. Concerns about his fitness for a second term have led to calls for the resignation of top aides.
While some influential Democrats have proposed other alternatives to Biden, such as popular cabinet members and Democratic governors like California’s Gavin Newsom, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, and Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, the sources believe bypassing Harris would be nearly impossible. They suggest that Harris, with the highest name recognition and polling among potential candidates, would naturally inherit the Biden campaign’s funds and infrastructure if nominated.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates Harris is trailing Trump by just one percentage point (42% to 43%), which falls within the poll’s margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, demonstrating a performance on par with Biden’s. Furthermore, Harris has been thoroughly vetted for national office and has withstood intense scrutiny from Republicans. Notably, U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, a key figure in Biden’s 2020 victory, expressed his support for Harris as the Democratic nominee if Biden steps aside.
Michael Trujillo, a Democratic strategist from California who worked on Hillary Clinton’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016, stated, “It’s pretty near impossible to win the nomination over the vice president.” He emphasizes Harris’s entrenched position within the party.
On July 2, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre dismissed concerns, attributing Biden’s debate performance to a “bad night” and reaffirming his commitment to running for reelection. The Biden campaign referred questions about the scenario to Harris’s team, which firmly stated, “Vice President Harris looks forward to serving a second term with President Joe Biden.”
Biden’s campaign has secured 3,894 delegates from state primaries, with only a few dozen “uncommitted” delegates left. These delegates are expected to formally nominate Biden later this month during a virtual meeting before the Democratic National Convention in August. Trujillo reiterated Harris’s substantial support within the party, saying, “All of the delegates are not just Joe Biden delegates, they are Kamala Harris delegates,” and she would have significant backing from all states.
Donna Brazile, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee and a key figure in the upcoming Democratic National Convention, stated that Harris is the immediate successor if Biden steps down. Brazile emphasized the structured process, noting, “People may have dreams of another superhero but there is a process and the last time I checked it’s a Biden-Harris ticket, she’s number two on the ticket,” while reaffirming Biden’s status as the Democratic nominee.
Overlooking Harris, the first Black and female vice president, could trigger backlash from Black and female voters, who are crucial for any Democratic victory, according to several Democratic strategists.
However, some influential Democrats remain skeptical of Harris’s chances against Trump. Four sources mentioned that Harris has been largely sidelined in post-debate speculations due to doubts about her electability. The U.S. has never elected a female president, and Harris’s role as vice president has limited her ability to distinguish herself. As recently as last year, concerns within the White House and the Biden campaign labeled her a potential liability.
Despite finding her footing on abortion rights, Harris’s approval ratings have not significantly improved, lingering below 40%. Polls indicate that she and Biden have comparable odds of defeating Trump. Harris has also faced continuous attacks from Republicans and conservative media, often viewed by her allies as sexist and racist.
Three Democratic donors, who previously advocated for Biden’s withdrawal, conceded this week that bypassing Harris is “impossible.” These donors had been considering Whitmer and Newsom as potential alternatives until recently. One donor remarked, “There is a real conversation in the Democratic party about leadership right now, but fair to say, and I’m not thrilled about this… it will be impossible to ignore Kamala.”
Another donor added, “She’s nobody’s choice, but yeah, nearly impossible.”
Despite growing calls for Biden to step aside, his reelection campaign remains firm, buoyed by his improved performance in a scripted speech in North Carolina. Stephanie Cutter, former deputy campaign manager for Barack Obama and current producer of the Democratic National Convention, stated unequivocally, “President Biden is the nominee and he’s going to remain the nominee.” She warned against fostering intra-party conflict, cautioning, “For those who are looking for some sort of interparty fight, be careful what you wish for because that would ensure a Trump victory.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) made headlines as the first House Democrat to publicly urge President Joe Biden to step down as the Democratic presidential nominee, highlighting the growing concern within the party over Biden’s debate performance. Doggett’s call reflects the internal party anxiety now spilling into the public sphere.
“President Biden has continued to run substantially behind Democratic senators in key states and in most polls has trailed Donald Trump,” Doggett stated. “I had hoped that the debate would provide some momentum to change that. It did not. Instead of reassuring voters, the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s many lies.”
Doggett emphasized his belief in Biden’s commitment to the country, contrasting it with Trump’s self-serving nature. “Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so,” he added.
Adam Frisch, a Democratic candidate running in Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-Colo.) 3rd Congressional District in Colorado, echoed Doggett’s sentiments shortly after. Frisch, who narrowly lost to Boebert in 2022, called for Biden to exit the race as well.
“We deserve better. President Biden should do what’s best for the country and withdraw from the race,” Frisch said. “I thank President Biden for his years of service, but the path ahead requires a new generation of leadership to take our country forward.”
Former Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) also weighed in earlier that day, publishing an opinion piece advocating for Vice President Kamala Harris to be positioned as the Democratic presidential nominee.
While these views do not represent the majority of the party—at least not publicly—there is a noticeable shift in tone among some Democrats, diverging from the unified front presented by Democratic leadership and Biden’s campaign team.
“It’s a familiar story: Following Thursday night’s debate, the beltway class is counting Joe Biden out. The data in the battleground states, though, tells a different story,” Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley stated in a Saturday memo.
“On every metric that matters, data shows it did nothing to change the American people’s perception. Our supporters are more fired up than ever, and Donald Trump only reminded voters of why they fired him four years ago and failed to expand his appeal beyond his MAGA base,” she added.
Public polls conducted after the debate have done little to alleviate Democratic concerns about Biden’s performance affecting his chances in battleground and traditionally blue-leaning states. A Saint Anselm College poll released on Monday showed Trump narrowly leading Biden 44 percent to 42 percent in New Hampshire, within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent.
Meanwhile, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released on Tuesday indicated Trump at 41 percent and Biden at 38 percent, also within the survey’s 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
In the latest findings by AtlasIntel, a leading polling group renowned for its accuracy, President Joe Biden is reported to be trailing Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race, particularly among younger voters by a significant margin. According to the survey of 1,634 likely voters conducted between June 26 and 28, Trump holds a five-point lead over Biden with 45.5 percent compared to Biden’s 40.3 percent, just over four months ahead of their anticipated rematch in November.
Among voters aged 18-29, Trump emerges as the clear favorite with 41.6 percent support, contrasting sharply with Biden’s 27 percent. This demographic shift is noteworthy given that younger voters traditionally lean towards Democratic candidates in elections. Conversely, Biden maintains leads in other key age groups, securing 47.7 percent support among those aged 45-64 and 52.1 percent among those aged 65 and above, compared to Trump’s 45.1 percent and 41.6 percent respectively in those age brackets.
The poll’s timing, conducted shortly after Thursday night’s first live televised presidential debate of the 2024 campaign, likely influenced participant perspectives. During the debate, concerns about Biden’s age and performance were exacerbated as he delivered responses described as incoherent and occasionally failed to complete sentences. This has fueled discussions about whether Biden should continue his reelection bid, with 48.2 percent of respondents suggesting he should withdraw, while 44.2 percent oppose such a move. Notably, a significant majority (54.6 percent) of younger voters aged 18-29 believe Biden should not seek another term in office.
Despite these sentiments, a substantial 72.4 percent of voters across all demographics expressed skepticism that Biden would actually withdraw from the race at this stage, underscoring the resilience of his campaign despite challenges regarding age and approval ratings. Biden’s campaign spokesperson, Lauren Hitt, affirmed after the debate that the President remains steadfast in his commitment to the election, dismissing speculations about an early exit.
In contrast to Biden’s perceived vulnerabilities, Trump’s reelection bid faces scrutiny surrounding his actions related to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Nearly half of the poll respondents (48.9 percent) believe Trump should be disqualified from running due to his involvement in those events, while 47.2 percent disagree. Trump has maintained his innocence against federal charges connected to the Capitol riot and awaits a pivotal Supreme Court decision regarding potential presidential immunity.
The AtlasIntel poll, known for its meticulous methodology, carries a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points, ensuring a reliable snapshot of voter sentiments leading into the final stretch of the 2024 presidential campaign.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case significantly decreases the likelihood of him facing trial in Washington before the November election. The court did not dismiss the indictment, as Trump had requested, which alleges that he illegally attempted to retain power after losing to President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, the ruling is a considerable win for Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, who has been aiming to delay legal proceedings until after the election.
The timing of the trial is crucial because if Trump wins the election, he could appoint an attorney general who might seek to dismiss this case and other federal prosecutions against him. Alternatively, Trump could potentially pardon himself. Trump celebrated the ruling on his social media platform, declaring, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
In contrast, President Biden criticized the court’s decision, calling it a “terrible disservice” to the American people, who he believes deserve to know the case’s outcome before voting. Biden stated, “The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior. The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on Jan. 6 makes him unfit for public office.”
The Opinion
The court’s conservative majority ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are generally immune for all official acts. They do not have immunity for private actions. This ruling restricts special counsel Jack Smith from proceeding with major allegations in the indictment or requires him to defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
For example, the justices nullified Smith’s use of allegations that Trump tried to leverage the Justice Department’s investigative power to reverse the election results, ruling that Trump’s communications with agency officials are clearly protected from prosecution. The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which Trump would be immune.
One key issue for further examination is Trump’s persistent pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The justices stated it is “ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity” in Trump’s interactions with Pence. Additionally, the court ordered further scrutiny of Trump’s posts on X (formerly Twitter) and a speech he delivered to supporters before the Capitol riot, to determine whether they constitute official or unofficial acts.
The Fake Electors Scheme
The justices called for new fact-finding on one of the indictment’s most startling allegations—that Trump participated in a scheme by allies to enlist slates of fraudulent electors in battleground states won by Biden, falsely claiming Trump had won those states. Trump’s team argued that selecting alternate electors was consistent with his presidential interest in election integrity, citing a precedent from the disputed 1876 election. However, Smith’s team portrayed the scheme as a purely private action unrelated to presidential duties.
The conservative majority did not resolve which side was correct, noting that determining the proper characterization of the conduct requires a detailed analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. They stated, “This alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function,” requiring a fact-specific assessment of numerous interactions with state officials and private individuals.
The Dissenters
The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—sharply criticized the majority opinion. Sotomayor, in a dramatic bench dissent, argued that the conservative majority wrongly insulated the U.S. president as “a king above the law.” She stated, “Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them.”
The dissenters warned that the majority decision makes presidents immune from prosecution for actions such as ordering Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival, organizing a military coup, or accepting bribes for pardons. Sotomayor wrote, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
In a separate dissent, Jackson stated that the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground,” declaring, “The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.” The majority accused the liberal justices of “fear mongering” and maintaining a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”
What Comes Next
The case will now return to Judge Chutkan. The trial was initially set to begin in March but has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his appeal. Chutkan had previously indicated she would give the two sides at least three months to prepare for trial once the case returned to her court. This could have allowed the trial to commence before the election if the Supreme Court had ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.
However, the Supreme Court’s directive for further analysis is expected to prolong the case with legal debates over whether the actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.
Trump’s Other Cases
Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York and is scheduled for sentencing on July 11. The charges of falsifying business records carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison, though prison time is not guaranteed, with other potential outcomes including fines or probation.
Trump’s other criminal cases are also unlikely to go to trial before the election. An appeals court recently halted his Georgia 2020 election interference case while reviewing a lower court’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the case. No trial date had been set, and Trump’s lawyers have claimed presidential immunity, though no ruling has been made.
In the case regarding classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon canceled the May trial date due to legal issues. A new trial date has not been set, and Trump’s team has claimed immunity, a stance prosecutors dispute. Cannon recently agreed to revisit a ruling by another judge allowing crucial obstruction of justice evidence to be introduced, causing further delays.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate concurrence suggested that Smith’s appointment was improper, but no other justice supported this view, indicating minimal impact on the Supreme Court’s stance.
President Biden’s campaign is actively working to dispel rumors suggesting he might withdraw from the 2024 race after his underwhelming performance in last week’s debate.
“Most top Democrats have voiced support for Biden continuing in the race,” while “members of his family, including first lady Jill Biden, have declared they also want him to remain a candidate,” which calls into question the possibility of replacing Biden.
“If Biden were to step aside, several prominent Democrats could be waiting in the wings as possible successors,” including Vice President Kamala Harris.
“If Biden were to decide against seeking reelection, Vice President Harris would be the most obvious choice to replace him,” Harris has recently defended Biden’s ability to serve another term, which most other top Democrats who could be considered have also done.
“Serving in the country’s second-highest office has given her some amount of executive governing experience, and Biden choosing her as his running mate already made her one of the top possible candidates for the 2028 nomination.”
“With the presidential primaries concluded, Harris is also the only possible contender who could claim some past electoral mandate for the nomination, with the country having indirectly elected her as first-in-line to the presidency four years ago and Democratic voters backing Biden this year with the knowledge that she is the running mate.”
“But Harris has some vulnerabilities,” her favorability rating has often been even lower than Biden’s, though she has improved somewhat in the past couple of months and has a higher net approval rating than Biden, according to FiveThirtyEight.
“She also could be dogged with criticisms of the Biden administration’s policies like immigration, on which she was spearheading an initiative.”
“Still, Democrats could take a hit by passing over the first female Black vice president as its nominee when having the chance because Black voters will be a key constituency,” a poll last month showed Harris would perform better with Black voters than Biden.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is another prominent Democrat who could step into the spotlight if Harris is passed over.
“If Harris were to be passed over, the California Gov. Gavin Newsom would almost certainly be at or near the top of many Democratic delegates’ list to be the nominee.”
Newsom has gained prominence in recent years, partly due to his defense of Biden and his clashes with prominent Republicans, notably Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).
“Despite ongoing speculation of Newsom having presidential ambitions, he has repeatedly denied interest in running for president in 2024,” following Biden’s debate. He appeared in the spin room to argue against ditching Biden just because of one performance and called talk of Biden being replaced “unhelpful and unnecessary” in a fundraising pitch for the president on Friday.
“But if Biden were to step aside, Newsom would very likely receive significant calls to throw his hat in the ring.”
“He would be able to run on a record as a two-term governor of one of the largest economies in the world and tout many accomplishments during his tenure for the left in the solidly blue state. He also has overcome an attempt to recall him and is seen as a top possibility to run in 2028.”
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, known for her slogan “Fix the Damn Roads,” has also emerged as a rising star in the Democratic Party.
“Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer first came to office in 2018, boosted by the slogan ‘Fix the Damn Roads,’ which put a pragmatic focus on repairing the state’s infrastructure. Since then, she has become a rising liberal star in the Democratic Party.”
“Her easy reelection victory in 2022 brought with it Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate, marking the first time in decades that Democrats had a trifecta of power in Michigan. She was also reelected alongside the passage of a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, an initiative she championed.”
“Whitmer has been able to notch key victories, including the repeal of the state’s decades-old abortion ban and a ‘right-to-work’ law to prop up unions.”
“Still, Whitmer has been among the clearest of the rumored choices that she is not angling to replace Biden and is fully behind him.”
“Politico reported the Whitmer called Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon on Friday to make clear she was not responsible for her name being floated as a possible replacement and is willing to help Biden with the campaign. She appeared in an ad supporting the Biden-Harris ticket that she posted Sunday on her account on the social platform X.”
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, known as “Mayor Pete,” has also been discussed as a potential successor.
“Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was relatively unknown when he first began his run for president in 2020 but gained traction and popularity as ‘Mayor Pete,’ having served as the mayor of South Bend, Ind.”
“Buttigieg became a close advocate for Biden throughout 2020, culminating in his selection as Transportation secretary, making him the first openly gay Cabinet secretary. His success has raised speculation that he may try for another presidential run down the line.”
“In particular, he had a high-profile moment in 2021 as Congress passed and Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure law into effect.”
“Buttigieg’s youth would also be a sharp contrast to Biden despite having less experience than some other rumored possibilities. But he struggled in 2020 with rallying minority, and especially Black support, and could face controversy over the administration’s handling of the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment.”
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, known for his moderate stance within the Democratic Party, has also been mentioned as a potential candidate.
“Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro gradually rose to higher office in his home state before being elected state attorney general and eventually governor in 2022. He has developed a reputation over his career as a more moderate Democrat but was elected after running on key liberal issues, like protecting abortion rights and raising the minimum wage.”
“His ability to comfortably win the governorship in the battleground by almost 15 points, as well as his youthful energy, has sparked rumors he could be a future face of the party, possibly running for the Oval Office in four years.”
“But he would also likely get some attention this year if Biden were to end his presidential bid. He has been one of Biden’s top surrogates and called on his fellow Democrats to put in the work necessary to get Biden elected, saying ‘hand-wringing’ and ‘fretting’ are not the answer.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who will host the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, has also been highlighted.
“As the governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker is already set to receive some attention next month as the host governor of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. This, along with his rising national profile, could yield some support for his name to be placed in contention for the nomination.”
“Pritzker is in his second term as the head of the strongly Democratic-leaning state and has been an ardent defender of Biden throughout the 2024 campaign. Also one of Biden’s top surrogates, he defended the incumbent following special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents and pushed back against Democrats planning to vote for anyone other than Biden in November.”
“Andy Beshear, the Democratic governor of Kentucky, has also been noted for his impressive reelection victory in a traditionally Republican state.”
“Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) pulled off an impressive reelection victory in his ruby-red state last year, improving his margin by a few points over his first election in 2019.”
“That thrust his name into the national conversation as someone who may have a future in the party, even though he will be term-limited in the next election. The governor is widely popular, only in his mid-40s and managed to win statewide as a Democrat twice in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since the 1990s.”
“Beshear addressed the possibility of Biden being replaced Monday, telling reporters he will support Biden as long as the president remains the Democratic nominee.”
“‘The debate performance was rough. It was a very bad night for the president, but he is still the candidate. Only he can make decisions about his future candidacy. So as long as he continues to be in the race, I support him,’ he said.”
“When pressed on whether he could replace Biden, Beshear said talk of serving is ‘flattering’ but is a ‘reflection of all the good things going on in Kentucky.’”
The Supreme Court made a landmark decision on Monday, establishing that former presidents enjoy extensive immunity from prosecution. This ruling significantly delays the criminal case against Donald Trump in Washington, where he faces charges related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. It also diminishes the likelihood of a trial before the upcoming November election.
In a historic 6-3 verdict, the court’s conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, narrowed the scope of the case and remanded it to the trial court for further evaluation of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment.
Trump celebrated what he termed a “BIG WIN,” while President Biden expressed concern over the precedent set by the justices, stating it “undermines the rule of this nation.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted a robust interpretation of presidential authority, arguing that a former president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their constitutional authority. However, Roberts clarified that there is no immunity for unofficial acts, affirming that no individual, including a president, is above the law.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority’s stance, asserting that the ruling elevates the president above legal accountability, likening it to granting the president kingly powers.
The decision by the justices underscores their pivotal role in the upcoming presidential election. Previously, they rejected attempts to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot due to his actions post-2020 election. Additionally, the court recently curtailed an obstruction charge against Trump, a charge that has been applied to many of his supporters involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, showcasing the judiciary’s alignment with the nation’s political divisions.
The court’s ruling specifically addressed Trump’s immunity regarding alleged discussions with the Justice Department and his efforts to influence Vice President Mike Pence’s certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. It directed further examination of accusations that Trump conspired to manipulate electoral results in key states won by Biden.
Roberts’ opinion restricted prosecutors from using official acts as evidence in cases involving a president’s unofficial conduct. This limitation is seen as pivotal in cases where Trump’s alleged actions, such as attempts to influence electoral processes, are scrutinized.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred with Roberts on most points but diverged on whether juries should be shielded from contextual information surrounding a president’s actions, arguing against such restrictions.
The practical implications of the ruling now rest with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will oversee Trump’s trial. Legal experts suggest that while a trial remains possible, its occurrence before the election appears improbable.
Critics, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, denounced the decision as undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court, particularly given the involvement of justices appointed by Trump.
The court’s deliberations spanned several months, highlighting the complexity and significance of the case amidst a highly charged political climate. Trump, who faces multiple legal challenges, including one in New York where he was recently convicted, maintains his innocence and attributes the prosecutions to political motivations aimed at hindering his political aspirations.
Jack Smith, leading federal inquiries into Trump’s alleged misconduct, declined to comment following the ruling. The cases against Trump span several jurisdictions, focusing on different aspects of his presidency and post-presidential actions.
Looking ahead, the timing of any trial in Washington could influence Trump’s future political endeavors. A favorable outcome for him in the 2024 election could potentially lead to the dismissal of ongoing cases against him or even self-pardon, though state-level convictions would remain unaffected by such actions.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which included participation from justices connected to Trump, underscores the judiciary’s role in shaping legal outcomes with significant political ramifications.
President Biden’s lackluster debate performance has thrust Vice President Harris into the spotlight.
After Biden struggled against former President Trump, Harris hit the airwaves to defend her running mate’s record and ability to handle the job. But she was also central to conversations among some Democrats about whether Biden should step aside, a move that would likely move Harris to the top of the ticket in November.
It puts Harris in a tricky spot as she seeks to reassure nervous Democrats about their chances in this year’s election while positioning herself as a potential future leader of the party.
“To be quite honest, she sounded coherent and made her points in a succinct and sharp way,” said one Democratic donor. “The next 30 days it may be up to her to make the case. People will be looking to her and testing her to see if she’s ready.”
One Democrat, who served in the Obama White House, said Harris “clearly has a purpose now to make the case for what they have accomplished.”
The aide pointed to remarks from former President Obama, where he likened major political moments to a relay race.
“This is the transitional moment where both she and Biden have their hands on the baton, but clearly she will be needed to complete the race,” the aide said.
Biden squared off with Trump on the debate stage Thursday night in what turned out to be a disastrous performance. The president’s voice was raspy for much of the 90 minutes, his delivery was frequently halting and at times he lost his train of thought or struggled to make his point clearly.
Many Democrats quickly panned Biden’s showing and raised the idea that he should step aside ahead of the party’s August convention.
That left Harris to defend her running mate on the same networks where anchors and pundits were discussing the prospect of Biden leaving the ticket.
“People can debate on style points, but ultimately this election and who is the president of the United States has to be about substance,” said Harris, who conceded Biden had a “slow start.”
The vice president was not asked about, nor did she address, the elephant in the room: that she would be the likeliest candidate to replace Biden should he step aside.
The vice president’s team on Friday dismissed any talk of a Democratic ticket that doesn’t include both Biden and Harris.
“Vice President Harris looks forward to serving a second term with President Joe Biden,” Harris spokesperson Ernie Apreza said in a statement.
Biden’s campaign and White House officials similarly shut down talk of the president dropping out of the race after Thursday’s debate. At a North Carolina rally early Friday afternoon, Biden acknowledged his difficulties on the debate stage but insisted he was up to the job.
But should he step aside, Democratic strategists have downplayed the prospect of an open convention. They argued Harris would be the logical choice, given her role as vice president, and warned of the risks of passing over a Black woman already on the ticket for another candidate.
Harris launched a much-hyped presidential bid of her own in 2019, and one of her marquee moments came during an exchange with Biden on the debate stage over busing. But she failed to translate the initial enthusiasm over her candidacy into tangible support and struggled to connect with voters or develop a clear message. She ultimately dropped out before the Iowa caucuses.
When Biden was considering Harris as his running mate, some allies cautioned that Harris would be looking out for her own political pursuits while serving as vice president. Aware of that perception, Harris has sought to be a loyal foot soldier.
“She knew it would be a horrible look if it turned [out] to be the Kamala show,” said one Democratic strategist.
Harris had a rocky opening to her tenure as vice president, stumbling with her messaging on the issue of migration and struggling to garner support for a voting rights package despite taking it on as a personal cause.
But she has hit her stride and become a valuable figure in the two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Harris has traveled the country to talk about reproductive rights, becoming the face of the White House and the campaign on an issue Democrats are hoping might swing the election in their favor.
Harris has also traveled internationally to meet with world leaders and discuss the conflict in Ukraine.
“During her postdebate interview blitz, Vice President Harris really showed her strengths — she is a forceful communicator, an effective leader and a strong partner to President Biden,” said Rachel Palermo, who served as Harris’s deputy communications director and associate counsel in the White House.
“She reminded voters that the substance matters, and the contrast between Biden and Trump on the issues is clear,” Palermo added.
Polling on Harris’s chances in 2024 if she were elevated to the top of the ticket has been scarce, but the available data suggests she may fare similarly to Biden.
A February New York Times/Siena College poll found Harris trailing Trump among likely voters in a hypothetical match-up by 6 percentage points, 42 percent support to 48 percent. She fared only slightly worse than Biden, who at the time trailed Trump in that survey by 4 percentage points, 44 percent to 48 percent.
The same poll found 38 percent of likely voters had a favorable view of Harris, compared to 54 percent who had an unfavorable view of her.
Republicans have used Biden’s age to attack the prospect of a Harris presidency. Nikki Haley made it central to her failed presidential bid, suggesting a vote for Biden in 2024 was actually a vote for Harris.
The Trump campaign ran an ad during Thursday night’s debate that highlighted footage of Biden tripping on the stairs of Air Force One and looking lost on stage before a narrator said Harris was “waiting behind him.”
Thursday’s debate supercharged speculation from Republicans that Harris may ultimately end up in the Oval Office.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said Friday he planned to put forth a resolution urging Harris to convene the Cabinet and declare Biden unable to carry out the duties of the Oval Office.
Former President Donald Trump’s apparent success in the recent presidential debate has heightened global efforts to brace for a potential second Trump administration, despite international audiences favoring President Joe Biden.
During the debate, Trump asserted that foreign nations lack respect for Biden’s leadership and the United States, contradicting a recent Pew poll indicating that respondents in over 30 countries have more confidence in Biden than Trump regarding foreign policy decisions.
Low global confidence in Trump partly explains why U.S. allies are strategizing for an America that might withdraw from global affairs, either through policy shifts or internal turmoil and partisanship.
Diplomatic protocol typically discourages foreign representatives from commenting on other countries’ elections or internal politics. However, over the past year, senior foreign officials have actively maintained relationships with Trump and his national security circle.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron met Trump at Mar-a-Lago in April, advocating for continued U.S. support for Ukraine. Similarly, Polish President Andrzej Duda spent two and a half hours with Trump in New York in April, describing it as a “friendly meeting, in a very pleasant atmosphere.”
Outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg highlighted the alliance’s economic contributions to the U.S. at the Heritage Foundation earlier this year. The Washington think tank is considered a staging ground for officials in a potential second Trump administration.
NATO’s next Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, a disciplined former Dutch prime minister, won Trump’s favor despite interrupting and contradicting him during Washington meetings.
In Asia, U.S. allies heavily rely on American political and military backing. However, they are strengthening ties among themselves and with Europe to counter Trump’s threats to withdraw security commitments if defense spending is insufficient. The presence of Indo-Pacific allies at NATO summits, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, underscores this effort.
“That’s clearly an effort to ensure that even without the United States around that those relationships will continue to grow and those democracies will continue to support one another,” said Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University.
In private discussions, diplomats avoid expressing anxiety over a second Trump administration, instead focusing on past successes with Trump as a guide for future cooperation.
While Trump offered few substantive foreign policy priorities during the debate, he provided significant, albeit brief, answers on key issues. For instance, Ukraine’s supporters might find solace in Trump’s debate rejection of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to block Ukraine from joining NATO and recognize Russian control over occupied territory in exchange for ending the war.
Preparations are underway for NATO to assume America’s leading role in coordinating support for Ukraine. When Biden hosts the NATO summit in Washington next month, allies are expected to announce that NATO will lead the Ramstein group, which coordinates weapon supplies for Kyiv. NATO is also expected to agree on language outlining Ukraine’s path to membership.
Congress’s support for NATO serves as a safeguard against Trump’s threats to withdraw or withhold U.S. commitments. Nonetheless, bilateral U.S. partnerships remain crucial, and European and Asian leaders have been preparing for months to maintain warm ties with Trump’s circle in anticipation of a possible chaotic second term.
Some countries have dispatched envoys to the U.S. to lobby Republicans at the state level, aiming to mitigate some of Trump’s most concerning threats. Germany’s coordinator of transatlantic cooperation, Michael Link, has met with governors across the U.S. to prevent punitive tariffs on EU goods if Trump is reelected. “It would be extremely important, if Donald Trump were reelected, to prevent the punitive tariffs he is planning on goods from the EU,” Link told Reuters earlier this year.
In the Middle East, a second Trump term would be met with “jubilation,” said Farkas, citing the close ties between Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Trump reportedly spoke with the crown prince in April, amid Biden’s efforts to broker a cease-fire in the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas. “I think the Middle East is an area where, if anything they’re hoping for a Trump outcome, they’re not really hedging,” Farkas added.
Although Trump has criticized Israel’s handling of the Gaza conflict and holds grudges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for recognizing Biden’s 2020 victory, his reelection could bolster Israel’s far-right. “The [Israeli] opposition and the Palestinian people would not be happy with Trump because again, he has been happy to give a blank check to Netanyahu and the Israeli government. It’s the same philosophy, I think, for all the Arab states, basically. Trump will let them do what they want to do and do business with them,” Farkas explained.
During the debate, Trump did not commit to supporting an independent Palestinian state for peace and urged Israel to “finish the job” against Hamas. These positions might conflict with Arab and Gulf states, whose populations support Palestinian rights, noted Gerald Feierstein, director of the Middle East Institute’s Arabian Peninsula Affairs Program and former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. “If Trump wants to pursue the Saudi-Israel agreement, and if the Saudis stick to their guns about no deal without Palestine, that probably means there probably won’t be an Israel-Saudi deal,” Feierstein said, adding that this could change if Netanyahu is ousted.
Despite potential conflicts, Israel and Gulf states are likely to welcome a Trump administration focused on containing Iran, as outlined by Robert O’Brien, Trump’s last national security adviser, who is expected to hold a senior position in a second Trump administration. “The focus of U.S. policy in the Middle East should remain the malevolent actor that is ultimately most responsible for the turmoil and killing: the Iranian regime,” O’Brien wrote in a policy paper for Foreign Affairs.
Trump often claims that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine and Hamas would not have attacked Israel if he were president, assertions that cannot be verified. However, his statements highlight his advisers’ efforts to develop a foreign policy for a potential second term emphasizing a strongman image. “This morass of American weakness and failure cries out for a Trumpian restoration of peace through strength,” O’Brien wrote.
The editorial board of The Philadelphia Inquirer recently penned an opinion piece urging a specific presidential candidate to withdraw from the 2024 race. The board made it clear that they were not referring to President Biden, stating, “The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.” They emphasized their stance by noting, “Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.”
The editorial board further criticized Trump’s approach, highlighting that he “constantly tears the country down” in his efforts to build himself up. They lamented the absence of a “shining city on the hill,” painting a grim picture of the current state of affairs in America.
The centerpiece of the board’s argument revolved around the staggering number of lies—over 30,000 during his time in office, with at least 30 falsehoods uttered during a single debate. The board described the debate as “a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate.”
The board proceeded to dissect Trump’s first term in office, highlighting his extensive Twitter use and frequent visits to his own properties, where he reportedly played over 200 games of golf. They also pointed out his unfulfilled promises, such as the border wall with Mexico.
In addition, the board criticized Trump’s judicial appointments, noting that he primarily selected extreme judges, many of whom were white males, with some being rated as unqualified by the American Bar Association. They also highlighted the record number of fired or resigned cabinet officials, the constant chaos and infighting in the West Wing, and other shortcomings of his administration.
Further, the board addressed various controversies during Trump’s tenure, including a lucrative deal struck by his son-in-law with Saudi Arabia’s government, his impeachments, and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also mentioned his recent conviction on 34 counts of fraud in New York and his involvement in three additional federal cases, including one related to an attempted overthrow of the government.
The board questioned the decision to allow Trump on the debate stage, given his track record. They acknowledged President Biden’s performance in the debate as less than stellar but emphasized his belief in the best of America and his efforts to rebuild international relationships. They unequivocally stated, “There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board called for Trump to withdraw from the presidential race, citing a multitude of reasons, and expressed their belief that the country would be better off without his candidacy.
Replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee is fraught with complications and is essentially unfeasible unless Biden decides to step down on his own accord. Both politically and procedurally, it is nearly impossible for the Democrats to prevent Biden from securing the nomination.
Currently, Biden is the only candidate available for a vote at the Democratic convention. He received 99 percent of his party’s delegates in the primaries, with these delegates pledged to support the winner of their state’s contest in the initial round of voting. According to Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules, delegates won by Biden are required to support his nomination unless he voluntarily withdraws and releases them to support another candidate.
Although the DNC could theoretically change the rules to block Biden before the convention starts on August 19, such a move would necessitate an extraordinary level of political backing, which is hard to envision. A factional clash at the convention to unseat him seems highly improbable.
However, Democratic sources told The Hill that there is a slight chance party leaders, including former Presidents Obama and Clinton, might be persuaded to talk to Biden about stepping down. Ultimately, Biden places the most trust in the advice from First Lady Jill Biden and his sister, Valerie, who are considered the only people capable of truly influencing his decision.
A unique situation in 2024 further compresses the timeline for deciding the nominee. Ohio state law mandates that its ballot be certified 90 days before the election, which this year falls on August 7, almost two weeks before the convention starts. Despite attempts by Ohio lawmakers to pass a bill to resolve this issue, they reached a deadlock, leading DNC leaders to plan for a virtual nomination of Biden ahead of the deadline and the convention. Any change in the nominee would thus need to occur before Ohio’s deadline to ensure the candidate appears on the state’s ballot, barring a legislative fix.
On Friday, party leaders were rallying around Biden, showing no indication of privately urging him to step aside. His campaign, the White House, and his supporters have strongly resisted the idea, though some mentioned that if polls reveal his performance is detrimental to down-ballot candidates, it could become a pressing topic.
If Biden were to step down, Vice President Harris would be the natural successor. Nevertheless, she would not automatically become the replacement. Although Biden won the primaries, his support garnered through those contests cannot be directly transferred to Harris. Instead, she would need to compete with other potential candidates, who might view themselves as stronger contenders against the presumptive GOP nominee, former President Trump.
According to its bylaws, the DNC holds general responsibility for the party’s affairs between national conventions, which includes filling vacancies in the nominations for president and vice president. Should Biden withdraw, a vacancy would be created, and Harris would logically be the successor. Politically, it would be difficult for someone to replace Harris if Biden wanted her to lead the ticket. However, prospective politicians like California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer might still attempt to vie for the position.
“This is the bigger pickle to replacing Biden. I don’t see the Democratic coalition surviving intact if Harris is not on the top of the ticket, and it’s hard to assure that would be the party consensus if they replace Biden,” a former DNC official said.
If multiple Democratic candidates aimed to replace a withdrawn Biden as the party’s nominee, they would likely need to contend with state delegations at the August convention in Chicago. This could result in a scenario not seen in American politics for decades: a contested convention that actually determines the party’s nominee.
Conservative groups have suggested they would file lawsuits across the country, potentially questioning the legality of the Democratic candidate’s name on the ballot under such circumstances. In an interview with the Associated Press, Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, noted that courts have consistently refrained from intervening in political primaries as long as the parties conducting them were not infringing upon other constitutional rights, such as voter suppression based on race.
Joe Biden faced challenges during his debate with Donald Trump on Thursday night, raising questions about how his vice president, Kamala Harris, would handle a debate against the former president.
The two leaders met in Atlanta for their first face-off in nearly four years, with Biden’s age being a significant concern. At 81, he is the oldest president in U.S. history. During the debate, Biden struggled, sounding hoarse and losing his train of thought at one point. These issues intensified discussions among Democrats about whether he should continue as the party’s nominee.
With four months until Election Day, there’s no definitive front-runner to replace Biden. However, Vice President Kamala Harris is a potential candidate. At 59, she is significantly younger than both Biden and Trump, who is three years younger than Biden. If Biden were to step down, Harris would automatically assume the presidency, making her a logical choice for a potential switch in the Biden-Harris campaign.
Polls suggest Harris faces a tougher challenge against Trump than Biden. According to RealClearPolling averages, Trump leads Harris by 6.6 percentage points, with 49.3 percent support compared to her 42.7 percent. In contrast, Trump is ahead of Biden by only 1.5 points, with 46.6 percent to Biden’s 45.1 percent.
A Politico and Morning Consult poll conducted earlier this month showed that only a third of voters believe Harris would win the election if she became the Democratic nominee. Additionally, only 60 percent of Democrats think she would succeed.
Harris has faced criticism for not having a more prominent role in the Biden administration. Less than a year into Biden’s term, the White House issued a statement to counter claims that Harris had not met expectations. In November 2021, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “For anyone who needs to hear it. @VP is not only a vital partner to @POTUS but a bold leader who has taken on key, important challenges facing the country—from voting rights to addressing root causes of migration to expanding broadband.”
Appointed by Biden to handle the border crisis, Harris has been criticized for the response to the influx of migrants since Biden took office. Immigration remains a top concern for voters, more than three years after Harris was named Biden’s border czar.
Harris’ reputation has struggled due to early missteps, and her approval rating reflects this. FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages indicate that less than 40 percent of Americans approve of her performance as vice president, with nearly half disapproving. Biden and Trump’s approval ratings are similarly low, with Biden’s approval around 38 percent and 56 percent disapproving. Trump has a 42 percent favorable opinion, while about 53 percent view him unfavorably.
Despite these challenges, Harris remains supportive of Biden’s candidacy. After the debate, she defended Biden in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, acknowledging his “slow start” but praising his “strong finish” in the 90-minute event. Harris emphasized, “What we saw tonight was the president making a very clear contrast with Donald Trump on all the issues that matter to the American people.”
When Cooper suggested that Biden’s debate performance was disappointing, Harris responded assertively, saying, “I’m not going to spend all night with you talking about the last 90 minutes when I’ve been watching the last three and a half years of performance.”
Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of blocking an expansion of the child tax credit and a corporate tax credits package, despite significant support from business groups, to prevent President Biden from securing a legislative win five months before Election Day.
This marks the second instance this year where presidential politics have caused a divide between Senate Republicans and major business trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.
Earlier this year, Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against a bipartisan border security deal endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, among others, following former President Trump’s instructions to avoid giving Biden a victory on border security.
Democrats allege Republicans are once again obstructing a major bipartisan initiative to aid Trump. “The business community still really wants that; we really want it. It’s all presidential politics — they don’t want to give Biden a win. That’s 100 percent what it is,” stated a senior Senate Democrat regarding the opposition to the House-passed Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024.
The senator noted that Senate Democrats are intensifying efforts to break through the Republican blockade. “We are trying very hard. There’s no real reason they’re objecting,” the source said.
The proposed package aims to reinstate research and development expensing for businesses, which expired in 2022. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged the Senate to approve the package, warning that failing to restore research and development expensing retroactively would cause “irreversible harm to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.”
The Business Roundtable has also pushed for the Senate to pass the legislation. Joshua Bolten, the CEO of the Business Roundtable, emphasized that it would “boost business investment at home, create American jobs and strengthen U.S. competitiveness.”
The bill also enhances the child tax credit to help low-income families manage inflation and increases tax relief for victims of disasters like the 2023 toxic rail derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.
Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) supports his colleagues’ view that Senate Republicans are blocking the tax package to boost Trump’s prospects by denying Biden a legislative success. “No question about it. They said that right from the get-go,” Wyden told The Hill.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), a senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, previously indicated that Senate Republicans did not want to help Biden “look good” and improve his reelection chances. He expressed concerns that Biden’s reelection would eliminate any possibility of renewing Trump’s 2017 tax cuts before they expire at the end of next year. “Passing a tax bill that makes the president look good, mailing out checks before the election, means he could be reelected and then we won’t extend the 2017 tax cuts,” Grassley told Semafor on the day the House passed the tax bill.
For Democrats, this situation mirrors the fate of the bipartisan border security deal negotiated by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and the White House. Only four Senate Republicans supported the deal after Trump advised his Senate allies to reject it to deny Biden a victory.
Wyden crafted the stalled $79 billion tax package with House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and it passed the House with overwhelming support, 357-70. The package would restore Section 174 expensing for research and development investments and 100 percent “bonus” depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct more depreciation costs than normally allowed. It also includes a low-income housing tax credit to increase affordable housing supply.
The package is nearly fully funded by advancing the deadline for filing backdated pandemic-related employee retention tax credit claims, according to a PwC analysis.
Amanda Critchfield, spokesperson for Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho), the top-ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said her boss “fully supports extending the pro-growth business provisions” and “also supports expanding the child tax credit to provide additional tax relief to working families.” However, she noted that Crapo “has policy concerns with the current bill, as do other Republican members, and he has been clear that he would like to find a compromise that a majority of Republican senators can support.”
A tax lobbyist familiar with the bill’s passage efforts said the business community has intensified its lobbying efforts towards Senate Republicans. “The Chamber and other business groups are very firmly for it, and they are making the rounds,” the source said. “The business community has upped its effort, and they’re saying because of the expiration of 174 and expensing, we really do have tangible economic harm. Companies are doing grasstops lobbying at home, and that’s starting to sink in. The business community is upping the ante,” the source added.
Watson McLeish, senior vice president for tax policy at the U.S. Chamber, warned in a statement on Monday that the Senate’s failure to advance the tax package is burdening employers. “As the tax extenders package remains stalled in the Senate, some small and midsize businesses have been forced to take out high-interest loans, raise prices, pare back operations, and even cut jobs just to survive and pay their taxes,” McLeish said. “We urge the Senate to take up this legislation immediately after the Independence Day recess and send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.”
A Senate Republican aide mentioned that Senate GOP leaders are deferring to Crapo on handling the issue and pointed out that he might prefer to delay action on expired tax breaks until after the election, by which time Republicans will know if they will control the Senate in 2025. Some Republican senators believe they will secure a better deal on extending expired provisions if they control the White House and Senate, though waiting until after the election carries the risk that Democrats could retain the White House and regain control of the House.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters earlier this month he hopes to bring the bill to the floor if it garners more Republican support. “I supported it the minute it was announced. I think it’s a good bill; I was very proud that I pushed hard and got into the bill the low-income housing tax credit,” Schumer said last week. “I’m currently working with Chairman Wyden to try and get something done. It’s not dead.”
President Joe Biden was supposed to put the nation’s mind at ease over his physical and mental capacity with his debate with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee on Thursday night. They hoped that President Biden, 81, could convince the world that his age was nothing to worry about and that he could counter Donald Trump’s wild accusations and relentless falsehoods with confidence.
But from the onset of the debate, Biden struggled even to talk, mostly summoning a weak, raspy voice. Biden’s voice was hoarse and halting. His answers were often unclear, and he struggled to finish his thoughts. In the opening minutes, he repeatedly tripped over his words, misspoke and lost his train of thought.
Biden produced the weakest performance since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon started the tradition of televised debates in 1960 — then, as on Thursday, in a television studio with no audience.
Rather than dispel concerns about his age, his garbled debate performance reinforced his frailties and sent shudders of anxiety through Democrats who believe former President Trump is poised to benefit in November. Thursday’s presidential debate saw a raspy and sometimes halting President Joe Biden struggling to confront Donald Trump on the CNN stage, spurring panic from his party.
Biden’s faltering debate performance has worried Democrats openly discussing for the need to have the president step aside for a younger candidate while elated Republicans gloat over his stumbles. “He’s not equipped to be president,” Trump said during the debate.
If the debate was the president’s best chance to turn around a tight race with Trump, which has him in deep peril of losing reelection, it was a failure.
In a hoarse voice that gained volume as the 90 minutes wore on, Biden attempted to draw substantive contrasts with his challenger, but his meandering points and blank expressions handed Trump ammunition to reprise his campaign theme that Biden is a “disaster” who is “destroying” the country.
The president, in turn, attacked Trump’s policies, morals, veracity and motives. He referred to his predecessor as “this guy,” said “he’s lying,” called Trump “a loser” and “a sucker” and “a convicted felon.” Biden said Trump “slept with a porn star,” referring to Stormy Daniels, the woman at the center of the former president’s New York conviction for falsifying hush money payments as business expenses.
“Number one, I didn’t sleep with a porn star,” Trump replied. At one point, Trump boasted about his golf prowess as evidence of his fitness and health. Biden had a comeback about his own golf handicap, as if the two were scrapping in a locker room. “Let’s not act like children,” Trump admonished.
Trump rolled over Biden, landing punch after punch. Not with logic. And certainly not with truth. But with force of personality and sheer chutzpah.
Biden struggled to articulate policy specifics, statistics and rebuttals, often stumbling or misspeaking. Early in the debate, Biden seemed to lose his train of thought and said, “We finally beat Medicare.”
The Biden campaign’s demand that each candidate’s mic be muted when it wasn’t their turn to talk seemed to help Trump. He largely waited to speak and seemed to enjoy himself. Trump seized on Biden’s halting speech, saying at one point: “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said, either.” Trump refused to say that he would accept the results of the November election, saying he would do so only “if it’s a fair, and legal, and good election.”
Questions about Biden’s age and frailty have dragged down his polling numbers for months. The public concerns are exacerbated by deceptively edited videos, some of which have gone viral, that cut off relevant parts of an event, making it appear as if Biden is wandering or confused. This was Biden’s first opportunity since the State of the Union speech to dispel that narrative.
In watch parties, bars, a bowling alley, and other venues where people across the country gathered to tune in, Trump supporters, happily, and Biden supporters, in their angst if not dread, seemed to largely agree they had witnessed a lopsided showdown.
Instead of a new beginning, many Democrats saw it as a moment for panic. “Democrats just committed collective suicide,” said a party strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. “Biden sounds hoarse, looks tired and is babbling. He is reaffirming everything voters already perceived. President Biden can’t win. This debate is a nail in the political coffin.”
“Biden just had to beat himself; unfortunately the stumbling and diminished Joe Biden the world has come to know made Trump look competent and energetic,” said a former Trump campaign official who isn’t working for his campaign this year. “I expect there will be some loud calls from Democrats for a change on the top of the ticket.”
“It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t nominate someone else,” a Democratic consultant who works on down-ballot races said.
Democrats fear a Biden loss could take down other candidates. Some chattered online and to reporters behind the scenes Thursday night about possible emergency off-ramps. One House Democrat from a swing state told The Hill, “Biden’s team needs to convince him to withdraw and have an open convention.”
After the debate, “Dump Biden” opinion pieces are everywhere this morning. “There are no two ways about it. That was not a good debate for Joe Biden,” Kate Bedingfield, who served as Biden’s longtime communications aide, conceded on CNN.
But the panic among donors and party officials after watching Biden falter Thursday night in his debate against Trump has led some of them to take steps to get Biden out of the race.
There are already discussions among Democratic fundraisers about trying to convince congressional leaders — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in particular — to urge Biden to announce to drop out, according to people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to speak freely.
But replacing Biden as the party’s pick less than five months out from Election Day carries enormous political risks and would be difficult, if not impossible, to pull off. Right now, the only likely way Biden could be replaced is if he willingly ends his campaign.
And Biden’s aides and top Democratic officials say the 81-year-old incumbent has no plans to do so. Closing ranks around his former vice-president, former Pressident Barack Obama tweeted a link to a fundraising page on Biden’s campaign website and offered words of encouragement.
“Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know,” Obama said, referring to his own lackluster encounter against Mitt Romney in 2012. He said this election remains a choice between someone, Biden, who cares about ordinary people and tells the truth, against someone who doesn’t, Trump. “Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.”
“Democrats are in a very difficult situation because it’s late in the campaign for a change,” said Meena Bose, director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra University, in an interview with CNBC. The only feasible way Bose could see it playing out is with Biden throwing his full support behind Vice President Kamala Harris to become the new nominee.
Asked on Friday about Democratic concerns with his showing and whether he should consider stepping aside, Biden said, “No, It’s hard to debate a liar.”
“I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” Biden told a crowd that chanted “four more years, four more years.” The president added, “I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to.” Biden went on, raising his voice,“But I know what I do know. I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job.”
“I know what millions of Americans know: When you get knocked down, you get back up.”
The Supreme Court made a significant move on Thursday by formally dismissing an appeal regarding Idaho’s stringent abortion ban. This action effectively halted the enforcement of the state law, a day after the court’s opinion was accidentally published on its website, marking a rare departure from its usual tightly controlled procedures.
The case stems from a challenge mounted by the Justice Department following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. At the heart of the matter is whether federal regulations mandating emergency room care in hospitals supersede abortion bans that do not make exceptions for situations where a woman’s health is at risk but her life is not immediately in danger.
In April, the Supreme Court justices displayed profound divisions during oral arguments concerning the Biden administration’s opposition to Idaho’s abortion restrictions.
The court’s decision today arrives amidst a backdrop where abortion has emerged as a pivotal issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. President Joe Biden has squarely attributed the surge in new abortion limitations nationwide to his Republican challenger, Donald Trump.
When Americans select their next president, the world watches closely, aware of the profound global implications of US foreign policy and White House actions. The upcoming debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will prominently feature discussions on American influence abroad.
The election’s impact stretches beyond familiar battlegrounds like Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza. BBC’s foreign correspondents highlight why this election resonates globally.
Russian Perspective
Russian observers scrutinize the US election for potential implications on stability. Vladimir Putin’s preference for predictability suggests a cautious leaning towards Joe Biden, despite Trump’s initial appeal. Moscow remains wary after unmet expectations during Trump’s first term.
Taiwan and China
Both candidates advocate toughness towards China but differ significantly on Taiwan. Biden emphasizes solidarity with regional allies against Beijing’s assertiveness, contrasting with Trump’s transactional approach and ambiguous commitments towards Taiwan’s defense.
Ukrainian Concerns
In Ukraine, US support against Russian aggression is critical, although public attention amidst ongoing conflict remains subdued. Ukrainian analysts weigh Trump’s rhetoric against Biden’s historical backing, underscoring the pragmatic uncertainties of campaign promises.
UK’s Uncertainty
UK policymakers view the election with apprehension, fearing potential shifts in US policy towards military alliances, trade disputes, and democratic stability post-election. The UK grapples with the dilemma of aligning with democratic values amidst global political turbulence.
Israeli Perspectives
Israeli sentiments towards Trump are favorable, recalling diplomatic gains despite Biden’s recent criticisms over Palestinian casualties. Trump’s pro-Israel stance contrasts with Biden’s support for a two-state solution, shaping Middle East expectations.
India’s Strategic Calculations
India, a strategic partner in US-China rivalry, anticipates continuity in bilateral relations, irrespective of the election outcome. Modi’s engagements with both Biden and Trump reflect India’s adaptability to US political dynamics.
Mexican Memories
Mexicans recall Trump’s divisive rhetoric but acknowledge his administration’s cooperation on critical issues like immigration. Incoming President Sheinbaum seeks to redefine Mexico’s stance under a new US administration, emphasizing continuity in bilateral relations.
Canadian Concerns
Canada anticipates potential trade disruptions under a second Trump term, contrasting with efforts to safeguard bilateral interests through proactive diplomacy and economic advocacy.
US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has labeled gun violence a public health crisis, aiming to address the United States’ leading position in global shooting deaths. In an unprecedented report calling for action, the top medical official highlighted that most Americans or their family members have been affected by gun violence.
Dr. Murthy believes a public health approach, similar to past efforts on seatbelt safety and smoking cessation, could mitigate gun violence. He aims to depoliticize the issue, urging Americans to focus on the impacts and data.
“I want people to understand the full impact gun violence is having on the United States,” Dr. Murthy told the BBC in an interview on Tuesday.
“For every one life lost, there are two people who are shot and injured and are experiencing mental and physical health consequences, family members who grieve the loss of a loved one, witnesses to these incidents, and millions who read about and hear about gun violence every day in the papers.”
Gun safety advocates are cautiously optimistic about the advisory, seeing it as a step towards changing public perception.
“This is not a political issue,” Dr. Chethan Sathya, director of Northwell Health’s Center for Gun Violence Prevention, told the BBC.
“This is about safer communities, firearm safety, and violence prevention.”
While the 40-page report is largely symbolic and does not mandate policy changes, it is considered a significant step towards reducing deaths and reshaping the conversation around guns in America.
Dr. Sathya describes it as “legitimising” the use of research and public health resources to address gun violence.
“This isn’t just an issue of ‘we need background checks’ and we’re done,” he said.
“We need a lot of different nuanced policy and strategy to be able to tackle this in a way that makes sense for all Americans.”
The report emphasizes understanding the magnitude of the problem. Since 2020, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and young Americans. The U.S. gun death rate is 11.4 times higher than in 28 other high-income countries, underscoring the problem as uniquely American.
“We don’t have to continue down this path, and we don’t have to subject our children to the ongoing horror of firearm violence in America,” Dr. Murthy stated.
“It will take the collective commitment of our nation to turn the tide.”
Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, whose research is cited in the report, was a founding member of the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearms Policy. This group helped establish “red flag laws,” which allow courts to temporarily prevent those in crisis from accessing guns. Such laws are now in place in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
“Guns have taken on a symbolic role, as kind of a rail in the culture wars, and it’s a very divisive issue,” he told the BBC.
“But if we start with one square inch of common ground, I think that is an important step.”
Dr. Swanson, a sociology and psychiatry professor at Duke University, emphasizes the importance of asking the right questions and conducting informed research to develop evidence-based policies.
“We have to actually make some headway in terms of changing the culture around guns and, if you look at public health history, there’s a precedent for that,” he said, referencing previous public health efforts on seatbelt safety and smoking.
“Now people get in their car and, no matter what their politics are, put their seatbelts on. They don’t do it because there’s a law. They do it because it just feels natural, because our culture has changed.”
Despite the support from ten leading national medical associations for Dr. Murthy’s report, conservative pushback was immediate. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation’s most prominent gun lobby, criticized the report on social media, calling it “an extension of the Biden Administration’s war on law-abiding gun owners.”
Dr. Murthy’s declaration of gun violence as a public health crisis aims to shift the narrative from political debate to public health concern. The report calls for comprehensive strategies and policies to address the issue, drawing on successful public health interventions from the past. Despite resistance from certain political factions, the hope is to create safer communities and reduce the devastating impact of gun violence on American lives.
With many around the world closely following the fiercely contested rematch between U.S. President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that, internationally, Biden is viewed more positively than his rival.
Across the 34 nations polled, a median of 43% have confidence in Biden to do the right thing regarding world affairs, while just 28% have confidence in Trump. The gap between ratings is quite wide in many countries, especially in Europe. Biden’s confidence rating is at least 40 percentage points higher than Trump’s in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.
However, there are exceptions. There is no statistically significant difference in ratings of Biden and Trump in eight nations we surveyed. And people in Hungary and Tunisia give Trump more positive reviews than Biden, although neither leader gets especially high marks there. (The survey was conducted before Trump’s conviction in a state criminal trial in New York.)
Even though Biden gets better assessments than Trump globally, ratings for the current U.S. president are down since last year in 14 of 21 countries where trends are available, including by double digits in Australia, Israel, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The survey included a series of questions about how Biden is handling major international issues. Overall, opinions are divided on how he is dealing with climate change and global economic problems.
Across the 34 countries polled, a median of around four-in-ten approve of how Biden is dealing with China and with the war between Russia and Ukraine (39% each).
The president gets his most negative reviews on his handling of the Israel-Hamas war: A median of just 31% approve of the way he is handling the conflict, while 57% disapprove. (The survey was conducted prior to Biden announcing a proposal to end the conflict.)
Research in the West Bank and Gaza
Pew Research Center has polled the Palestinian territories in previous years, but we were unable to conduct fieldwork in Gaza or the West Bank for our Spring 2024 survey due to security concerns. We are actively investigating possibilities for both qualitative and quantitative research on public opinion in the region and hope to be able to share data from the region in the coming months.
Six-in-ten Israelis disapprove of how Biden is handling the war, including 53% of Jewish Israelis and 86% of Arab Israelis. (For more on how Israelis rate Biden, read “Israeli Views of the Israel-Hamas War.”)
Of the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, large majorities in Malaysia, Tunisia and Turkey also disapprove of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. Opinion is divided on this issue in Bangladesh.
The new survey finds that overall attitudes toward the United States are generally positive: A median of 54% across the nations polled have a favorable view of the U.S., while 31% have a negative opinion.
However, criticisms of American democracy are common in many nations. We asked respondents whether U.S. democracy is a good example for other countries to follow, used to be a good example but has not been in recent years, or has never been a good example.
The predominant view in most countries is that the U.S. used to be a good model but has not been recently. Overall, a median of 21% believe it is currently a good example, while 22% say it has never been a good model for other countries.
In eight of the 13 countries where trends are available, fewer people say American democracy is a good example than said so in spring 2021, when we last asked this question.
For this report, we surveyed 40,566 people in 34 countries – not including the U.S. – from Jan. 5 to May 21, 2024. In addition to this overview, the report includes chapters on:
At least half of those in most countries surveyed express a favorable opinion of the U.S. Poles are the most positive, at 86% favorable. Of the European nations surveyed, ratings also lean positive in Italy, Hungary and the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, however, opinions tend to be closely divided.
Attitudes toward the U.S. are largely favorable in the Asia-Pacific nations polled, especially Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand. However, most Australians and Malaysians give the U.S. poor marks.
In the Middle East-North Africa region, a 77% majority of Israelis view the U.S. favorably, although this is down from 87% last year. Large majorities in Tunisia and Turkey offer an unfavorable opinion.
The U.S. gets mostly positive ratings in the sub-Saharan African and Latin American nations surveyed. Two-thirds or more see the U.S. favorably in Colombia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Peru.
Confidence in Biden, Trump and other world leaders
Pew Research Center has explored attitudes toward American presidents for over two decades, finding significant shifts in opinions over the years. Data from four Western European nations that we have surveyed consistently – France, Germany, Spain and the UK – shows long-term trends in views of recent presidents.
George W. Bush received low and declining ratings during his time in the White House, while Barack Obama got mostly high marks. Attitudes toward Donald Trump were overwhelmingly negative throughout his presidency. Biden has consistently received more positive reviews than his predecessor, but his ratings have declined in these four countries during his time in office.
There are nine nations in this year’s survey where six-in-ten adults or more express confidence in Biden. Four are in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden), two are in the Asia-Pacific region (the Philippines and Thailand) and three are in sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria).
Since last year, confidence in Biden has dropped significantly in 14 nations: Seven in Europe, plus Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. Biden gets his lowest ratings in Turkey and Tunisia, where only about one-in-ten express confidence in him.
The two countries where at least six-in-ten adults have confidence in Trump are Nigeria and the Philippines. Like Biden, Trump gets one of his lowest ratings in Turkey, where just 10% view him favorably.
Confidence in Trump has increased slightly in a few European countries since we last asked about him in 2020, although his ratings remain quite low in Europe.
In contrast, Trump’s ratings have become more negative in Poland since 2019, which was the last year we asked about him there. Israeli views toward the former president have also become more negative over the past five years.
Refer to Appendix B for long-term trends in confidence in U.S. presidents.
In addition to exploring confidence in Biden and Trump, the survey asked about trust in French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Overall, Macron receives the most positive ratings across the countries in the study, followed closely by Biden. The French president gets higher ratings than his U.S. counterpart in many of the European nations surveyed. Both Xi and Putin receive mostly poor marks across the countries in the study.
Differences by ideology, age and gender
Ideology
In 17 of the 28 countries where political ideology is measured, people on the right are more likely to have a positive opinion of the U.S. than those on the left. For example, 65% of people on the right in Spain view the U.S. favorably, compared with 26% of people on the left.
In 18 countries, people on the right are more likely to express confidence in Trump than those on the left. The gap is especially large in Israel, where 75% of those on the right have confidence in him, compared with just 23% of Israelis on the left.
There are also some sizable ideological differences on views about Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. In several countries – including about half of the European countries surveyed – people on the right are more likely than those on the left to approve of how Biden is handling the conflict.
Age
In several countries – including Canada, all Latin American countries surveyed and several countries in the Asia-Pacific region – adults under 35 are more likely to have a positive opinion of the U.S. when compared with adults ages 50 and older. Australia, Israel and Sweden are the only countries where younger adults have a less favorable view of the U.S.
In Canada, Australia and seven of the 10 European countries surveyed, young adults are less likely than older adults to approve of how Biden is dealing with the Israel-Hamas war.
Gender
Men have more confidence in Trump than women do in many of the countries surveyed. The largest difference is in the UK, where men are about twice as likely as women to trust the former U.S. president. In many of the countries surveyed, women are less likely than men to answer this question at all.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are set to face off in the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election on Thursday night in Atlanta. This debate marks a new phase in the race, less than five months before Election Day on November 5, with the candidates in a virtual tie according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. This trend has been consistent in recent national surveys.
Breaking from tradition, this debate takes place months earlier than usual and features a new set of rules agreed upon by both candidates, including the absence of a live audience. This will be the first debate of the campaign season for both candidates; Biden ran largely unopposed, and Trump skipped the GOP primary debates.
Debate Details
The debate will start at 9 p.m. ET and run for 90 minutes, moderated by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash at the network’s studios in Atlanta. It will be available on CNN and the streaming platform Max (formerly HBO). Those without a cable login can watch on CNN’s website. NPR will provide live updates and a livestream of the debate.
Participants
Biden and Trump are the only candidates who qualified for the debate. Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not meet the threshold, which required candidates to poll at 15% or higher in four national surveys and appear on enough state ballots to theoretically secure the 270 Electoral College votes needed for the presidency.
Unique Aspects of This Debate
Unlike previous presidential debates that occur in front of a live audience, often at college or university campuses, and coordinated by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), this year’s debates will not follow that tradition. Both candidates opted out of the CPD’s scheduled debates in favor of earlier matchups.
Thursday’s debate will be hosted by CNN, with a second debate scheduled for September, hosted by ABC News. The agreed-upon rules include muted microphones unless a candidate is directed to speak, no prewritten notes or props (only a pen, paper, and bottle of water are allowed), and a coin toss to determine podium positions and the order of closing statements. Biden’s campaign won the coin toss and chose the podium to the viewers’ right, while Trump’s team opted to deliver the final closing statement.
Key Points to Watch
Both candidates are expected to address their recent legal issues. Trump was found guilty of 34 criminal charges in New York about a month ago, while Biden’s son, Hunter, was convicted on felony gun charges in Delaware in mid-June and faces a second federal trial in September for failing to pay taxes.
Biden is likely to address concerns about his age and ability to serve a second term. At 81, he is the oldest sitting president in U.S. history, and if re-elected, he would leave office at 86. While Biden has had public slipups during his first term, Trump, who is 78, has frequently criticized Biden’s mental capability, even suggesting a cognitive test. Ironically, Trump misnamed the doctor who conducted his cognitive exam while he was president in a recent speech.
Regarding issues, the debate will likely cover the economy and immigration policy, top concerns for voters according to national polls. International politics might also be discussed, given the divided opinions on U.S. military aid to Ukraine and Israel.
Biden may use the debate to address declining support among key voter demographics compared to 2020, particularly Blacks, Latinos, and young voters. Trump, on the other hand, is losing support among older voters, which Biden’s campaign aims to exploit. Trump may also need to mend relations with Nikki Haley supporters who are hesitant to back him again.
Upcoming Events
In the coming weeks, Trump is expected to announce his vice presidential pick. There will also be a vice presidential debate this summer, with Vice President Kamala Harris agreeing to a debate on either July 23 or August 13.
Legally, Trump faces sentencing in his criminal trial on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention on July 15 in Milwaukee. The Democratic National Convention will follow a month later, starting on August 19 in Chicago. Biden and Trump will have a second debate on September 10.
The debate this Thursday is not just an early clash but a critical moment in an extremely close race. It offers both candidates a significant platform to address their legal issues, policy positions, and voter concerns as they vie for the presidency in a divided nation.
On June 19, the Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies (FIIDS) urged President Joe Biden to include “proven dreamers” — spouses of green card applicants who have been backlogged — and children of long-term visa holders in his new immigration strategy. FIIDS highlighted that hundreds of thousands of spouses of lawful permanent residents are currently on extensive green card waitlists due to the 7% country-wise quota, yet they are excluded from Biden’s immigration policy.
FIIDS emphasized that children of these lawful permanent residents, who were educated in the US, face significant challenges as they age out of eligibility at 21. They argue that these children, who have grown up in the US and are considered dreamers, should not be subject to restrictive immigration policies just because they are here legally.
The Indian-American organization has called on President Biden to support the spouses of lawful permanent residents stuck in the H-1B visa backlog, which has lasted for more than a decade. FIIDS advocates for these spouses to be able to file for their own green cards and obtain work permits (Employment Authorization Documents, or EADs) independently of their spouse’s employment-based green card status.
Additionally, FIIDS proposes that the children of these backlogged green card applicants should be granted immediate employment authorization (EAD) based on their educational qualifications. According to FIIDS, implementing these policies would help keep families together and enhance their ability to contribute to the US economy.
FIIDS has also launched a petition to support this cause.
In a recent policy announcement, President Biden introduced the possibility of citizenship by marriage for non-citizens who have lived in the US for at least ten years and are married to US citizens or permanent residents, as well as their offspring. FIIDS expressed their gratitude to Biden for this policy.
President Biden announced that spouses of US citizens who have resided in the US for ten years or more can now apply for expedited citizenship. Additionally, children of undocumented immigrants who complete postsecondary education will have the opportunity to apply for work visas and eventually obtain permanent residency. FIIDS praised Biden’s initiatives, stating, “We applaud President Biden’s efforts to foster family togetherness and boost the economy, as well as his dedication to maintaining the stability of American households.”
Despite these positive developments, spouses and children of green card applicants currently experiencing a backlog are not eligible for the newly announced legal status. These individuals continue to face the challenge of the significant green card backlog.
The Supreme Court is set for a critical week, with a deadline looming by the end of June to release decisions on 14 argued cases this term. These decisions will have significant impacts, particularly a ruling on whether former President Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution.
The upcoming decisions include cases involving Jan. 6 defendants, social media regulation, and the authority of federal agencies. The court will release the next batch of opinions on Wednesday. Here are the five major unresolved decisions as the Supreme Court’s opinion season reaches its peak:
Trump’s Immunity Claims
One of the pivotal questions is whether former presidents have criminal immunity for official acts while in office. Trump has delayed his criminal trial in Washington, D.C., on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, by claiming presidential immunity. Lower courts have rejected this assertion, but the Supreme Court seemed inclined during oral arguments to provide some level of immunity, albeit less than Trump’s lawyers desired. This outcome would send the issue back to a lower court, likely aiding Trump in delaying his trial until after the election, when he hopes to regain the presidency and halt his prosecutions. However, even if the justices entirely reject Trump’s presidential immunity theory, it remains uncertain if his case will go to trial before November. Observers have criticized the justices for not expediting their decision, though the court did schedule Trump’s appeal faster than usual. The court’s final potential days of opinions overlap with the first presidential debate, set for Thursday night.
Jan. 6 Obstruction Charge
Another significant case concerns the Justice Department’s use of an obstruction charge against more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants. Joseph Fischer, one of the rioters, challenged the law used against him, arguing that it was improperly applied given its origin in the Enron accounting scandal. The law criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, impeding, or interfering with an official government proceeding. The justices appeared wary of the government’s use of the charge during oral arguments. Siding with Fischer could disrupt many rioters’ sentences. While most faced other felony counts, 50 rioters were sentenced solely with the obstruction law, according to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. A ruling favoring the rioters could also support claims by Trump and his allies that the Justice Department overreached in its prosecutions and undermine the narrative that the Capitol riot was an attack on American democracy.
Biden Social Media Contacts
The Supreme Court is also set to rule on whether the Biden administration violated the Constitution by coercing social media companies to remove false or misleading content. This case, challenging the administration’s efforts to curb misinformation after the 2020 election and during the COVID-19 pandemic, could reshape how the federal government interacts with social media platforms. Two Republican attorneys general argue that federal officials violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove content deemed dangerous. The Justice Department warned that siding with the states could hinder their ability to address public concerns, prevent national security threats, and relay information. However, during oral arguments, the high court seemed to lean towards supporting the government.
Florida, Texas Social Media Laws
Another crucial issue involves laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media bans, raising questions about whether the government can dictate how social media platforms moderate content without violating the First Amendment. These laws aim to prevent social media platforms from banning users for their political views, even if they violated platform policies. Critics, including tech industry groups, argue that the laws infringe on private companies’ First Amendment right to editorial discretion. If upheld, the laws would significantly alter online speech by eliminating unique content moderation decisions, potentially stifling competition between smaller companies and increasing the prevalence of hateful, inappropriate, or incorrect content due to hesitance in moderating material.
Federal Agency Power
The Supreme Court is also poised to reconsider a 40-year-old precedent known as Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. This doctrine has been invoked to uphold various regulations, from those on fishing boats to cryptocurrency to environmental protections. Antiregulatory interests hope the conservative-leaning court will use two current cases to limit the executive branch’s power by overturning Chevron. These cases have drawn attention from advocacy groups supporting Chevron, who are anxious about the potential questioning of the legal basis for their favored government regulations.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions will have far-reaching implications on presidential immunity, the prosecution of Jan. 6 defendants, social media regulation, and the power of federal agencies. As the court’s opinion season reaches its peak, these cases will shape the legal landscape in significant ways.
Timothy Mellon, a billionaire born into one of America’s wealthiest families, has contributed $50 million to the Trump campaign super-PAC, Make America Great Again Inc., as revealed in federal filings on Thursday. This donation is now recognized as the largest individual contribution disclosed in the 2024 election cycle.
Mellon, 81, formerly served as the chairman of Pan Am Systems Inc., a private manufacturing and transportation enterprise. This year, he intends to publish a memoir about his tenure as chairman, titled “panam.captain,” through Skyhorse Publishing.
The federal documents indicate that Mellon made his substantial donation on May 31, 2024, just a day after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies by a New York state court in a significant hush-money case. Additionally, Mellon has contributed at least $20 million to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign, who is running as an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential race, according to the BBC.
TIME has contacted the Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaigns for comments and further information.
Forbes reports that Mellon is the great-grandson of Thomas Mellon, an Irish immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1818. Thomas Mellon was a lawyer and judge who invested in various real estate and banking ventures. By his death, he had accumulated a substantial fortune, which his sons inherited. Today, the Mellon family is worth around $14.1 billion, ranking them as the 34th wealthiest family in America.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the Biden campaign has also attracted significant donations. The Washington Post revealed that billionaire Michael Bloomberg donated $19 million to the Future Forward (FF) PAC, a pro-Biden political action committee. Additionally, Bloomberg gave another $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund.
Timothy Mellon’s substantial contribution to the Trump campaign comes at a pivotal moment, highlighting the ongoing financial battles in the 2024 election. Mellon’s donation, made a day after Trump’s legal conviction, underscores his commitment to Trump’s political future despite the former president’s legal troubles. Trump’s conviction in a landmark hush-money trial has not deterred Mellon from providing significant financial support. The timing of this donation could be seen as a statement of defiance and unwavering support for Trump’s agenda.
Mellon’s other major political contribution is to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign, showcasing his willingness to support multiple candidates who align with his views. This $20 million donation to Kennedy’s campaign signifies Mellon’s broader influence on the 2024 presidential race, as he backs an independent candidate challenging the traditional two-party system.
Forbes’ profile of Mellon’s ancestry paints a picture of a family that has long been embedded in American wealth and influence. Thomas Mellon’s success in law and real estate laid the foundation for the Mellon family’s vast fortune, which continues to impact American society and politics today. With an estimated worth of $14.1 billion, the Mellon family remains a powerful force in the country’s economic landscape.
In parallel, the Biden campaign’s receipt of large donations underscores the high stakes of the upcoming election. Michael Bloomberg’s $19 million contribution to the Future Forward PAC and the additional funds to the Biden Victory Fund illustrate the financial muscle behind Biden’s campaign. Bloomberg’s significant support for Biden reflects his belief in the current president’s vision for America’s future. Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City and a billionaire himself, has consistently supported Democratic causes and candidates, using his wealth to influence the political landscape.
The battle for campaign funds in the 2024 election highlights the broader contest between major political donors and their respective candidates. Timothy Mellon and Michael Bloomberg represent two sides of this financial arms race, each backing candidates they believe will best serve their interests and visions for the country.
Mellon’s memoir, “panam.captain,” expected to be published by Skyhorse Publishing, will provide insights into his experiences as chairman of Pan Am Systems Inc. This publication will likely offer a deeper understanding of Mellon’s business acumen and his perspectives on industry and transportation. His leadership at Pan Am Systems has been a significant part of his career, and this memoir could shed light on the principles that guide his business and political decisions.
Overall, the donations from Mellon and Bloomberg to their respective political causes reflect a broader trend of billionaires using their wealth to influence American politics. The substantial contributions from these individuals underscore the critical role of money in modern election campaigns. These donations not only support the candidates but also shape the political discourse and strategies leading up to the 2024 election.
As the election approaches, the financial backing from major donors like Mellon and Bloomberg will play a crucial role in determining the resources and reach of each campaign. Their support highlights the intersection of wealth and politics in the United States, where financial power can significantly impact electoral outcomes. The influence of these billionaires extends beyond their donations, as they bring attention to the candidates and issues they support, swaying public opinion and mobilizing voters.
Timothy Mellon’s $50 million donation to Trump’s campaign and Michael Bloomberg’s $19 million contribution to Biden’s campaign underscore the immense financial stakes in the 2024 presidential election. Mellon’s additional support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. further emphasizes his strategic political investments. These significant contributions from wealthy individuals highlight the critical role of money in shaping the future of American politics. As the campaigns progress, the impact of these donations will become increasingly evident, demonstrating how financial power can drive political change in the United States.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law on Friday that prevents domestic abusers from owning guns, dismissing an argument from gun rights advocates that the law infringes on the Second Amendment. The 8-1 decision addressed one of the most scrutinized cases, narrowing the impact of a significant ruling from two years ago that led to numerous challenges against various gun laws nationwide.
This decision, which united most conservative and liberal justices, is likely to support similar federal gun regulations that have been contested since the Supreme Court’s substantial expansion of gun rights in 2022, particularly in cases where the defendant poses a danger. The 2022 ruling had created confusion among lower court judges dealing with Second Amendment cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the court found it straightforward to agree that individuals who pose a threat can be denied access to firearms. “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts countered the notion that the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen had forced lower courts to overturn any gun law lacking a historical precedent. He noted that some lower courts had “misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.”
“The court’s ruling today leaves intact a specific federal criminal prohibition on gun possession by those subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders,” stated Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. However, he cautioned, “there are dozens of other federal and state gun regulations that have been challenged since the court’s 2022 ruling in the Bruen case. The harder cases, like whether Congress can prohibit all felons, or all drug offenders, from possessing firearms, are still to come.”
Several such cases are pending at the Supreme Court and may be addressed soon. Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the majority opinion in Bruen, dissented alone on Friday. “The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote, warning that the decision risks infringing on broader Second Amendment rights.
The case involved a 1994 law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, was convicted under this law following a series of shootings, including an incident where he fired into the air at a Whataburger after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Rahimi’s attorneys argued that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision invalidated the law on domestic violence orders, as the founding generation did not restrict gun possession for such reasons. The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals supported this view, finding the gun ban for individuals in domestic disputes to be historically unprecedented.
However, the Biden administration and domestic violence advocacy groups highlighted historical laws that prevented dangerous individuals from owning guns, suggesting such regulations could meet the court’s historical test. Victim advocacy groups pointed out that women subjected to domestic abuse are five times more likely to be killed if a gun is present in the home.
President Joe Biden praised the ruling, stating, “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.” Douglas Letter, chief legal officer of the gun control group Brady, called the decision an “important victory for gun violence and domestic violence prevention.”
Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, downplayed the ruling’s significance. “The Supreme Court’s narrow opinion offers no endorsement of red flag laws or of the dozens of other unconstitutional laws that the NRA is challenging across the country that burden the right of peaceable Americans to keep and bear arms,” Kozuch said, emphasizing that the ruling only disarmed individuals deemed dangerous after judicial review.
During oral arguments in November, a majority of justices seemed inclined to uphold the law but suggested they might do so narrowly, given that related legal challenges, including whether non-violent felons can be barred from gun ownership, are queued for the court’s review. One such prohibition concerns President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who was convicted of violating a law that bans gun possession by users of controlled substances. Hunter Biden is expected to appeal.
By upholding the law, the decision favored prosecutors in this matter but did not address the broader issue of whether other federal gun prohibitions would stand. Last year, the 5th Circuit ruled that the prohibition on drug users was unconstitutional.
Gun control advocates and domestic violence victims groups welcomed the ruling. “This is a huge victory for survivors and it WILL save lives,” March for Our Lives stated on social media. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, argued the case shouldn’t have been considered by the Supreme Court, claiming it shows the extremity of the current court.
Research cited by advocates indicates the risk of homicide increases by 500% if a gun is present in a domestic violence scenario. Amy Sánchez, CEO of the Battered Women’s Justice Project, expressed relief, stating that upholding the firearm restriction ensures protective measures remain effective and survivors are not at greater risk.
Ruth Glenn, president of Survivor Justice Action, commented that the ruling highlights ongoing work needed to strengthen and enforce protection orders. “We must vote. From my perspective and the perspective of this organization, elections matter. The survivors block is strong,” Glenn said, stressing the importance of political engagement.
Despite the ruling, advocates noted potential future challenges in the post-Bruen landscape. Nel-Sylvia Guzman, deputy director of Safe Sisters Circle, remarked that proponents of gun rights view the Bruen decision as a blanket permission to remove any restrictions on gun ownership.
Justice Samuel Alito was absent for the second day in a row as the Supreme Court issued opinions. The court has not addressed inquiries about his absence.
Former President Donald Trump recently proposed granting green cards automatically to foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges, marking a significant departure from his previous stance on immigration. This suggestion stands in stark contrast to his well-known efforts to curb both legal and illegal immigration while he was in office and opposes his often-inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric seen on the campaign trail.
In a statement on “The All-In Podcast,” which aired on Thursday, Trump elaborated, “What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country.” He continued, “And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college — you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.”
Trump’s comments came during a discussion with the podcast’s hosts, including prominent tech venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, who recently hosted a fundraiser for Trump in San Francisco. The former president was responding to a query from another host, investor Jason Calacanis, who asked, “Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest from around the world to America?”
Addressing concerns about potential security risks, Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt clarified that graduates would undergo stringent screening. “He believes, only after such vetting has taken place, we ought to keep the most skilled graduates who can make significant contributions to America. This would only apply to the most thoroughly vetted college graduates who would never undercut American wages or workers,” Leavitt said in a statement to CNN. She further emphasized that the screening process would “exclude all communists, radical Islamists, Hamas supporters, America haters and public charges.”
Immigration remains a central focus of Trump’s 2024 presidential bid. He has promised to execute “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” using the issue to criticize President Joe Biden’s leadership. Trump’s latest comments follow Biden’s recent executive action allowing certain undocumented spouses and children of US citizens to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. This move, intended to appeal to Latino voters in battleground states, came after a more restrictive measure earlier this month to limit asylum processing at the US southern border.
On the podcast, Trump lamented the loss of foreign graduates from top US colleges who cannot start companies in the US and instead establish their businesses in countries like India or China. He remarked, “You need a pool of people to work for your companies and they have to be smart people. … You need brilliant people and we force the brilliant people, the people that graduate from college, the people that are number one in their class from the best colleges. You have to be able to recruit these people and keep the people.”
These remarks are notably different from Trump’s efforts to limit immigration during his presidency. His administration targeted visa programs that tech companies use to bring in skilled workers and directed federal agencies to follow a “Buy American, Hire American” strategy, promoting the hiring of American workers. Trump also attempted to restrict refugee resettlement and implemented a temporary travel ban from seven Muslim-majority countries.
During his current presidential campaign, Trump often incites fear about undocumented migrants, claiming without evidence that the majority are violent criminals, and frequently criticizing Biden’s immigration policies. His language has drawn strong reactions, especially his statement that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.”
Despite his recent comments, Trump’s stance on foreign graduates is not entirely new. When he ran for president in 2015, he expressed support for providing a pathway to citizenship for some foreign nationals graduating from US colleges. In an interview with Time magazine, he said, “I also want people of great talent to come to this country, to Silicon Valley for engineers. If you go to Harvard and you graduate No. 1 in your class, and you’re from China, they send you home, you can’t get back into the country. So you end up working for companies in China and fighting us.”
Trump’s proposal to automatically grant green cards to college graduates represents a significant shift from his previous policies and rhetoric. While he maintains a hardline stance on immigration, his acknowledgment of the need to retain skilled graduates indicates a more nuanced approach. His campaign’s emphasis on thorough vetting suggests an attempt to balance national security concerns with the economic benefits of retaining top talent.
The suggestion to offer green cards as part of a diploma package could appeal to tech industry leaders and businesses seeking skilled workers. It highlights the economic rationale behind retaining educated individuals who can contribute to innovation and competitiveness. However, the proposal also raises questions about how it will be implemented and the potential impact on American workers.
As Trump continues his campaign, his evolving views on immigration will likely remain a focal point of debate. His proposal underscores the complexity of immigration policy and the challenges of balancing security, economic needs, and humanitarian considerations. Whether this shift will resonate with voters or lead to tangible policy changes remains to be seen. Nonetheless, Trump’s comments mark a notable departure from his earlier positions and add a new dimension to the ongoing discussion about immigration in the United States.
Neera Tanden, an Indian-American and the domestic policy advisor to President Joe Biden, emphasized the significant role the Indian diaspora has played in strengthening the India-US relationship. Speaking at the 7th Annual Leadership Summit in Washington, hosted by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF), she highlighted how personal connections between the two countries have been crucial, even during times of tension. “Even in past moments where there have been fraught tensions between the United States and India, or suspicion or concern, it’s the people — the people of both countries who have helped build the relationship,” Tanden stated. She noted that many Indians have family in the US, shaping their perception of America and fostering a deep connection. “Many Indians I know have family and relatives in the United States that have helped shape the vision that they have of the US. There’s just a deep connection to how India perceives the US, through how the US treats Indians. That is fundamentally important as we make progress,” she added.
The summit, held on June 17, featured prominent figures including USISPF chairman John Chambers, USISPF president Mukesh Aghi, and senators Steve Dains and Dan Sullivan. Chambers shared a personal story about his 85-year-old father’s life being saved by an Indian doctor, expressing profound gratitude for the significant contributions of Indian doctors in the US. “I’m very, very thankful for that, to have more doctors coming from India than any other country, grateful for what they do, not only their incredible expertise, but also their compassion,” he said.
Senator Dan Sullivan emphasized the vital role of the Indian-American community in bolstering the strategic partnership between India and the US. “The Indian-American community is going to be a key source of continuing to drive the strategic relationship between the United States and India even closer,” Sullivan said. Senator Steve Dains highlighted the unique human capital in both nations, which underpins their success and innovation. “The human capital is the most important capital of any nation. The fact is there’s incredible human talent in India and the United States,” Dains remarked. He praised the shared values of democracy and rule of law that foster a robust innovation ecosystem, stating, “We have the rule of law. We share the common values of democracy. That is what allows the innovation ecosystem to long-term win and allows us to succeed.”
Henry R. Kravis, the founder and co-executive chairman of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co., was honored with the 2024 Global Leadership Award at the summit. Mukesh Aghi praised Kravis’s contributions, noting that his firm has evolved significantly, impacting economic diplomacy. “I think that all of these have had a massive impact on economic diplomacy as it goes around,” Aghi said. Under Kravis’s leadership, the firm has become one of the largest investors in India, investing over $11 billion in the past two decades across various sectors, creating numerous jobs and contributing to the Indian economy’s growth.
Kravis described the India-US relationship as “multidimensional,” highlighting shared values of democracy and significant Indian presence in the US. “If you think about our values and India’s values, we believe very strongly in democracy,” he said. He noted the large number of Indian Americans and students in the US, stating, “There are five million plus Indian Americans today. There are 270,000 students with visas in the United States. Last year alone, I think, was a record number of Indians looking for visas to come to the US.” Kravis pointed to the numerous opportunities in India, praising the country’s educated workforce, young population, and significant internet usage. He also commended the entrepreneurial talent in India. “There have been so many good things that PM Modi has been able to do, that have been absolutely fantastic for the average person,” Kravis said.
During the summit, Mukesh Aghi recalled President Biden’s remarks on the importance of the US-India relationship, calling it the most consequential of the 21st century. Aghi highlighted the extensive agreements made during the state visit last year, mentioning the ongoing discussions by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and his team in India about the iCET principles. “And what we are seeing in the state visit we had last year, over 170-plus different agreements were initiated,” Aghi said. He stressed that the US-India relationship extends beyond technology to encompass geopolitics, economic opportunities, and people-to-people connections. “I think it’s important that this [US-India] relationship is defined not just purely on technology, it’s defined on geopolitics, it’s defined on economic opportunity, but more importantly, defined on people to people,” he concluded.
The 7th Annual Leadership Summit underscored the deep-rooted and multifaceted ties between India and the US, driven significantly by the Indian diaspora. The summit highlighted the contributions of Indian professionals in the US, the shared democratic values, and the strategic importance of the bilateral relationship, which extends beyond economic and technological collaboration to include significant human and cultural connections.
The ages of U.S. Presidents have varied significantly over the years, changing with voting demographics and shifting societal attitudes toward age. Younger presidential candidates have been seen as symbols of change and energy, appealing to young voters or people seeking a fresh perspective. Older candidates have often brought decades of experience and a sense of maturity. Here is a full list of the ages of the U.S. Presidents at the time of their inauguration, listed from oldest to youngest, spanning an almost 40-year age difference, from 42 to 78.
Over 70
When 46th President Joe Biden was sworn in on January 20, 2021, he became the oldest U.S. President to date, at 78 years and 61 days old. Just four years prior, the second-oldest President, Donald Trump, was sworn in at 70 years and 220 days old. He was about 15 years older than the overall average presidential age of 55. Biden’s term punctuated a trend of increasingly older Presidents: The average age of Presidents elected between 1875 and 1899 was 53, whereas the average age between the late 1990s and today is 63. When the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, they set 35 years as the minimum age to run for President; at the time, it was seen as a mature age due to lower life expectancy in the 1700s. Meanwhile, the oldest national leader in the world today is Cameroon’s President Paul Biya, at 91. To date, just two U.S. Presidents have been over 70 years old when inaugurated.
– Joe Biden (46th President) — 78 years, 61 days
– Donald J. Trump (45th President) — 70 years, 220 days
Over 60
More than 20% of U.S. Presidents were elected while in their 60s. Ronald Reagan, who was 69 at his first inauguration in 1981, faced public scrutiny for his age during both election campaigns, something that had not commonly been seen up until then. The concerns didn’t seem to matter much: Reagan went on to serve two terms and completed his presidency just shy of 78 years old. The shortest-serving U.S. President, William Henry Harrison, was just over 68 years old when he assumed office in 1841, but his term was cut short just a month later when he died of what is now believed to have been typhoid. Harrison was, at the time, the oldest President to serve in the Oval Office, and he held that record for 140 years until Reagan was elected. Of the first 10 American Presidents, just three were over 60; of the most recent 10, half were over 60. Here are the 10 U.S. Presidents who were in their 60s when they were inaugurated.
– Ronald Reagan (40th President) — 69 years, 348 days
– William Henry Harrison (9th President) — 68 years, 23 days
– James Buchanan (15th President) — 65 years, 315 days
– George H.W. Bush (41st President) — 64 years, 222 days
– Zachary Taylor (12th President) — 64 years, 100 days
– Dwight D. Eisenhower (34th President) — 62 years, 98 days
– Andrew Jackson (7th President) — 61 years, 354 days
– John Adams (2nd President) — 61 years, 125 days
– Gerald R. Ford (38th President) — 61 years, 26 days
– Harry S. Truman (33rd President) — 60 years, 339 days
Over 50
Almost half of Americans surveyed by Pew Research in 2023 said that someone in their 50s was the ideal age for a President. It makes sense, then, that 55 is indeed the average age at inauguration — though only four Presidents were that exact age when sworn into office. They were Benjamin Harrison in 1889; Grover Cleveland, the only President to serve two nonconsecutive terms, at his second inauguration in 1893; Warren G. Harding in 1921; and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963. George W. Bush, part of one of only two father-son presidential duos, was 54 years old when he was sworn in as the 43rd President in 2001. His father, George H.W. Bush, was 10 years older than that when he was sworn in as the 41st President 12 years earlier in 1989. Of the 25 Presidents inaugurated in their 50s, three also died in their 50s while in office: 29th President William Harding, 25th President William McKinley, and 16th President Abraham Lincoln. Here is the list of Presidents who took office in their 50s.
– James Monroe (5th President) — 58 years, 310 days
– James Madison (4th President) — 57 years, 353 days
– Thomas Jefferson (3rd President) — 57 years, 325 days
– John Quincy Adams (6th President) — 57 years, 236 days
– George Washington (1st President) — 57 years, 68 days
– Andrew Johnson (17th President) — 56 years, 107 days
– Woodrow Wilson (28th President) — 56 years, 66 days
– Richard M. Nixon (37th President) — 56 years, 11 days
– Grover Cleveland (24th President) — 55 years, 351 days
– Benjamin Harrison (23rd President) — 55 years, 196 days
– Warren G. Harding (29th President) — 55 years, 122 days
– Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President) — 55 years, 87 days
– Herbert Hoover (31st President) — 54 years, 206 days
– George W. Bush (43rd President) — 54 years, 198 days
– Rutherford B. Hayes (19th President) — 54 years, 151 days
– Martin Van Buren (8th President) — 54 years, 89 days
– William McKinley (25th President) — 54 years, 34 days
– Jimmy Carter (39th President) — 52 years, 111 days
– Abraham Lincoln (16th President) — 52 years, 20 days
– Chester A. Arthur (21st President) — 51 years, 349 days
– William H. Taft (27th President) — 51 years, 170 days
– Franklin D. Roosevelt (32nd President) — 51 years, 33 days
– Calvin Coolidge (30th President) — 51 years, 29 days
– John Tyler (10th President) — 51 years, 6 days
– Millard Fillmore (13th President) — 50 years, 183 days
Over 40
Despite the minimum age of 35 required for the job, no one in their 30s has ever been elected President of the United States. John F. Kennedy remains the youngest elected President in U.S. history; he was 43 years, 236 days old at his 1961 inauguration. Although Theodore Roosevelt was younger, at 42, when he took office, his presidency was assumed, not voted on, after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. Roosevelt remains the youngest person to ever become President. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both defeated candidates more than 20 years their senior in 1992 and 2008, respectively. Clinton was inaugurated at the age of 46 in 1993 (George H.W. Bush was 68 at the time), and Barack Obama was first inaugurated in 2009 at the age of 47 (his opponent, John McCain, was 72). Here are the nine Presidents inaugurated in their 40s.
– James K. Polk (11th President) — 49 years, 123 days
– James A. Garfield (20th President) — 49 years, 105 days
– Franklin Pierce (14th President) — 48 years, 101 days
– Grover Cleveland (22nd President) — 47 years, 351 days
– Barack Obama (44th President) — 47 years, 169 days
– Ulysses S. Grant (18th President) — 46 years, 311 days
– Bill Clinton (42nd President) — 46 years, 154 days
– John F. Kennedy (35th President) — 43 years, 236 days
– Theodore Roosevelt (26th President) — 42 years, 322 days
As the world’s two oldest and largest democracies, the United States and India share a unique friendship, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s recent visit aims to strengthen this partnership, creating a safer and more prosperous Indo-Pacific, according to the White House.
Sullivan visited New Delhi from June 17 to 18, marking the first trip to India by a senior official from the Biden administration since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government secured its third term. During his visit, Sullivan met with Prime Minister Modi and his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, on Monday.
John Kirby, White House National Security Communications Advisor, highlighted the significance of the visit during his daily news conference on Monday. “As the world’s two oldest and largest democracies, the United States and India share a unique bond of friendship, and Mr. Sullivan’s trip will further deepen the already strong US-India partnership to create a safer and more prosperous Indo-Pacific,” Kirby stated.
In New Delhi, Sullivan will co-chair the US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET), a landmark partnership aimed at expanding strategic cooperation across key technology sectors. These sectors include space, semiconductors, advanced telecommunications, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, biotechnology, and clean energy.
Kirby refrained from commenting on the case of Indian national Nikhil Gupta, who has been accused of being involved in a murder-for-hire plot against Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on American soil. Gupta has been extradited to the US from the Czech Republic. “I don’t have more to add on the conversations that Jake’s having. He’s still over there having these conversations. But the main focus of his visit, as I said, was to look for ways to deepen the US-India bilateral relationship, particularly when it comes to emerging technology,” Kirby remarked.
Gupta appeared before a federal court in New York on Monday, where he pleaded not guilty. India has publicly stated that a high-level inquiry is examining the evidence shared by the US regarding the alleged plot to kill Pannun.
Sullivan’s visit underscores the importance of US-India relations, especially in the context of technological advancements and strategic cooperation. The iCET initiative represents a significant step in this direction, aiming to bolster collaboration in critical and emerging technologies that are pivotal for both nations’ security and prosperity.
The partnership between the US and India is built on shared democratic values and a commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific region. Sullivan’s visit is expected to enhance this partnership, fostering greater cooperation in areas that are crucial for global security and economic growth.
The discussions during Sullivan’s visit are likely to cover a wide range of topics, including defense cooperation, trade relations, and regional security issues. Both countries are keen to address common challenges and leverage their strengths to promote stability and development in the Indo-Pacific region.
The US-India relationship has seen significant growth in recent years, with increased collaboration in various fields, including defense, trade, and technology. Sullivan’s visit is seen as a continuation of this positive trend, aiming to further strengthen the ties between the two nations.
In addition to his meetings with Modi and Doval, Sullivan is expected to engage with other Indian officials and business leaders to discuss opportunities for collaboration and investment. The focus will be on identifying areas where the US and India can work together to achieve mutual benefits and address global challenges.
The iCET initiative is a prime example of the strategic cooperation between the US and India, highlighting the importance of technological innovation in driving economic growth and enhancing national security. By working together on critical technologies, both countries can ensure their continued leadership in these fields and contribute to global progress.
Sullivan’s visit also reflects the Biden administration’s commitment to strengthening alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region. The US sees India as a key partner in its efforts to maintain a balance of power and promote stability in the region. The visit aims to reinforce this partnership and explore new avenues for cooperation.
Overall, Sullivan’s visit to India is a significant milestone in the US-India relationship, emphasizing the importance of strategic cooperation in critical and emerging technologies. It is expected to pave the way for deeper collaboration and stronger ties between the two democracies, contributing to a safer and more prosperous Indo-Pacific region.
The discussions and outcomes of Sullivan’s visit will likely shape the future trajectory of US-India relations, with both countries poised to benefit from enhanced cooperation and shared goals. The focus on emerging technologies and strategic sectors underscores the forward-looking nature of the partnership, aimed at addressing contemporary challenges and harnessing new opportunities.
Sullivan’s visit to India marks an important step in the ongoing efforts to deepen the US-India partnership. With a focus on critical and emerging technologies, the visit is expected to yield positive outcomes for both nations, fostering greater cooperation and contributing to regional and global stability. The strong bond of friendship between the US and India continues to serve as a foundation for this partnership, driving progress and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
At its meeting on June 1, 2024, in Binghampton, NY, the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ (UCCNY) unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the violence against religious minorities in India, including Christians and Muslims. This marks the first such resolution by any UCC denomination, coming soon after a similar resolution by the United Methodist General Conference in April 2024.
The resolution begins by highlighting the dire situation in Manipur, where over 40,000 people have been displaced, 250 churches and 1,700 homes destroyed, and 120 people killed due to Hindu nationalist policies endorsed by India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Rev. Dr. Marsha Williams, Conference Minister and Ecumenical Officer, emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of this suffering, stating, “We want to publicly care for Christians and not only Christians, but other religious minorities who are suffering, and look at the root causes of that suffering in the Indian subcontinent. That should matter to every congregation in New York and around the nation.”
In a show of solidarity, the UCCNY resolved to support organizations like the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC), Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations of North America (FIACONA), Religions for Peace USA, Ecumenical Partners in Outreach, and the United Methodist General Conference. Williams further explained, “This is a call to draw the circle wide. It is our business to care about what happens around the globe and not just close to home. We need to take God out of the box. God is doing far more than what we’re imagining.”
The resolution specifically distinguishes between mainstream Hinduism and Hindutva, the latter being a form of Hindu nationalism which it addresses. It calls for India to be designated as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) due to its systematic, ongoing, and severe violations of religious freedom, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). Additionally, it condemns the continuous violations of religious freedoms and advocates for the human rights of all religious communities in India.
Further actions outlined in the resolution include urging U.S. representatives and the Biden administration to impose targeted sanctions on Indian government agencies and officials responsible for severe violations of religious freedom, including freezing their assets. The resolution also encourages UCCNY church members to contact their Congressional representatives to bring these violations to the attention of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Department of State, and the wider society.
Rev. Martha Koenig Stone, speaking on behalf of the UCC’s Commission On Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations, emphasized the necessity of international pressure to effect policy changes that harm vulnerable populations in India. She stated, “It is time to apply international pressure to demand a change in policies that demonize and target vulnerable people in India because we are in relationship with them. Just as we cannot stand for continued violence against Palestinians and reject any form of violence against Jews and Muslims, we must speak alongside others who are speaking for those who are oppressed. That conviction to address unjust policies is at the heart of our Christian faith because we care for the whole planet.”
Rev. Neal Christie, Executive Director of FIACONA, praised the UCC for its stance. “The UCC has taken a courageous step in raising awareness about the harm done by Hindu nationalist ideologies and policies in the U.S. and in India. The UCC has said that religion should not be weaponized. We stand with them in holding members of the U.S. Congress and the Biden Administration accountable for their role in allowing systemic harm to people simply because of the God they worship and the communities they belong to,” Christie said.
Rev. Prabhu Sigamani of the Farmingville UCC and director for the NY Conference, commented on the broader implications of the resolution. “The prosperity of a nation is determined by the well-being of all people, irrespective of religion, caste, creed, gender, and socio-economic status,” Sigamani stated. He added, “A nation can pride itself when its weakest community members are safe and secure, thereby experiencing liberty to the fullest extent without the fear of persecution. The fundamentals of all religions teach us love and forgiveness. Now can be the time for healing. I am urging the leaders to take action to stop the violence. As our prayers are ascending for your safety and peace, we believe that the blessings of Jesus Christ will descend so that there is peace and harmony.”
This resolution from the UCCNY highlights the critical need for global attention to religious freedom violations and the necessity of concerted international efforts to support oppressed religious minorities in India. Through its solidarity with various organizations and its call for political action, the UCCNY aims to foster a more just and peaceful world, reflecting the core values of their faith.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has expressed his eagerness for a “new generation” of leadership following President Biden’s anticipated reelection. During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Khanna was asked by Peter Alexander about his potential future presidential aspirations, given his active participation in Biden’s campaign. While Khanna did not confirm any plans to run for president, he emphasized the need for new leaders to emerge after Biden’s second term.
“I am so focused, as is everyone, in trying to get President Biden elected. But I will say this: This country is hungry after that for a new generation. And we’ve got tremendous talent in our party, and there are young people on the other side as well,” Khanna stated.
Khanna further mentioned his anticipation for a new wave of leadership post-Biden’s reelection. “I’m looking forward after President Biden is reelected to a new generation leading this country,” he added.
Earlier in the interview, Khanna acknowledged the difficulty of regaining young voters’ support for Biden, especially in light of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
“Well, the biggest thing we’re running out of time is more people dying. And we have to remember the humanitarian stakes. But, yes, it’s a challenge for our party. Young people want a war to end. But what young people want is a vision, and the president started that with the cease-fire,” he commented.
Khanna suggested that President Biden should adopt a more proactive stance in his second term, advocating for a two-state solution and a peace conference in the Middle East. “I hope he can go further, and he should call for two states. He should say in his second term he’s going to convene a peace conference in the Middle East, recognize a Palestinian state without Hamas, work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia on it,” Khanna proposed.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi concluded his one-day visit to Italy on Friday, where he participated in the G7 summit and held bilateral discussions with several global leaders, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Pope Francis.
In his address at the Outreach session of the G7 summit, held in Italy’s Apulia region, PM Modi emphasized the need to dismantle monopolies in technology, advocating for its innovative use to build an inclusive society. He stated, “Had a very productive day at the G7 Summit in Apulia. Interacted with world leaders and discussed various subjects. Together, we aim to create impactful solutions that benefit the global community and create a better world for future generations.”
PM Modi specifically addressed the importance of eliminating monopolies in technology, with a strong focus on artificial intelligence. He highlighted India’s proactive stance, noting that it is one of the first countries to develop a national strategy on artificial intelligence.
On the sidelines of the summit, PM Modi engaged in meetings with several world leaders, including US President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Pope Francis, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
Notably, PM Modi’s meeting with President Macron marked his first official bilateral discussion with an international leader since he commenced his third term as Prime Minister earlier this month.
Apart from India, Italy extended invitations to leaders from 11 developing countries across Africa, South America, and the Indo-Pacific region to participate in the G7 Summit.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced actions to promote family unity in the immigration process, consistent with the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to keeping families together. This announcement utilizes existing authorities to promote family unity, but only Congress can fix our broken immigration system.
Under current law, noncitizens married to a U.S. citizen may apply for lawful permanent residence through their marriage to a U.S. citizen. However, to apply for lawful permanent residence, many noncitizens must first depart the United States and wait to be processed abroad, resulting in a prolonged, potentially indefinite, period of separation from their U.S. citizen family members and causing tremendous hardship to all concerned. Consequently, these families live in fear and face deep uncertainty about their future.
To address this challenge, DHS will establish a new process to consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests for certain noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens who have lived in the United States for 10 years or more; do not pose a threat to public safety or national security; are otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status; and merit a favorable exercise of discretion. If eligible, these noncitizens will be able to apply for lawful permanent residence without having to leave the United States. DHS estimates that approximately 500,000 noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens could be eligible to access this process; on average, these noncitizens have resided in the United States for 23 years. Approximately 50,000 children of these spouses also will be eligible for this process. Noncitizens who pose a threat to national security or public safety will not be eligible for this process, as aligned with our immigration enforcement priorities. If a noncitizen poses a threat to national security or public safety, DHS will detain, remove, or refer them to other federal agencies for further vetting, investigation, or prosecution as appropriate.
Today’s actions build on unprecedented steps by the Biden-Harris Administration to strengthen family unity including by implementing family reunification parole processes for nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Ecuador; updating and modernizing the Cuban and Haitian family reunification parole processes; leading the Family Reunification Task Force to reunify nearly 800 children with their families who were separated; and establishing country-specific parole processes for certain nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) who have a U.S.-based supporter.
Eligibility and Process
To be considered on a case-by-case basis for this process, an individual must:
Be present in the United States without admission or parole;
Have been continuously present in the United States for at least 10 years as of June 17, 2024; and
Have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen as of June 17, 2024.
In addition, individuals must have no disqualifying criminal history or otherwise constitute a threat to national security or public safety and should otherwise merit a favorable exercise of discretion.
Noncitizen children of potential requestors may also be considered for parole under this process if they are physically present in the United States without admission or parole and have a qualifying stepchild relationship to a U.S. citizen as of June 17, 2024.
In order to be considered for parole, an individual will need to file a form with USCIS along with supporting documentation to show they meet the requirements and pay a fee. Further information regarding eligibility and the application process, including a notice in the Federal Register, will be published in the near term. USCIS will reject any filings or individual requests received before the date when the application period begins later this summer.
Upon receipt of a properly filed parole in place request USCIS will determine on a case-by-case basis whether a grant of parole is warranted and whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. All requests will take into consideration the potential requestor’s previous immigration history, criminal history, the results of background checks and national security and public safety vetting, and any other relevant information available to or requested by USCIS. USCIS has strong processes in place to identify and address potential fraud, which will be applied here to ensure the integrity of this program.
Other Action
In addition, DHS will join the Department of State in an effort to more efficiently facilitate certain employment-based nonimmigrant visas for eligible individuals, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and undocumented noncitizens, who have graduated from an accredited U.S. institution of higher education. By clarifying and enhancing the existing process, the Department of State’s policy will give U.S. employers increased confidence that they can hire the talent they need, and that they will be able to quickly get to work. DHS will implement the Department of State’s policy update.
About half of U.S. adults approve of Donald Trump’s recent felony conviction, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey reveals both potential vulnerabilities and resilience in Trump’s support as he aims to become the first American with a felony record to win the presidency.
With less than five months until Election Day, the poll depicts a nation with firmly entrenched views of the divisive former Republican president. Overall opinions of Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden remain unchanged since Trump’s guilty verdict in his New York hush money trial.
However, the findings also suggest Trump’s conviction is a weakness among disaffected Republicans. While most Americans are aware of the conviction, political independents are less likely to be paying attention and more likely to have a neutral opinion of Trump’s conviction, indicating campaigns may still sway them.
Nancy Hauser, a 74-year-old independent from West Palm Beach, Florida, approves of Trump’s conviction based on the little she followed of the trial. The verdict suggests to her that Trump may engage in criminal activity if back in the White House. “I feel if you’ve been convicted of a crime, especially a felony, a serious crime, how can you run a country?” she said. However, she also has concerns about Biden, especially his age and leadership on the economy and the war in Israel. Biden is 81, while Trump turns 78 on Friday. “I’m not sure who I’m voting for,” Hauser said. “That’s the sad part.”
Overall, U.S. adults are more likely to approve of Trump’s conviction than disapprove, according to a survey of 1,115 adults nationwide conducted over three days beginning a week after the verdict was delivered on May 30, and before Biden’s son Hunter was convicted in a federal gun case on Tuesday. About 3 in 10 somewhat or strongly disapprove of Trump’s conviction, and about 2 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove. Registered voters’ perspectives were similar, with about half saying the conviction was the right choice.
Republicans are less united on the verdict than Democrats. Roughly 6 in 10 Republicans somewhat or strongly disapprove of the conviction, while 15% of Republican adults approve, and about 2 in 10 Republicans neither approve nor disapprove. In contrast, more than 8 in 10 Democrats somewhat or strongly approve.
About half of Americans say the conviction was politically motivated, while a similar share think it was not. Nearly half of Republicans who have an unfavorable view of Trump do not see the conviction as politically motivated, compared with less than 1 in 10 Republicans who have a positive opinion of him.
Overall opinions of Trump have barely changed. About 6 in 10 U.S. adults have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, consistent with an AP-NORC poll from February. Four in 10 have a favorable view of Trump, also largely unchanged since February.
The numbers for Biden are equally poor: 4 in 10 U.S. adults have a favorable view of the Democratic president, while about 6 in 10 have a negative one.
Ron Schwartz, a 59-year-old moderate Republican from Dallas, said Trump was “probably guilty” of the alleged crimes, though he believes politics played a major role in the case. He thinks the charges should not have been felonies, a crime level that blocks those convicted from owning guns or voting in many states. Still, Schwartz plans to vote for Trump, as he did in the past two presidential elections, despite serious concerns about the former president’s character. “I think he’s a disgusting human being,” Schwartz said. “But he has some good policies and good ideas.”
Independents are split on Trump overall: About 4 in 10 have a positive view, while a similar share have a negative view. Nearly half did not express a strong opinion on the conviction, saying they neither approve nor disapprove.
Cassi Carey, a 60-year-old independent from suburban Milwaukee, said the conviction does not reflect well on Trump, though she acknowledges she was not paying close attention to the specifics. “I think Trump is a terrible choice for our country because of his divisiveness,” Carey said. She also lamented Biden’s advanced age, who turns 82 in November. “Someday in my lifetime, I want very much to be able to vote for a candidate and not against a candidate,” she said.
Overall, Americans are more likely to see Trump’s conviction as bad for the nation. About 4 in 10 adults describe it as a bad thing for the country, while about one-third say it was a good thing, and about 2 in 10 say it is neither. Regarding the U.S. democratic system, about 4 in 10 say the conviction is a good thing, with roughly the same share calling it a bad thing.
Trump continues to be overwhelmingly disliked by Democrats: 9 in 10 Democrats have an unfavorable view of him, with roughly 8 in 10 saying their opinion is “very unfavorable.” Democrat Oscar Baza, a 29-year-old Mexican immigrant from Los Angeles, said he approves of the Trump verdict, which he sees as evidence of “the judicial process working as it should.” “I just think it’s really worrisome that he’s on the ballot,” Baza said. “If you’ve been convicted of 34 counts of anything, you probably shouldn’t be leading anything; you should be going to therapy.”
The AP-NORC poll indicates that while Trump’s conviction has polarized opinions further, it has not significantly shifted overall views on him or Biden. Both candidates face challenges with their respective unfavorable ratings, and the upcoming election will likely see efforts to sway the undecided, particularly among independents.
Pope Francis is scheduled to meet with leaders from the United States, Ukraine, France, and India during the Group of 7 (G-7) summit in Italy’s Borgo Egnazia, as confirmed by the Vatican on Thursday. This marks the first time a Pope will participate in G-7 discussions, reflecting his engagement with global issues including the implications of artificial intelligence, which he has previously cautioned against.
In a statement outlining his agenda for the summit, the Vatican disclosed that Pope Francis will engage in individual discussions with several world leaders and key figures. According to the Vatican’s announcement, “Francis will have a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden, a fellow Catholic,” underscoring the significance of their shared faith and their potentially influential dialogue. Additionally, he is scheduled to meet privately with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Vatican’s statement further outlined Pope Francis’s extensive schedule, which includes meetings with a diverse array of global leaders. Among those scheduled are Brazilian former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, and Kristalina Georgieva, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
This initiative highlights Pope Francis’s proactive approach in engaging with international leaders to discuss pressing global issues, particularly focusing on the impact of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence. His participation in the G-7 summit underscores the Vatican’s commitment to contributing to discussions on matters crucial to global governance and societal well-being.
In this year’s U.S. presidential election, about 240 million people are eligible to vote, but the outcome is expected to hinge on a small number of swing states. Experts identify Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as the crucial battlegrounds that could determine whether Democratic President Joe Biden or his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, wins the White House.
Both parties are concentrating their efforts on these states to sway undecided voters. Here’s an in-depth look at each of these pivotal states:
Arizona
In 2020, Biden won Arizona, marking the first time since the 1990s that the state supported a Democratic presidential candidate. The state, which shares a long border with Mexico, has been central to the national immigration debate. During Biden’s tenure, border crossings hit record highs, creating significant political challenges. Although crossings have decreased recently, Biden has adopted a tougher stance, planning border shutdowns during surges.
Trump has capitalized on Biden’s immigration record, promising to conduct “the largest deportation operation” in U.S. history if re-elected. Arizona also became a flashpoint over abortion rights after state Republicans attempted to revive a near-total abortion ban from 160 years ago. The issue gained national prominence after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.
Georgia
Georgia is one of the states where Trump-backed Republicans tried to overturn Biden’s 2020 victory. Trump, along with 18 others, faces charges of conspiring to overturn his narrow loss in the state, although he denies any wrongdoing. This legal battle adds complexity to his campaign, particularly after his hush-money trial ended in a guilty verdict.
Georgia has a significant African-American population, which played a crucial role in Biden’s 2020 win. However, there is growing disillusionment among Black voters, who feel insufficient progress has been made on racial justice and economic issues. Whether this impacts voter turnout in 2024 remains to be seen.
Michigan
Michigan, a key state in the last two elections, has become a symbol of the backlash against Biden’s support for Israel during its conflict with Gaza. During the state’s Democratic primary, over 100,000 voters chose the “uncommitted” option, influenced by activists advocating for a U.S. ceasefire in Gaza and a halt to military aid to Israel. Michigan’s large Arab-American community’s support for Biden is now uncertain.
Trump has underscored Michigan’s importance for his path to victory, urging Israel to expedite its campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The state’s electoral significance remains high as both parties vie for support in this crucial region.
Nevada
Nevada, traditionally a Democratic stronghold in recent elections, shows signs of shifting towards the Republicans. Polling averages from 538 indicate Trump currently leads Biden in the state. Both candidates are focusing on winning over Nevada’s substantial Latino population.
Despite national economic growth under Biden, Nevada’s post-COVID recovery has lagged, with the state posting the highest unemployment rate in the country at 5.1%. Trump’s campaign promises a return to lower taxes and deregulation, appealing to voters dissatisfied with the current economic situation.
Pennsylvania
Like many Americans, Pennsylvanians are grappling with inflation-driven cost-of-living increases, particularly in grocery prices, which have risen faster there than in any other state. Erie, a bellwether county, exemplifies these struggles, with one in eight residents facing food insecurity.
Pennsylvania was crucial in Biden’s 2020 victory, buoyed by his personal connection to Scranton, a working-class city. However, high inflation could jeopardize his support, as polls indicate voters have a negative view of the economy. Trump has attacked Biden on this issue, but he also faces competition from Republican primary rival Nikki Haley, who performed well in Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s razor-thin margins in both 2016 and 2020 underscore its status as a key battleground. Third-party candidates could influence the outcome in such closely contested states. Polls suggest support for independents like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who aims to get on the ballot in Wisconsin and other states, might affect the vote shares of both major candidates.
Trump has emphasized Wisconsin’s importance, saying, “if we win Wisconsin, we win the whole thing.” The state will host the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, highlighting its strategic significance. Biden, meanwhile, touts new investments like a Microsoft data center as evidence of his job-creating efforts, contrasting his record with Trump’s unfulfilled promises.
The fate of the 2024 presidential election hinges on a handful of swing states. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will likely determine the next occupant of the White House. Both Biden and Trump face unique challenges and opportunities in these critical battlegrounds, making their campaigns’ efforts to win over undecided and disillusioned voters crucial for victory.
Nate Silver, the well-known election analyst and founder of “FiveThirtyEight,” suggested on Monday that President Biden’s recent disapproval ratings might prompt the Democratic frontrunner to reconsider his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.
“But Biden just hit a new all-time low in approval (37.4%) at 538 yesterday. Dropping out would be a big risk. But there’s some threshold below which continuing to run is a bigger risk. Are we there yet? I don’t know. But it’s more than fair to ask,” Silver posted on Monday.
Silver argued that Democrats might have had a stronger position if Biden had decided against running for a second term earlier. This decision could have allowed for a more competitive primary process among various popular Democrats nationwide.
“What’s clearer IMO is that Democrats would have been better served if Biden had decided a year ago not to seek a second term, which would have allowed them to have some semblance of a primary process and give voters a say among the many popular Democrats across the country,” he wrote.
Highlighting the unique nature of the current political situation, Silver noted the improbability of an 81-year-old president seeking re-election amidst widespread concerns about his age and enduring high inflation.
“If I’d told you 10 years ago a president would seek re-election at 81 despite a supermajority of Americans having concerns about his age, and then we’d hit 8% inflation for 2 years, you wouldn’t be surprised he was an underdog for reelection. You’d be surprised it was even close!,” he said.
Silver also responded to critics who suggested he should focus more on former President Trump. He clarified that he also believes Trump should exit the race, noting the significant challenges Biden faces in a head-to-head comparison.
“‘Trump should drop out too!’ is such [a] weird dunk on people who are pointing out that Biden has big challenges. Yes, Trump should drop out! I agree! Biden would lose by 7 points [against a different candidate], but I agree, the Republican Party and the country would be better served by a different nominee.” Silver wrote.
Despite these concerns, Biden and some of his top advisors reportedly do not believe the negative poll numbers.
A recent Fox News Poll indicates a tight race between Trump and Biden in Virginia, a state Biden won by a significant margin in 2020.
The poll, released last Thursday, shows both Biden and Trump with 48% each in a head-to-head matchup in the Old Dominion State.
People in 34 countries around the globe have expressed greater confidence in President Joe Biden than in his opponent, former President Donald Trump, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday. Despite this, there is growing skepticism about whether U.S. democracy serves as a suitable model for the rest of the world.
The survey found that a median of 43% in the surveyed nations trust Biden to handle world affairs appropriately, compared to 28% for Trump. Biden received more favorable assessments than Trump in 24 countries, while Trump led in Hungary and Tunisia. The two men were effectively tied in eight other countries.
The increased confidence in Biden comes amid a decline in global faith in U.S. democracy. While a median of 54% across the 34 countries polled view the U.S. positively, a median of four in ten believe that U.S. democracy was once a good example for other nations but no longer is. Only a median of 21% believe U.S. democracy remains a good example, with an almost equal share, 22%, saying it never has been. Since the spring of 2021, the only other time Pew asked this question, the share of those who believe U.S. democracy is a good example has fallen in eight countries, mostly in Europe.
“People just don’t see the U.S. political system as functioning very well,” said Richard Wike, director of global attitudes research for Pew. “People see the U.S. as really divided along partisan lines.”
There is a far smaller global divide between Trump and Biden. Confidence in Biden to do the right thing in world affairs has decreased since his first year in office but remains significantly higher than that of Trump, who had relatively low global ratings during his presidency. Biden’s lowest confidence ratings were for his handling of the Israel-Hamas war, with a median of 57% expressing no confidence in his approach.
A median of 39% in the surveyed countries approved of Biden’s handling of the war in Ukraine, with his highest ratings in European nations. Approximately four in ten were confident in his handling of China.
Of the five leaders rated in the survey, French President Emmanuel Macron had the highest level of confidence, just ahead of Biden, while Russian President Vladimir Putin received the lowest.
Confidence in Biden has waned in countries such as South Africa, Israel, and the U.K., but it remains consistently higher than that in Trump. Trump’s lowest ratings were in Europe, where more than eight in ten adults in France, Germany, and Sweden expressed no confidence in him. He also received poor ratings in Latin America.
Africa, which Wike noted tends to have positive views of U.S. presidents, registered some of Trump’s best numbers. Even in the two countries where Trump had higher confidence ratings than Biden, the numbers were still low. In Tunisia, for instance, only 17% expressed confidence in Trump.
Hungary is the other country where adults reported higher confidence in Trump than Biden, but the endorsement was tepid. Trump has embraced Hungary and its autocratic prime minister, Viktor Orbán, yet only 37% of Hungarians expressed confidence in Trump, compared to 24% for Biden.
The median confidence in Trump’s ability to do the right thing in world affairs was only slightly higher across the 34 countries than it was for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his inaugural overseas visit since assuming office for a third consecutive term, is set to participate in the annual summit of the G7 advanced economies in Italy this week. The summit, slated from June 13 to 15, is expected to grapple with pressing global issues such as the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the intensifying war in Ukraine. The venue for this high-profile gathering is the lavish resort town of Borgo Egnazia in Italy’s Apulia region.
The summit will see the participation of prominent world leaders including US President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Notably, there is a scheduled meeting to discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Modi’s travel itinerary, as per sources familiar with the matter, indicates his departure for Italy on June 13, with a return slated for late June 14. This marks Modi’s premier foreign visit since commencing his third term as prime minister. While the formal announcement of Modi’s trip to Italy is pending, sources suggest he will be accompanied by a high-level delegation comprising NSA Ajit Doval, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra, and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. Among the slated bilateral engagements, the prime minister is set to meet with Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy.
It’s noteworthy that Modi had attended the previous G7 summit in Hiroshima last May. Ahead of the summit, he engaged in discussions with Zelenskyy and various other global leaders. The G7, consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, and Japan, is pivotal in shaping global agendas. Italy’s current presidency of the G7 entails hosting the summit.
Under Italy’s presidency, there is a clear emphasis on upholding the rules-based international order. Italy contends that Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine undermines these foundational principles, leading to escalating instability and crises worldwide. Additionally, the G7 aims to accord significant attention to the Middle East conflict due to its far-reaching global ramifications.
Originally established as the G8 in 1997, with Russia included, the bloc saw an expansion until 2013. However, Russia’s involvement was suspended in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea. As per tradition, the host country extends invitations to various countries and international organizations for summit participation.
Italy, besides India, has invited leaders from 11 developing nations across Africa, South America, and the Indo-Pacific region. Interestingly, despite not being a G7 member, the European Union participates in the annual summit, indicative of the event’s global significance.
The United Nations Security Council has endorsed a U.S. resolution supporting a ceasefire plan for the conflict in Gaza. The resolution outlines conditions for a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of hostages held by Hamas, the return of deceased hostages’ remains, and an exchange of Palestinian prisoners. The resolution passed with 14 out of 15 Security Council members voting in favor; Russia abstained.
The resolution acknowledges Israel’s acceptance of the ceasefire plan and urges Hamas to agree as well. This aligns the Security Council with several governments and the G7 group of wealthy nations in backing the three-part plan presented by President Joe Biden on May 31. Biden initially described it as an Israeli ceasefire proposal.
Israel’s proposal, submitted to the U.S. and mediators Qatar and Egypt, is reportedly more detailed than Biden’s summary. The full content remains undisclosed, and it is uncertain if it differs from what Biden presented. Israel’s three-man war cabinet agreed to the proposal, but it has not been shared with the broader government, where some far-right ministers have already voiced opposition.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not explicitly stated his support for Biden’s version of the plan. The resolution’s approval came soon after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with regional leaders, including Netanyahu, to garner support for the ceasefire. Before the UN vote, Blinken urged regional leaders to pressure Hamas to accept the ceasefire, stating, “If you want a ceasefire, press Hamas to say yes.”
Hamas has indicated support for parts of the plan and welcomed the Security Council resolution in a statement on Monday. They emphasized their demand for a permanent ceasefire, a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the exchange of Palestinian prisoners. Hamas is prepared to cooperate with mediators and engage in “indirect negotiations,” although its political leadership in Doha has not formally responded to the proposal, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
The proposal’s ultimate goal includes a significant reconstruction plan for Gaza, which has suffered extensive destruction. The first phase involves a hostage-prisoner swap and a short-term ceasefire. The second phase aims for a “permanent end to hostilities” and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as outlined in the U.S. draft resolution. The third phase focuses on Gaza’s long-term outlook and initiates a multi-year reconstruction plan.
The resolution follows President Biden’s announcement ten days prior that Israel had agreed to the plan. While Biden framed the peace initiative as Israeli, the U.S. is aware of Israel’s internal political challenges. Some far-right ministers threaten to collapse the government if the deal progresses, reflecting the fractious nature of Israel’s ruling coalition. Former general and centrist Benny Gantz’s resignation from the war cabinet on Sunday exacerbates this instability.
Biden’s account on X (formerly Twitter) highlighted the resolution’s passage, stating, “Hamas says it wants a ceasefire. This deal is an opportunity to prove they mean it.” U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, remarked, “Today we voted for peace.” UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward described the Gaza situation as “catastrophic” and urged all parties to seize this opportunity for lasting peace and stability. UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron also welcomed the resolution.
Russia abstained, with its UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia questioning the clarity of the deal and Israel’s true commitment to ending its military operation in Gaza. Nebenzia asked, “Given the many statements from Israel on the extension of the war until Hamas is completely defeated… what specifically has Israel agreed to?” Despite voting in favor, China also expressed concerns about the resolution’s effectiveness, referencing previous UN resolutions on the conflict that were not implemented.
On March 25, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. The U.S. had previously vetoed similar measures, arguing that such actions would hinder ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas. However, the U.S. abstained from the March resolution rather than vetoing it. Netanyahu criticized the U.S. at that time for “abandoning” its stance linking a ceasefire to the release of hostages.
The conflict began when Hamas attacked southern Israel on October 7, resulting in approximately 1,200 deaths and the capture of about 251 hostages. According to the Hamas-run health ministry, Gaza’s death toll has exceeded 37,000 since Israel’s retaliatory response.
The Security Council’s resolution and the broader international support for the ceasefire plan reflect a significant diplomatic effort to address the ongoing conflict and pave the way for lasting peace and reconstruction in Gaza.
Joy in Israel over the successful rescue of four hostages has quickly faded as the harsh realities of the ongoing nine-month war in Gaza persist. Despite the operation’s success, deep-seated divisions remain largely unchanged. The rescue operation on Saturday saw the liberation of four hostages, including Noa Argamani, who was abducted on October 7 during the Nova music festival—a moment captured on video. This success, however, came at a heavy cost. Gaza’s Health Ministry reported on Sunday that at least 270 Palestinians were killed and another 700 were injured, making it one of the bloodiest days in the conflict. Many more are believed to be buried under rubble.
In a significant political development, Benny Gantz announced his resignation from Israel’s war Cabinet. Gantz, a major political rival of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated his resignation was due to the failure to establish a postwar plan for Gaza. In a televised address, Gantz accused Netanyahu of obstructing Israel’s path to “a real victory” and apologized to the families of the hostages, admitting, “we failed” to bring most of them home.
Macron Dissolves French Parliament
In a surprising political move, President Emmanuel Macron has decided to dissolve the lower house of France’s parliament, leaving the country’s political fate in the hands of voters. This decision follows a significant defeat for his party at the hands of the far right in the European Union’s parliamentary elections on Saturday. Marine Le Pen’s far-right, anti-immigration National Rally party outperformed Macron’s centrist, pro-European Renaissance party, according to projections by French opinion poll institutes.
Macron’s decision to call for new elections is a high-risk gamble. If an opposition party secures a majority in parliament, it could lead to a challenging cohabitation scenario, where Macron would have to appoint a prime minister from an opposing party, potentially leading to significant policy conflicts. Macron’s current term as president still has three years remaining. The legislative elections are scheduled to take place in two rounds on June 30 and July 7.
Trump to Attend Probation Interview
Former President Donald Trump is set to participate in a virtual interview with a New York City probation officer today, a requirement following his guilty verdict in the hush money trial. Sources familiar with the situation said that Trump will conduct the interview from his Mar-a-Lago residence, with his attorney Todd Blanche present, using a specially secured virtual network.
Legal experts have noted the unusual nature of a probation interview conducted via video conference, yet acknowledged that having a former president visit a probation office in person would also be unprecedented. The interview could cover various topics related to Trump’s trial and sentencing.
Leonard Peltier’s Last Chance for Parole
Native American activist Leonard Peltier, who has consistently maintained his innocence in the murders of two FBI agents nearly 50 years ago, is scheduled for a full parole hearing today. This is Peltier’s first hearing in 15 years and is considered by his supporters to be his last chance for release. At 79 years old, Peltier’s age, declining health, and nonviolent behavior in prison are being emphasized by his attorney as reasons to grant parole.
Peltier was involved in a 1975 gunfight on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, which resulted in the deaths of two FBI agents. His case has been the subject of extensive scrutiny regarding the investigation and trial procedures. Despite these concerns, the FBI remains firm in its opposition to Peltier’s release.
Surge in Hair Loss Medication Usage and Concerns
An increasing number of young men are turning to medication to prevent hair loss, sparking concerns about potential side effects. An NBC News report revealed that finasteride prescriptions have nearly tripled in the U.S. over the past seven years. A New York City dermatologist mentioned, “It’s like water in my clinic. I’m prescribing it all the time.”
While doctors generally consider the daily pill safe, it must be taken continuously to maintain its effects. Controversy surrounds the drug due to reports of impotence and other side effects that may persist even after discontinuing the medication. This has led to ongoing debates about the drug’s safety and the need for awareness about its potential risks.
Political Briefs
Abortion Rights:The Supreme Court is poised to rule on two major abortion cases this month, the first since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. One case involves the abortion pill mifepristone, and the other pertains to a near-total ban on abortion in Idaho. Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley discusses the implications of these rulings.
Biden in France:During his visit to France, President Joe Biden sought to draw a stark contrast with his Republican rival, Donald Trump, without mentioning him by name. Biden’s five-day trip culminated in a visit to a cemetery imbued with political symbolism, underscoring his differences with Trump’s policies and approach.
These events illustrate a world grappling with significant political, social, and legal challenges, from the enduring conflict in Gaza and political upheaval in France to high-stakes legal proceedings in the United States and evolving medical controversies.
Since last week’s conviction of former President Trump on 34 felony counts, he and his supporters have been fixated on seeking revenge.
Within an hour of the verdict, Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) took to social media, suggesting it was time for “Red State AGs and DAs to get busy.”
Trump himself hinted at possible retaliation against Democrats, stating to Newsmax that it was “very possible” they could face prosecution in the future. He reiterated this sentiment on Fox News, asserting his “right to go after them” following his own legal battles.
His call for retribution extended to members of the House special committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, whom he suggested should face indictment. In an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, he even justified revenge, saying, “sometimes revenge can be justified.”
Trump has repeatedly framed his potential reelection as the ultimate revenge, asserting that his success would unify a deeply divided nation. However, concerns have risen about the emphasis on revenge from Trump and his allies, particularly in light of his unprecedented felony conviction.
According to Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), the use of the criminal justice system to target political adversaries undermines fundamental American values. He dismissed Republican attempts to paint legal actions against Trump as politically motivated, insisting there’s no evidence to support such claims.
Since his indictment last year, Trump has openly suggested targeting his opponents across various states, including proposing a special prosecutor to investigate the Biden family.
Republican lawmakers, echoing Trump’s grievances, have threatened repercussions against prosecutors and even floated the possibility of their own future prosecution.
Following Trump’s conviction, Republicans have called for cuts to federal funding for the Department of Justice and state-level prosecutors. Although such measures have limited impact, they signal a growing willingness to challenge legal institutions.
Some Republicans anticipate a more aggressive approach once Trump assumes office again, with his own appointees potentially reshaping the Justice Department.
Despite attempts from media figures to dissuade Trump from pursuing vendettas, he remains steadfast, attributing his conviction to political persecution.
While some lawmakers emphasize the importance of accountability and systemic improvements, others focus on retaliatory actions against perceived adversaries.
Despite criticisms of bias, Trump’s guilty verdict was unanimous, highlighting the strength of the case against him.
Democrats reject claims of unfair targeting, pointing to ongoing legal proceedings involving figures from both parties.
Trump’s fixation on revenge could harm him politically, with the Biden campaign contrasting his attacks on the justice system with the president’s focus on public issues and international diplomacy.
Biden has condemned Trump’s assaults on the legal system, warning of the damage to public trust in vital institutions.
In the wake of his criminal convictions, Trump’s priorities appear centered on preserving his own freedoms, raising questions about his motives and intentions moving forward.
President Joe Biden commemorated the 80th anniversary of D-Day on Thursday, using the occasion to warn against isolationism and affirm the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Speaking in Normandy, Biden emphasized the strength alliances provide, calling the D-Day beaches “a powerful illustration of how alliances make us stronger,” and prayed Americans never forget this lesson.
Biden addressed a crowd of aging World War II veterans, many over 100 years old and in wheelchairs. He acknowledged that soon “the last living voices of those who fought and bled on D-Day will no longer be with us,” urging the nation to remember the significance of the postwar democratic order. “We cannot let what happened here be lost in the silence of the years to come,” Biden stated. “The fact that they were heroes here that day does not absolve us of what we have to do today.”
His speech combined solemn reflections with urgent calls for action. Flanked by French President Emmanuel Macron, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and dozens of American veterans, Biden praised the bravery of World War II’s last living fighters and linked their efforts to the current conflict in Ukraine. Highlighting the recent NATO expansion and the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion, he promised never to yield to autocrats like Russian President Vladimir Putin. The coalition supporting Ukraine “will not walk away,” Biden declared, warning that “all of Europe will be threatened” if Ukraine falls. “The autocrats of the world are watching closely … to surrender to bullies, to bow down to dictators, is simply unthinkable.”
This speech marked the beginning of a multi-day trip, during which Biden will honor one of the most significant military battles in U.S. history and reiterate the importance of democratic values. Biden arrived at the Normandy American Cemetery early, met with 41 D-Day veterans—most of whom are over 100 years old—and recorded an interview with ABC News anchor David Muir. Alongside First Lady Jill Biden, the president greeted each veteran personally in a gazebo overlooking Omaha Beach, saluting and shaking hands with all before posing for pictures.
To one 102-year-old veteran, Biden remarked, “The greatest generation ever, man. You saved the world.” He bent down to look another veteran in the eyes and repeated, “You saved the world.”
As the ceremony began, approximately 170 American WWII veterans were brought in on wheelchairs, highlighting both the time elapsed since D-Day and the likelihood that this would be the last major commemoration with a significant number of living veterans present. Macron, who spoke before Biden, emphasized the “eternal bond” between the U.S. and France, describing it as a “blood tie, shed for liberty.” He honored the soldiers who landed on Normandy’s beaches, noting their sacrifices and recounting several veterans’ histories of service. “The free world needed each of you and you said yes when we asked for help,” Macron said, switching to English for this part of his speech. “And you are back here today at home.”
Later that afternoon, Biden planned to attend a larger D-Day commemoration at Omaha Beach alongside world leaders such as Macron, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who is likely to become NATO’s next secretary general. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was also expected to attend. Biden and Zelenskyy were anticipated to have a brief discussion on recent developments in Russia’s invasion and potential additional security measures.
On Friday, Biden will return to Normandy to deliver a more extensive speech at Pointe du Hoc, a significant 100-foot cliff scaled by Army Rangers during the D-Day invasion. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan explained that these back-to-back speeches aim to “draw a through line” from World War II, through the Cold War, to the present day. “The Pointe du Hoc speech is a speech about, in his view, timeless principles — principles that have served as the foundation of American security and American democracy for generations — including the generation that scaled those cliffs, including today’s generation, including the next generation,” Sullivan told reporters on Air Force One.
In his address, Biden underscored the connection between the sacrifices of the past and the current global struggle for democracy, using the memory of D-Day to highlight the importance of unity and continued vigilance against authoritarianism.
An Israeli airstrike on a United Nations school housing displaced Palestinians in central Gaza has resulted in the deaths of at least 35 people. Local journalists informed the BBC that the attack involved two missiles striking classrooms on the top floor of the school situated in the urban Nuseirat refugee camp. Videos from the scene depicted widespread destruction and numerous casualties.
The Israeli military claimed it conducted a “precise strike on a Hamas compound” within the school, eliminating many of the 20 to 30 fighters it believed were present. Contrarily, Gaza’s Hamas-run Government Media Office refuted this assertion, condemning the strike as a “horrific massacre.”
Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (Unrwa), which operates the school, described the incident as “horrific.” He expressed shock at the allegation that armed groups were in the shelter, although this could not be verified.
Casualties were transported to the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Hospital in nearby Deir al-Balah, which has been overwhelmed since Israel initiated a new ground offensive against Hamas in central Gaza earlier in the week.
The precise circumstances of the strike remain unclear, with the BBC working to confirm details. Local journalists and residents reported that the attack occurred early Thursday morning at al-Sardi school in a southeastern section of the densely populated, decades-old camp, where Unrwa provides services. The school was crowded with hundreds of displaced individuals who had fled other conflict zones within Gaza. Throughout the almost eight-month-long war, 1.7 million people have sought refuge in schools and other UN facilities.
Udai Abu Elias, a resident at the school, recounted to BBC Arabic’s Gaza Today programme: “I was asleep when the incident occurred. Suddenly, we heard a loud explosion and shattered glass and debris from the building fell on us.” He added, “Smoke filled the air, and I couldn’t see anything. I didn’t expect to make it out alive. I heard someone calling for survivors to come out from under the rubble. I struggled to see as I stumbled over the bodies of the martyrs.”
Another resident, Jabr, described waking up to “the sight of bodies and [human] remains everywhere,” while another unnamed individual noted that the casualties included “elderly people, young individuals, and children.” Social media videos depicted the devastation of several classrooms and bodies wrapped in white shrouds and blankets. One injured woman cried out in a video, “Enough war! We have been displaced dozens of times. They killed our children while they were sleeping.”
Initial reports suggested over 20 deaths, but an official at al-Aqsa hospital later informed a BBC freelancer that 40 bodies had been received from the school. Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry confirmed this toll, listing 40 dead, including 14 children and nine women, with 74 others injured. Ismail al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Government Media Office, corroborated these figures.
Unrwa’s Philippe Lazzarini stated on X, formerly Twitter, that at least 35 people were killed and many more injured, based on reports from Unrwa staff on the ground. Juliette Touma, Unrwa’s director of communications, echoed this, noting that “the figures are coming from our own Unrwa colleagues on the ground.”
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) justified the strike as targeting a Hamas compound within the Unrwa school. They released an annotated aerial photograph indicating classrooms on two upper floors as “locations of the terrorists.” The IDF claimed that members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad involved in the October 7 attack on southern Israel, which resulted in 1,200 deaths and 251 hostages, were operating from the building. The IDF stated that steps were taken to minimize civilian casualties, including aerial surveillance and additional intelligence gathering.
Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, an IDF spokesman, asserted that 20 to 30 fighters used the school for planning and executing attacks, many of whom were killed in the strike. He added, “I’m not aware of any civilian casualties and I’d be very, very cautious of accepting anything that Hamas puts out.” Lerner also mentioned that the IDF had twice aborted the attack to reduce civilian harm and accused Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad of using UN facilities as operational bases.
Ismail al-Thawabta refuted the IDF’s allegations, stating, “The occupation uses lying to the public opinion through false fabricated stories to justify the brutal crime it conducted against dozens of displaced people.”
Lazzarini lamented that the school was hit “without prior warning” to Unrwa or the 6,000 displaced individuals sheltering there. He found the claims of armed groups being inside the shelter “shocking” but noted Unrwa could not verify these claims. He emphasized, “Attacking, targeting or using UN buildings for military purposes are a blatant disregard of International Humanitarian law. UN staff, premises and operations must be protected at all times.”
Lazzarini highlighted that over 180 Unrwa buildings had been struck since the war began, despite their coordinates being shared with conflict parties, resulting in more than 450 displaced individuals’ deaths. He demanded accountability for these actions.
The Gaza health ministry reports that at least 36,650 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel’s military campaign began, following the October 7 attack, with figures not distinguishing between civilians and combatants.
Recently, the Israeli military claimed operational control over eastern Bureij refugee camp, adjacent to Nuseirat, and eastern Deir al-Balah, with residents noting intense bombardment. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that al-Aqsa hospital received at least 70 bodies, mostly women and children, in the past 24 hours.
A previous Israeli airstrike on a tented camp for displaced people near an Unrwa base in Rafah, targeting senior Hamas officials, drew international outrage when a resulting fire killed dozens of Palestinians. The IDF called the loss of life “tragic” and investigated the possibility of an explosion from Hamas-stored ammunition.
Efforts to broker a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas were revived following this incident. US President Joe Biden recently detailed an Israeli proposal to Hamas, suggesting a six-week truce to release some hostages in exchange for Palestinians from Israeli jails, followed by a permanent ceasefire. A joint statement from the US, UK, and 16 other countries urged Israeli and Hamas leaders to finalize a deal to alleviate the hostage families’ suffering.
Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh expressed a willingness to consider a proposal based on ending the war and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains firm on not agreeing to a ceasefire before defeating Hamas and releasing hostages, striving for “total victory.”
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden announced an immediate suspension of asylum processing at the U.S.-Mexico border whenever illegal entries exceed a specific limit he considers excessive. This policy change, effective immediately, is activated when arrests for illegal entry hit 2,500, a significant shift amid an election year that has seen Biden criticized by Republicans for an unprecedented surge in new arrivals.
The U.S. currently experiences about 4,000 daily entries, and this new measure has raised concerns among advocates who argue it endangers migrants and violates international obligations to provide safe haven for those whose lives are at risk. The Biden administration disputes these claims. Legal challenges are expected.
There are questions about the efficacy of this measure in curbing large-scale migrant entries. Although Mexico has agreed to accept back non-Mexican migrants, it will do so only in limited numbers. Additionally, the Biden administration lacks the necessary funding and diplomatic support to deport migrants to distant countries such as China and those in Africa.
Under the current system, asylum seekers can generally live and work in the U.S. while their claims are processed by the overwhelmed immigration courts. This new policy, however, alters the landscape significantly.
How Will This Play Out on the Ground?
The policy suspends asylum processing until average daily arrests for illegal crossings drop below 1,500 for a consecutive week, a threshold last seen in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike the pandemic-related asylum restrictions known as Title 42, which carried no legal consequences and encouraged repeat attempts, the new policy will issue deportation orders to those denied a chance to seek asylum. This exposes them to criminal prosecution if they attempt to re-enter and bans them from legally entering the country for several years.
“We are ready to repatriate a record number of people in the coming days,” stated Blas Nuñez-Neto, assistant homeland security secretary for border and immigration policy, during a conference call for Spanish-language reporters.
Migrants expressing fear for their safety upon deportation will be screened by U.S. asylum officers under stricter standards than currently in place. If they pass this screening, they may pursue other forms of humanitarian protection, such as those outlined in the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Unaccompanied children are exempt, which may lead some parents to send their children across the border alone.
**What Role Does Mexico Play?**
Mexico’s role is crucial. The U.S. has limited resources to fly migrants back to over 100 countries, including many in Africa and Asia. It also lacks the diplomatic influence and logistical arrangements necessary to deport large numbers of migrants to countries like China, Russia, and Venezuela.
A 1997 court order generally restricts the detention of families with children under 18 to 20 days, an ambitious and likely unrealistic timeframe for screening and deporting those expressing fear of deportation. Even for single adults, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the capacity to detain only about 34,000 people at a time.
Mexico has agreed to take back up to 30,000 people per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, in addition to Mexicans. However, this commitment does not extend to other nationalities. This year, Mexico has also made it more difficult for migrants to reach the U.S. border by preventing them from riding freight trains and stopping them on buses to turn them back to southern Mexico. While Mexican authorities block migrants’ progress, relatively few are deported, leaving many stranded in Mexican cities far from the U.S. border.
Alicia Bárcena, Mexico’s foreign relations secretary, stated last month that Mexico will not allow more than 4,000 illegal entries per day. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, set to take office on October 1, is expected to continue the policies of her mentor, current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Has This Been Tried Before?
This measure is the latest in a series of attempts by both the Biden and Trump administrations to deter asylum seekers, none of which have had lasting effects. In May 2023, Biden imposed similar restrictions on asylum for those crossing the border illegally after passing through another country, such as Mexico. A federal appeals court has allowed those restrictions to remain in place while advocates challenge them, but their impact appears minimal.
Illegal crossings decreased following last year’s restrictions, but the reduction was temporary as the number of screening officers was insufficient for the task. The application of the rule to only a small percentage of arrests highlighted the gap between budget allocations and policy ambitions.
Biden invoked a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing the president to ban entry for groups of people if their presence “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Former President Donald Trump used this power to ban entry from predominantly Muslim countries, though advocacy groups are likely to argue that Biden has not adequately met the “detrimental” criterion.
This latest policy shift reflects ongoing efforts to manage and control the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, balancing international obligations with domestic pressures and resource limitations. The effectiveness and legality of the new measure will be closely scrutinized in the coming months, as its implementation impacts both migrants and the broader immigration system.
Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee announced that they raised a substantial $141 million in May. This significant fundraising total includes tens of millions of dollars that flowed in following Trump’s guilty verdict in his criminal hush money trial.
Although Trump’s campaign is not obliged to reveal its fundraising figures to the Federal Election Commission until later this month, they chose to disclose the numbers early. This decision highlights their belief that the influx of contributions is a testament to the former president’s supporters rallying behind him after the verdict and indicates that it will not impede his pursuit of a return to the White House.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s campaign has not yet released its fundraising totals for May. In April, Trump and the Republican Party raised $76 million, surpassing the $51 million reported by Biden and the Democratic National Committee for the same month.
The extent of Trump and the GOP’s expenditures in May remains unclear. However, the considerable sum raised could help reduce the financial disparity with Biden, which has been a consistent challenge throughout the campaign.
In a press release on Monday, Trump’s campaign stated that it received over two million donations in May, with an average contribution of $70.27. A notable 37.6% of this amount came from online donations within 24 hours of the verdict announcement. Additionally, about a quarter of the donors were new to the campaign.
“We are moved by the outpouring of support for President Donald J. Trump. The American people saw right through Crooked Joe Biden’s rigged trial, and sent Biden and Democrats a powerful message – the REAL verdict will come on November 5th,” said Trump Campaign senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles in a statement.
In response, Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa remarked that they would “see how the numbers actually shake out” when officially reported. He also commented, “one thing’s for certain: Trump’s billionaire friends are propping up the campaign of a white-collar crook because they know the deal – they cut him checks and he cuts their taxes while working people and the middle class pay the tab.”
Last week, Trump’s campaign announced it had raised over $50 million online within 24 hours after the Manhattan jury delivered its verdict. This verdict made Trump the first former president and first major party presumptive nominee in the nation’s history to be convicted of a crime.
The federal government’s top consumer watchdog is establishing a registry to track companies and people who repeatedly break consumer protection laws, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced Monday.
Initially proposed in December 2022, the new rule will require non-bank companies hit with local, state or federal consumer protection-related court or agency enforcement orders to register with the CFPB and a senior executive from the company to attest the company is not still offending.
“Too often, financial firms treat penalties for illegal activity as the cost of doing business,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. “The CFPB’s new rule will help law enforcement across the country detect and stop repeat offenders.”
The registry will publicly disclose information and orders entered after an agency or court has found the company or individual has committed wrongdoing or something illegal, a CFPB official said. The bureau has not established an appeal or delisting process, as was requested in comments on the initial proposed rule.
The CFPB proposed the rule in December 2022, and a CFPB official told reporters Monday the final rule includes changes to cut down on duplicate registration, increase the exemption threshold to $5 million in revenue and create an implementation schedule.
Larger non-bank participants will be among the first tranche of registrations due Jan. 14, 2025, a CFPB official said. Other supervised companies will have until April 14, 2025, and July 14, 2025.
The bureau expects the public registry to go live sometime next year.
“This registry is part of a serious and concerted effort at the CFPB to rein in repeat offenders,” Chopra told reporters Monday. “When companies believe that violating the law is more profitable than following it, this totally undermines public trusts and harms that businesses who are playing by the rules.”
The Biden administration has issued a wave of new rules intended to beef up worker and consumer power. The CFPB last month moved to classify “buy now, pay later” applications as credit card companies, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted in April to ban the use of noncompete agreements and nullify most existing agreements.
These rules come as President Biden gears up for a tough reelection race against former President Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.
Many Americans have negative feelings about the state of the economy, and perceptions of Biden’s handling of the economy has been a persistent thorn in his campaign’s side. The economy and still-elevated inflation are top issues for voters, and more Americans trust Trump than Biden on these issues, according to a recent ABC News/Ipsos Poll.
Claudia Sheinbaum, known as “la Doctora” for her impressive academic background, is a physicist with a doctorate in energy engineering. She has served as the former mayor of Mexico City, one of the world’s most populous cities, and was part of the United Nations panel of climate scientists that received a Nobel Peace Prize. She made history by becoming the first woman and the first person of Jewish heritage to be elected president of Mexico, winning around 60% of the vote in the largest election in Mexico’s history.
Sheinbaum’s academic career includes receiving the prize of best UNAM young researcher in engineering and technological innovation in 1999. She also joined the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the United Nations, contributing to reports on the topic “Mitigation of climate change” and co-authoring the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report in 2013. She has been dedicated to university teaching, focusing on renewable energy and climate change.
Challenges Ahead for Sheinbaum
One of the challenges Sheinbaum faces is to establish her own platform gradually while initially acting as a faithful disciple of her longtime ally, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. She will need to navigate the transition carefully, offering glimpses of her own program without stoking instability in the movement’s base. Despite her close association with Obrador, there are clear differences between the two leaders, with Sheinbaum emphasizing her decision-making based on data and science.
Another significant challenge for Sheinbaum is addressing Mexico’s organized crime and security issues. The country has been plagued by high levels of violence, with a soaring homicide rate and a significant number of people missing. Additionally, Mexico remains a dangerous place for women, with high femicide rates. Sheinbaum will need to act quickly on these pressing security issues.
US-Mexico Relations
Sheinbaum’s presidency comes at a critical time for US-Mexico relations, as both countries are holding elections in 2024. Mexico is a key US ally on various issues, including trade, drug trafficking, and migration management. The relationship between President Joe Biden and Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been described as friendly and professional, and the Biden administration anticipates a productive relationship with Mexico’s next president. However, the election in Mexico has raised uncertainty about potential changes in border cooperation and migration policies.
Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidency marks a historic moment for Mexico, and she faces significant challenges in establishing her own platform while addressing pressing security issues and navigating US-Mexico relations.
Michael Beschloss, a revered historian specializing in the American presidency, sounded a note of caution on an MSNBC show on Saturday. He warned that if former President Donald Trump were to regain his position in the Oval Office, it could result in a dangerous slide towards “dictatorship and anarchy” for the United States.
Beschloss’s Analysis:
Speaking on “The Saturday Show with Jonathan Capeheart,” Beschloss emphasized the gravity of the situation. He stated, “He is saying, I will dismantle our rule of law, which is the glory of America, keeps the peace, assures fairness when it works for all Americans. You’ve got dictatorship and anarchy at the same time.”
He further highlighted the stark choice that lies ahead, labeling Trump as a “convicted felon.” Beschloss went on to discuss Trump’s public statement delivered post-trial where the former president expressed his desire to “dismantle parts of the Constitution” and labeled the system as “rotten.”
Trump’s Conviction:
In a precedent-setting case, Trump was pronounced guilty by a jury in New York City on all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. This marked the first time in history a current or former American president has been tried in court.
Trump’s Post-Conviction Speech:
Following his conviction, Trump addressed the public, claiming, “Our country is in very bad shape, and they’re very much against me saying these things.” He criticized the current administration for their plans to raise taxes and impose mandates that would hinder car ownership.
Trump declared himself the leading contender for the presidency, outranking Joe Biden and the rest of the Republican field. He claimed his speech was hampered by a court-issued gag order and accused the White House and the Department of Justice of being in collusion with Biden’s administration.
In his speech, Trump expressed his belief that his trial was rigged and that his requests for a venue change and a non-conflicted judge were denied.
Post-Conviction Developments:
Following his conviction, Trump made a public appearance at a UFC fight over the weekend where he was met with cheers from the crowd. His campaign also managed to raise an impressive nearly $53 million within a day of the verdict. Despite the recent controversy and his legal troubles, these events suggest that Trump still retains significant support among certain sections of the American populace.
YouGov, the survey experts renowned for their adeptness at tackling the intangible, recently polled 2,000 adults on which decade excelled in areas like music, movies, and the economy across 20 measures. Yet, no clear pattern emerged from the results.
Certain trends did stand out, however. White people and Republicans, for instance, were about twice as likely as Black people and Democrats to view the 1950s as the era of the most moral society, happiest families, and closest-knit communities. This disparity likely hinges on whether one recalls that decade for its idyllic “Leave it to Beaver” charm or for its darker moments like the Red Scare and the murder of Emmett Till.
“This was a time when Repubs were pretty much running the show and had reason to be happy,” noted nostalgia researcher Morris Holbrook via email. “Apparently, you could argue that nostalgia is colored by political preferences. Surprise, surprise.” Holbrook’s point underscores that political, racial, or gender divides are overshadowed by generational perspectives in these assessments.
When the data was re-evaluated by examining the gap between each person’s birth year and their ideal decade, a fascinating pattern emerged. This revealed that nostalgia isn’t tied to a specific era but rather to a particular age. The “good old days” are typically the decade when individuals were around 11 years old, an age of innocence and parental omniscience.
The data showed that our nostalgia peaks during specific life stages. For instance, the most tightly-knit communities are remembered from childhood (ages 4 to 7), while the happiest families, most moral societies, and most reliable news reporting are associated with early formative years (ages 8 to 11). The best economy, radio, television, and movies are linked to early teens (ages 12 to 15). As people reach their late teens (ages 16 to 19), nostalgia for music, fashion, and sporting events intensifies, consistent with findings from the University of South Australia’s Ehrenberg-Bass Institute which pinpoint music nostalgia at around age 17.
Interestingly, YouGov also asked about the worst music and economy. Consistently, respondents viewed “right now” as the worst time. Even when historical context suggests otherwise, such as the Great Depression, which had far worse unemployment rates than today’s pandemic-induced lows, the present era is often viewed as the most challenging.
This perception is particularly pronounced among Republicans, who were notably more negative about the current decade compared to Democrats. Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers, explained this partisan split. She observed that people whose party is in power generally have more favorable economic sentiments, a gap that has widened over time. During Trump’s presidency, Republicans’ optimism surged while Democrats’ expectations plummeted. This trend flipped with Biden’s inauguration but remains significant.
Hsu and her team explored where Americans get their economic information. They found that Republicans who follow partisan news outlets are more likely to view the economy negatively, although only a fifth of Republicans primarily rely on these sources. Despite this, both Democrats and independents also expressed dissatisfaction with the current decade, though to a lesser extent.
Carl Bialik from YouGov noted that when Americans were asked last year which decade they’d most prefer to live in, the most common answer was “now.” This suggests that while the current era is viewed negatively in specific terms, there is still a preference for contemporary life over past decades.
A deeper understanding emerged during a Zoom call with Australian researchers from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, who revisited music nostalgia. Their study asked respondents to rate songs from different decades, revealing a preference for music from their late teens without a corresponding spike in negative ratings for recent music.
Marketing researcher Bill Page pointed out that asking about the “worst” era often elicits a predisposition towards negative thinking rather than genuine opinions. His colleague Zac Anesbury added that surveys can unintentionally measure sentiments like “declinism,” the belief that things are perpetually getting worse. This phenomenon, rooted in rosy retrospection, means that we tend to remember the past more fondly than the present.
Psychological studies by Leigh Thompson and Terence Mitchell have shown that our satisfaction with experiences improves over time. For instance, a trip that seemed disappointing while underway might be remembered fondly once it’s over and the difficulties have faded.
In essence, describing the 2020s as the worst decade ever is akin to lamenting a trip during its roughest moments. Over time, as memories soften and the good moments stand out, the current decade may eventually be looked back on with nostalgia.
So, in a few decades, reflecting on the 2020s through the lens of cherished photos and fond memories, we might find ourselves recalling the good times rather than the challenges. Thus, the 2020s could well become the “good old days” of the future.
President Biden has unveiled a pivotal Israeli-led initiative aimed at ending the ongoing conflict and securing the release of all remaining hostages held since October 7. The proposal outlines a three-stage roadmap, marking a significant step towards potential resolution between Israel and Hamas.
In a press briefing, President Biden emphasized the extensive diplomatic efforts undertaken by his team, including numerous discussions with leaders from Israel, Qatar, Egypt, and other regional stakeholders. He described Israel’s comprehensive proposal as a pathway to a sustainable ceasefire and the liberation of all captives. Although the proposal has been relayed to Hamas through Qatar, formal acceptance from the Gaza-based organization is pending.
“This is truly a decisive moment,” remarked President Biden, urging Hamas to seize the opportunity for peace by endorsing the deal. He also called upon the Israeli populace to support the initiative, highlighting the significant blows dealt to Hamas during the conflict, rendering a recurrence of October 7 unlikely.
Acknowledging potential dissent within Israel, particularly from factions advocating for prolonged military engagement, President Biden cautioned against perpetuating the war indefinitely. He stressed the imperative of prioritizing the release of hostages and embracing the proposed ceasefire as a means to avert further bloodshed.
Senior administration officials elaborated on the proposal’s phased approach, spanning approximately six weeks for each stage. Phase one entails a ceasefire period coupled with humanitarian efforts to alleviate the plight of Gazans, including infrastructure rehabilitation and provision of essential services.
The subsequent phase focuses on the release of remaining hostages and the permanent cessation of hostilities, accompanied by the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s populated areas. Negotiations will be pivotal in navigating the transition to this stage, with provisions in place to extend the ceasefire if required.
Phase three envisions a comprehensive reconstruction program spanning three to five years, supported by the U.S. and the international community. This initiative aims to address the long-term stabilization and rehabilitation of Gaza.
The proposal’s announcement follows previous ceasefire negotiations that ended without a resolution. Concurrently, Israeli military operations persist in certain areas, prompting concerns about civilian casualties and the escalation of violence.
President Biden emphasized his enduring commitment to Israel and underscored the urgency of seizing the current opportunity for peace. He reiterated his longstanding advocacy for a two-state solution and expressed optimism that the proposed roadmap could pave the way for such a resolution in the future.
According to The YouGov survey, conducted immediately after former President Donald Trump was convicted in all 34 counts in the New York hush money trial, 50 percent of Americans agreed with the jury on the members’ decision to convict the former president. In the same survey, about 19 percent said they were “not sure” if they agreed with the decision and about 30 percent said they didn’t agree.
Trump became the first former U.S. president to be a convicted felon Thursday, May 30, 2024 after a jury found him guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, made to porn actor Stormy Daniels, ahead of the 2016 election.
Shortly following the jury reading the verdict, Trump railed against the trial outside the courtroom. “This was a rigged, disgraceful trial. The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people, and they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here,” Trump said. “This is a scam,” he said of the case brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office led by Alvin Bragg, overseen by Judge Juan Merchan.
President Joe Biden criticized Trump over his language on the trial’s fairness. “It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” the president said. “Our justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down; it’s as simple as that,” he added.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and the charges were “purely political.” Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance said the verdict was a “disgrace to the judicial system.” And Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, said that the decision was “a defeat for Americans who believe in the critical legal tenet that justice is blind.”
Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project Action Fund civil rights group, including several racial justice advocates, is using the historic moment to remind the hush money trial was just part of a broader narrative around electoral justice. Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP called the verdict against Trump “a monumental step toward justice for the American people.” Johnson, who leads the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, said Trump’s criminal conviction ought to disqualify him from the Oval Office.
While the nation has reacted differently to the verdict, the Indian American community has reflected its views by one’s political ideology. Indian American community that overwhelmingly votes for Democrats—whose prominence in American public life is relatively new, is now fielding multiple political candidates on the national stage, in addition to having elected several lawmakers at the national, state, and local levels.
The rapid rise of Indian Americans is one of the most startling domestic events in 21st-century America and one of the great success stories of liberal multiculturalism. Indian Americans are now the most economically successful ethnic group in America. The community’s views have evolved, with some Indian Americans leaving the Democratic fold, and embracing the conservative Republican Party.
While some have expressed overwhelming support for the verdict, others see this as an abuse of power by the Democrats to deny Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee the White House.
“No one is above the law. It was good that the Manhattan DA and his team did a great job in convincing the jury that former President Trump is guilty of all charges, said Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chairman, GOPIO International. “When we have a constitution and rule of law in this country, everyone has to follow. The courts have to hear the grievances of the society at large, and in this case through DA, and punish those who break the laws. That is the way democratic institutions work. If Trump feels that this is not a correct verdict, he can still appeal.”
However, Nithin George Eapen, thinks the verdict is politically motivated. “In my opinion, this verdict against Trump is nothing more than a political circus orchestrated by the liberal elites of the Democratic Party in New York, says Eapen, an Entrepreneur and Investor, well known for his expertise and eloquence as a Three-time TEDx Speaker. “This case highlights the deep divisions and contentious nature of American politics and justice. The verdict by a majority liberal jury symbolizes the erosion of American values, edging the nation closer to becoming a Banana Republic.”
Eapen says, these individuals, once beneficiaries of Trump’s donations, now seek to undermine him because they perceive him as a threat to their political dominance. They are determined to prevent someone they consider beneath their social class from gaining power again. This move by the political elite is an attempt to protect their own interests by using the power of the legal process in their control to damage Trump’s influence before the November election, where they have a vulnerable candidate.
Eapen is of the belief that “Nothing will happen to Trump as he will appeal and most likely win also and that process will take time. This will energize his base and gain sympathies for a man being targeted by the leviathan. In the meanwhile now he can get back on the campaign trail and raise money. The case was able to keep him off the campaign trail and give edge to their the senile lethargic vulnerable candidate. In a constitutional republic, targeting political opponents when in power can backfire, as those opponents may one day control the same state machinery of police and courts. This sets a dangerous precedent though potentially leading to endless taxpayer money being wasted on frivolous cases in the future by every set of unforgiving political elite.”
Rajeshwar Prasad, founder and chairman of The National Indo-American Association for Senior Citizens (NIAASC) summed it up this way: “Today’s verdict against Trump shows that nobody is above the LAW. Guilty on all 34 criminal counts. A very sad chapter in the political history of the. United States.”
Dr. Mathew Joys, a well-known writer and past BOD Secretary of the Indo-American Press Club takes us back to the past while relating to the present case. “34 COUNT GUILTY! There are instances of Former Presidents getting into hush money cases and sex scandals, and it is not a hot story for Americans. The sexual misconduct scandals surrounding then-President Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones and past President Donald Trump with Stormy Daniels both might look similar— two former presidents paying money to women with whom they had sexual relations.”
According to Dr. Joys, “The most significant and crucial difference is that Clinton belongs to the Democrats, the ruling party, whereas Trump is a Republican. Clinton mutually reached an out-of-court settlement. In contrast, Trump privately arranged his payments to keep Daniels from speaking publicly in the first place. If so, the verdicts could have been similar, too. It seems the Court is showing some mercy by allowing Trump to remain in the current Presidential Election campaigns.
Dr. Joys points to Trump’s statement after the verdict: “I’m a very innocent man,” Trump told reporters, vowing that the “real verdict” would come from voters on election day. He branded the trial “rigged” and a “disgrace.”
Vinay Mahajan, an entrepreneur and the President & CEO of NAM Info Inc., agrees. “The US legal system works, even an ex-President is not above the law. The Jury has found President Trump guilty. The justice will take its own course, and there will be an appeal at the higher courts. We should not rush our judgments. Let us wait for the highest court of the country to decide. The final decision will be made in the People’s Court in November.”
While the nation is still trying to accept the new reality that a former President of the nation is a convicted felon, the verdict and its impact can be very long-lasting. One cannot agree less with POLITICO, which wrote recently: “On the one hand, it is a powerful demonstration that in this country even a former head of state can be indicted and convicted by a group of his peers. On the other hand, the fact that one of the two men likely to be president next year is now a convicted felon sets up the possibility that those very same judicial institutions that guarantee the rule of law will come under the most ferocious political attack in our history.”
According to a recent forecast model released by Decision Desk HQ and The Hill, the former President Trump and the GOP are currently in favorable positions for the upcoming elections, with Trump having a 58 percent chance of winning the presidency. The model also suggests that Republicans have an 80 percent chance of securing the Senate majority and a 64 percent chance of retaining their House majority. This forecast is based on approximately 200 different data points, including voter registration numbers, demographics, past election results, fundraising totals, and polling averages.
Scott Tranter, the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, stressed that these projections are subject to change before Election Day, likening them to a practice test. He emphasized that the current data represents a snapshot in time and may not accurately reflect the final outcome.
Despite these projections, there is growing anxiety within the Democratic Party, fueled by consistent polling showing President Biden trailing Trump in swing states. Additionally, issues such as the conflict in Gaza have further complicated matters for Democrats, particularly with young and minority voters, key constituents from the 2020 election.
Moreover, dissatisfaction with the economy and Biden’s handling of economic issues is evident in polls, contributing to the challenges faced by Democrats. Despite facing legal issues, Trump maintains a lead over Biden in both national and swing state polls.
In the Senate race, Democrats face a tough battle due to the unfavorable electoral map, particularly in states like Montana and Ohio where Trump holds a significant advantage. Without victories in these states, Democrats risk losing the Senate majority. Similarly, Democrats are considered underdogs in the race to regain the House majority, according to Decision Desk HQ/The Hill’s forecast.
Decision Desk HQ utilizes an ensemble approach, combining various algorithms to analyze data and generate probabilities for each candidate’s success in different states. Trump currently leads Biden in polling averages in key battleground states, although states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania remain closely contested.
Despite concerns over Biden’s low approval ratings, some Democrats remain optimistic, citing his experience and advising against premature panic. The unpredictable nature of politics, particularly with regard to Trumpism, suggests that the political landscape could change before November.
Republicans express confidence in their prospects, noting a trend favoring Trump and downplaying the impact of his legal battles. However, they acknowledge that unforeseen factors could alter the course of the election.
Interestingly, many Democratic down-ballot candidates are outperforming Biden in polling, indicating potential ticket splitting among voters. This trend suggests that the electorate in certain states may be open to voting for candidates from different parties.
Overall, while Republicans may feel encouraged by the current forecast, Tranter cautions against complacency, highlighting the potential for shifts in polling that could significantly impact the election outcome.
Scandals have surrounded former President Donald Trump since his initial presidential campaign in 2016. However, following his conviction in his New York hush-money case, he is now officially labeled as a convicted felon, adding a new dimension to his controversial legacy. This development begs the question: could this conviction significantly alter the trajectory of the 2024 election?
Initial indicators suggest that Trump’s conviction could indeed erode his support base. A poll conducted by CNN/SSRS in April revealed that while 76 percent of Trump supporters vowed unwavering allegiance, 24 percent admitted they might reconsider their support if he were convicted. Similarly, a May survey by Emerson College found that 25 percent of voters claimed a guilty verdict in New York would diminish their likelihood of voting for Trump.
Some pollsters adopted a two-pronged approach, asking respondents their voting preferences both with and without considering Trump’s conviction. On average, Trump’s standing shifted from a 1 percentage point lead to a 6-point deficit when the conviction was factored in.
However, Democrats should temper their enthusiasm, considering the nuances within these statistics. The wording of the CNN/SSRS poll, for instance, reveals that while 24 percent of Trump supporters might reconsider their vote, this doesn’t necessarily translate to definitive abandonment. Many may simply experience a crisis of confidence without outright switching allegiance to President Joe Biden.
A poll by ABC News/Ipsos echoed this sentiment. While 16 percent of respondents claimed they would reconsider their support for Trump following a conviction, only 4 percent stated they would completely withdraw it. Moreover, caution is warranted in interpreting polls like Emerson’s, which gauge whether events influence voting behavior. Often, respondents use such questions as proxies for their approval or disapproval rather than literal indicators of future action.
Interestingly, a significant portion of those claiming a conviction would sway their vote towards Biden had already expressed support for him in previous questions. Conversely, only a small fraction of Trump supporters indicated that a guilty verdict would deter them from voting for him, suggesting a lesser impact on his actual support than initially presumed.
Additional polls reinforce the notion that Trump’s conviction may not trigger mass defections to Biden. Instead, the majority of lost support for Trump translates into undecided or hypothetical “someone else” categories. While Trump’s support decreases by an average of 6 points post-conviction, Biden only gains 1 point, with 5 points going to undecided or alternative options.
This dynamic suggests that while some Trump supporters may hesitate to endorse him following the conviction, they are unlikely to pivot towards Biden. Consequently, the dip in Trump’s support may be transient. Past behavior serves as a predictor, indicating that many defectors could eventually realign with Trump, especially given the substantial time remaining until Election Day. Trump’s ability to craft a narrative that assuages concerns about supporting a convicted felon could further facilitate this return to the fold.
The parallels with past events, such as the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tape during the 2016 campaign, underscore the potential for Trump’s support to rebound swiftly. Despite initial discomfort among Republicans, Trump’s popularity recovered within weeks of the tape’s release.
Nevertheless, even if most defectors ultimately return to Trump’s camp, the conviction’s impact on the race should not be dismissed entirely. Biden’s marginal 1-point gain could prove decisive in a closely contested election, though it’s crucial not to exaggerate the conviction’s influence. Ultimately, if the outcome of the hush-money trial shapes the presidential race, it will likely be within the margins of a closely contested contest.
The Libertarian Party made a significant decision on Sunday, nominating party activist Chase Oliver for president, turning down the bids of former President Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both Trump and Kennedy had addressed the party’s convention, but the party ultimately chose Oliver as its candidate.
The nomination of Oliver is notable given the historical performance of third parties in U.S. presidential elections. In the previous election, the Libertarian candidate garnered just 1% of the vote. However, this year, with the highly anticipated rematch between Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden, the attention on the Libertarian Party’s decision has intensified. The outcome of the election could once again be influenced by narrow vote margins in a few key battleground states.
Chase Oliver expressed his excitement about the nomination on social media, declaring, “We did it! I am officially the presidential nominee. It’s time to unify and move forward for liberty.” His enthusiasm reflects the party’s commitment to its core values of liberty and individual freedoms.
Former President Trump’s appearance at the convention on Saturday was met with a mixed reception. Despite his efforts to garner support, he was repeatedly booed by many attendees. However, his decision to address an audience not entirely aligned with him was commended by his Republican allies, underscoring his willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in contrast, received a warmer welcome when he spoke at the convention on Friday. He criticized both Trump and Biden for their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kennedy’s support for the Libertarian Party could have facilitated his efforts to secure ballot access in all 50 states, a significant challenge for third-party candidates aiming to participate in the presidential debates.
The Libertarian Party’s platform emphasizes principles such as small government and individual freedoms. Its policy positions span the ideological spectrum, encompassing ideas that can be perceived as liberal, conservative, or neither.
Chase Oliver, the newly nominated candidate, hails from Atlanta and has previously run for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House from Georgia. His campaign platform advocates for substantial reductions in the federal budget, aiming to achieve budgetary balance. Additionally, Oliver supports abolishing the death penalty and closing all overseas military bases, while also advocating for an end to military assistance to countries like Israel and Ukraine.
A New York jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — the first time a former U.S. president has been convicted of a crime.
The jury reached its verdict in the historic case after 9.5 hours of deliberations, which began Wednesday.
He’ll be sentenced on July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention. He faces penalties ranging from a fine to four years in prison on each count, although it’s expected he would be sentenced for the offenses concurrently, and not consecutively.
“This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt,” he fumed to reporters afterward.
The verdict was read in the Manhattan courtroom where Trump has been on trial since April 15. He had pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential election.
The judge thanked the jurors for their service in the weeks-long trial. “You gave this matter the attention it deserved, and I want to thank you for that,” Judge Juan Merchan told them. Trump appeared to be scowling at the jurors as they walked by him on their way out of the courtroom.
Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche made a motion for acquittal after the jury left the room, which the judge denied.
The conviction comes as Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president. He immediately set out fundraising off the news, posting on his website that he’s “a political prisoner” and urging his followers to give money.
Legal experts have told NBC News that even if Trump is sentenced to time behind bars, he’d most likely be allowed to remain out of jail while he appeals the verdict, a process that could take months or more. That means the sentence would most likely not interfere with his ability to accept the Republican nomination for president at the July convention.
President Joe Biden’s campaign praised the verdict in a statement, but stressed that Trump needs to be defeated in November.
“In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law,” the campaign’s communications director Michael Tyler said, but the “verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box.”
In his closing argument earlier this week, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that “the law is the law and it applies to everyone equally. There is no special standard for this defendant.”
“You, the jury, have the ability to hold the defendant accountable,” Steinglass said.
Trump had maintained the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had no case and that there had been no crime. “President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes,” Blanche said in his closing statement, arguing the payments to Cohen were legitimate.
Prosecutors said the disguised payment to Cohen was part of a “planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior, using doctored corporate records and bank forms to conceal those payments along the way.”
“It was election fraud. Pure and simple,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in his opening statement.
While Trump was not charged with conspiracy, prosecutors argued he caused the records to be falsified because he was trying to cover up a violation of state election law- and falsifying business records with the intent to cover another crime raises the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.
The US economy is currently exhibiting some unusual characteristics. With millions of job openings and a notably low unemployment rate, one might assume the economy is thriving. Historically, low unemployment correlates with economic prosperity. However, numerous warning signs suggest otherwise, including a significant number of Gen Z individuals accruing high credit card debt, leading lenders to withhold further credit.
This mixed economic data presents a conundrum: positive news is often accompanied by concerning indicators. “I wouldn’t give the economy a clean bill of health,” remarked Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY. “It looks robust, but there are pockets of concern.”
While economists offer nuanced views, political figures present more polarized perspectives. President Joe Biden claims the economy is booming but acknowledges ongoing challenges. Conversely, former President Donald Trump declares, “the economy is crashing,” suggesting a state of chaos during a campaign rally in Wisconsin.
The Good
For those with an optimistic view of the economy, recent labor market data offers encouraging news. There are currently 8.5 million job openings, exceeding pre-pandemic figures by 1.5 million. With 6.5 million unemployed individuals, the ratio of jobs to job seekers is more than one-to-one, a stark improvement from the pre-pandemic average ratio of 0.6.
Average hourly earnings for Americans have risen by 22% since before the pandemic, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Though wage increases are slowing, they still outpace price rises, meaning consumers have more purchasing power.
The Bad
Despite a significant reduction from its peak in summer 2022, inflation remains a concern. Achieving the Federal Reserve’s 2% target is proving to be a slow process, surprising many Fed officials, including Gov. Christopher Waller. “The first three months of 2024 threw cold water on that outlook, as data on both inflation and economic activity came in much hotter than anticipated,” Waller noted. However, he found the slight cooling in April’s Consumer Price Index to be “welcome relief.” He stated, “If I were still a professor and had to assign a grade to this inflation report, it would be a C+— far from failing but not stellar either.”
Despite this, consumer surveys indicate expectations of rising inflation, which can drive businesses to increase prices, perpetuating the inflation cycle. Early retail spending data for April was weaker than expected, suggesting consumers are tightening their belts. This reduction in spending is positive in preventing retailers from raising prices but poses a risk to the economy, given that consumer spending is a major economic driver.
David Alcaly, lead macroeconomic strategist at Lazard, commented on the mixed signals: “It certainly bears watching, but part of the weakness probably was ‘payback’ for strength in prior months.” Gregory Daco noted that consumers are being “a little more cautious, but are not retrenching.” A significant slowdown in spending could negatively impact the economy, he warned.
The Ugly
A major concern in the current economic landscape is the rising debt levels. Consumer spending has been resilient despite high inflation and interest rates, partly due to increased reliance on credit cards. However, savings accumulated during the pandemic are dwindling, leading to more credit card debt that is not being repaid on time.
The cooling labor market is reducing workers’ leverage, contributing to increased debt and serious delinquencies, defined as payments over 90 days late. New York Fed data reveals that the percentage of credit card balances in serious delinquency is at its highest since 2012.
Sung Won Sohn, an economics and finance professor at Loyola Marymount University and chief economist of SS Economics, highlighted the broader implications: “The rising levels of consumer debt and delinquency rates, if continued, are not just individual problems; they could have macroeconomic effects requiring attention from economic policymakers.” As more income is diverted to debt repayment, less is available for other purchases, potentially slowing economic growth. Rising delinquencies may prompt banks to tighten lending criteria or increase interest rates, further straining borrowers. These combined effects “can contribute to a broader economic slowdown — or even a recession,” Sohn warned.
While the US economy shows signs of strength, including low unemployment and rising wages, there are significant concerns. High levels of consumer debt and inflation, coupled with cautious spending, present risks that could undermine economic stability. As the situation evolves, it will require careful monitoring and responsive policymaking to navigate potential challenges.
Senate Democrats are publicly challenging Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s impartiality after reports emerged that an upside-down American flag flew outside his home during the days surrounding January 6, 2021, and President Biden’s inauguration. Alito, known for his conservative stance on the Court, is under intense scrutiny as the justices prepare to rule on key decisions related to the January 6 attack.
Alito has stated that he had no involvement with the flag, which symbolizes distress and has been adopted by the “stop the steal” movement claiming former President Trump did not lose the 2020 election. He explained that his wife hung the flag amid a dispute with neighbors. However, this explanation has not quelled the Democrats’ concerns, who are deeply troubled by the incident amidst an ongoing debate over judicial ethics.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) expressed grave concern, saying, “Terribly, terribly alarming. To fly the flag upside down means a very specific thing. … It is not enough to just say, ‘My wife got mad.’ Consider me as alarmed as I possibly could be.” Historically, an upside-down flag has signified distress, such as a ship in trouble. Schatz added, “I never thought he was impartial, but appearing to be impartial is also important. I’d be less alarmed if he had a Trump flag. ‘Nation in distress’ is a very specific thing people do with the American flag. It’s in the U.S. flag code; it means a specific thing. He’s not merely expressing his political preference — he’s saying something that’s borderline revolutionary.”
Led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Democrats are calling for Alito to recuse himself from upcoming rulings on January 6-related cases, notably the decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his actions. However, further action seems unlikely. Durbin noted that the Judiciary panel has no plans to investigate or hold a hearing on the incident, stating that there’s “not much to be gained at this point” by doing so. The only potential recourse if Alito does not recuse himself would be impeachment, which Durbin indicated is not currently being considered.
The news has reignited long-standing Democratic grievances with Alito, particularly following his majority opinion in the Dobbs decision that overturned national abortion rights and reports of him receiving gifts and vacations from wealthy GOP donors. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the No. 3 Senate Democrat, expressed her outrage, stating, “I think that’s outrageous. I think that’s absolutely outrageous,” and further questioning his judicial impartiality. “Without a doubt,” she said. “I don’t know what to say. I find it appalling.”
Durbin has been advocating for a new ethics code for justices, following revelations that both Alito and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas have accepted lavish gifts and vacations from wealthy benefactors. Thomas has also faced criticism for his wife Virginia Thomas’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election result. Despite this, he has not recused himself from January 6-related cases.
Republicans, however, are largely supporting Alito. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) dismissed the Democrats’ calls for recusal as the latest form of “harassment” against conservative justices, dating back to Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) echoed this sentiment, calling the recusal demands “an idiotic thing to think that has nothing to do with what’s going on with the flag.”
Some Republican senators did express discomfort with the situation. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) acknowledged that it wasn’t a wise decision, despite the high tensions around the Alito residence. “Emotions are apparently high in that neighborhood. But no, it’s not good judgment to do that,” Graham said. “He said his wife was insulted and got mad. I assume that to be true, but he’s still a Supreme Court justice, and people have to realize that [at] moments like that to think it through.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) found the decision to hoist the upside-down flag disappointing and peculiar. “To have it happen at all was really strange. … It’s just weird,” Rounds remarked. “I would expect that he would be professional enough to where it would not cloud his judgment or his ability to make impartial decisions.” He added, “I was [disappointed]. I was, yeah. Just simply having that symbol flown in that way by anybody to me is disappointing.”
Others defended Alito’s account, emphasizing that despite his role on the court, his wife should be free to express herself. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) stated, “I don’t think justices should express political opinions. But Justice Alito didn’t say anything to anybody. He didn’t put the flag up, his spouse did. And I don’t think you can tell spouses that they have to forfeit their right to say what they believe.”
The controversy surrounding Justice Alito’s upside-down flag has intensified the debate over judicial impartiality and ethics. While Democrats call for recusal and express deep concern, Republicans largely defendAlito, viewing the issue as an extension of ongoing partisan battles over the judiciary.
Nikki Haley, who became a prominent rival and outspoken critic of Donald Trump during the Republican primary elections, has announced her intention to vote for the former US president in November. This revelation came during her address at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington on Wednesday, marking her first public appearance since exiting the race in March. When questioned about who would better handle national security issues between Joe Biden and Trump, Haley provided her perspective.
The former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor outlined her criteria for selecting a president, which include supporting allies, holding adversaries accountable, endorsing capitalism and freedom, and reducing national debt. She acknowledged Trump’s imperfections in these areas, stating, “Trump has not been perfect on these policies. I have made that clear many, many times. But Biden has been a catastrophe. So I will be voting for Trump.”
Despite this endorsement, the 52-year-old Haley cautioned Trump not to take her supporters for granted. “Having said that, I stand by what I said in my suspension speech. Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me and not assume that they’re just going to be with him. And I genuinely hope he does that.”
Haley’s decision places her alongside other notable Republicans like Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, former Attorney General William Barr, and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who, despite their previous criticisms, now support Trump as the party nominee. Throughout the contentious primary campaign, Haley had criticized Trump for lacking political viability, showing moral weakness, and being “thin-skinned and easily distracted.” She had advocated for moving beyond his “chaos.” Trump responded by dismissing reports that he might consider her as his running mate.
Haley’s reversal has sparked immediate backlash. Sarah Longwell, a political strategist and publisher of the conservative Bulwark website, tweeted, “So when Nikki Haley said, ‘It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him.’ She really meant, he can treat me and my voters like garbage and I’ll still fall in line and support him.” Former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh added, “This isn’t complicated: Nikki Haley believes Trump is unfit. And she believes he should never be back in the White House. But if she said that publicly, her career as a Republican would be over. So, as expected, she decided to not be truthful. To keep her career as a Republican.”
Although she exited the primaries in early March, Haley has continued to attract up to 20% in the contests, posing a potential challenge for Trump’s campaign. The former president has dismissed the necessity of courting Haley’s supporters, whereas Biden, during an event in Atlanta, stated, “Let me say, there’s always going to be a place for Haley voters in my campaign.”
Trump has also secured endorsements from other former Republican primary opponents, including North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
At the Hudson Institute event, attended by several foreign ambassadors, Haley was vocally critical of far-right Republicans who advocate for “America first” isolationism, though she refrained from mentioning Trump directly. She commended House Speaker Mike Johnson for advancing aid for Israel and Ukraine through Congress.
“A growing number of Democrats and Republicans have forgotten what makes America safe,” she asserted. “A loud part of each party wants us to abandon our allies, appease our enemies, and focus only on the problems we have at home. They believe if we leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone. They even say ignoring global chaos will somehow make our country more secure. It will not. This worldview has already put America in great danger and the threat is mounting by the day.”
Haley’s critique extended to both parties, emphasizing the dangers of isolationism. She highlighted the increasing number of politicians who favor disengagement from global affairs, arguing that such an approach jeopardizes national security. Her remarks underscored the importance of maintaining international alliances and addressing global threats proactively.
The evolving dynamics within the Republican Party and Haley’s stance reflect the broader tensions and strategic considerations as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Her endorsement of Trump, despite past criticisms, exemplifies the complexities faced by many Republicans navigating the party’s future direction.
As the election nears, Haley’s role and influence within the party, along with her potential impact on voter alignment, will be closely watched. Her recent statements and the reactions they have elicited highlight the ongoing debates over leadership, policy priorities, and the path forward for the GOP.
In a recent series of social media posts and a fundraising email sent on Tuesday, Donald Trump made an alarming accusation, claiming that the Department of Justice (DoJ) was poised to kill him. This inflammatory assertion comes amid his ongoing hush-money trial in New York and growing concerns about political violence leading up to the 2024 presidential election, particularly from far-right factions. These comments reinforce a narrative that Trump and his supporters have been promoting, which paints him as a patriotic figure besieged by anti-democratic deep-state operatives.
Such incendiary claims are likely to inflame his supporters’ anger and perpetuate conspiracy theories. The fundraising email, ostensibly signed by Trump, stated, “You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable… Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.”
On Truth Social, Trump reiterated his claims, alleging, “Crooked Joe Biden’s DoJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.” This statement appears to reference the search warrant executed in August 2022, when FBI agents, seeking classified documents that Trump had allegedly withheld, raided his Mar-a-Lago estate.
In a May court filing, Trump’s legal team highlighted a section titled “The Illegal Raid” and quoted a line from the search warrant. They stated, “The Order contained a ‘Policy Statement’ regarding ‘Use Of Deadly Force,’ which stated, for example, ‘Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.’” This language is part of the DoJ’s policy on the use of force during search warrants, which specifies, “Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
The FBI executed the search warrant at Trump’s Florida residence while he was in New York and coordinated with Secret Service agents to ensure the operation proceeded smoothly. An FBI statement clarified that the language in the warrant was “a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”
Reports from The Washington Post corroborate that FBI agents chose a day for the raid when Trump would not be at Mar-a-Lago and informed the Secret Service in advance.
Trump’s exaggerated statements have sparked a strong reaction. Christina Bobb, a Trump attorney who had signed documents before the search asserting Trump’s compliance with the subpoena for documents, responded with disbelief on social media. She wrote on X, “WTF?!! They were prepared to kill me?! A few dozen FBI agents v. me and they were ready to kill me?!!! What in the world happened to the United States of America?!”
Similarly, Paul Gosar, an Arizona congressman and Trump ally, expressed his outrage on X, writing, “These people are sick.” He later added, “Biden ordered the hit on Trump at Mar-A-Lago.”
These rhetorical shifts—from the substance of Trump’s various legal troubles, which include allegations of financial misconduct, mishandling classified documents, and attempts to overturn the 2020 election—are part of a broader strategy employed by Trump and his supporters as the 2024 election approaches. This strategy involves redirecting accusations of anti-democratic behavior back at Trump’s critics, whom he labels as “enemies.” According to Trump, it is the DoJ, media, Democrats, and so-called RINOs (Republicans in name only) who are the true threats to democracy.
Despite Trump’s warnings of “death and destruction” if he is charged with crimes and his defense of supporters who called for the execution of former Vice President Mike Pence for not participating in the plan to overturn the election, he continues to position himself as a victim. In his post accusing the DoJ of planning to use lethal force, Trump asserted, “NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.”
Trump’s escalating rhetoric and dramatic claims about threats to his life highlight the tense and polarized political climate in the United States. As the 2024 presidential election draws nearer, these statements are likely to further energize his base, potentially increasing the risk of political violence and deepening the divide within the country.
On May 13, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at a White House Rose Garden reception celebrating Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage (AANHPI) Month, where she highlighted her mother Shyamala Gopalan’s profound impact on her life. Gopalan, born in Chennai, India, immigrated to the U.S. alone at 19, aiming to raise her daughters and combat breast cancer as a researcher. Harris attributed her success to her mother’s unwavering determination, stating, “My mother never asked anyone’s permission to pursue her dreams. And it is because of her character, strength, and determination that within one generation, I stand before you as Vice President.”
Harris also warned about current extremist efforts to foster division in the country, using positions of influence to incite “xenophobia and hate, including anti-Asian hate.” She emphasized the importance of strength in uplifting others and condemned attacks on fundamental freedoms such as voting rights, safety from gun violence, freedom from hate and bigotry, and women’s rights over their own bodies. “We see a full-on assault, state by state on our most fundamental freedoms and rights,” she said.
President Joe Biden humorously introduced himself, “My name is Joe Biden. I work for Kamala Harris,” and highlighted the nation’s identity as a land of immigrants and dreamers. He emphasized the progress made together and promoted his comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and an expansion of green cards. Biden urged Congress to act, stressing the need for unity against the divisive rhetoric of former President Donald Trump. Biden criticized Trump’s derogatory statements about immigrants, saying, “He [Trump] calls immigrants’ rapists and murderers… He says immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.” Biden stressed his vision of a country inclusive of all people.
The reception featured patriotic songs and Indian cuisine, such as Paani puri and Khoya. Additionally, a special celebration, ‘Lasting Legacies,’ was held at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium to mark the 25th anniversary of the White House Initiative and President’s Advisory Commission on AANHPI.
At the event, Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, discussed the importance of disaggregating data for the AANHPI community and addressed rising hate crimes. He remarked, “We always have known that there is always hate out there and that sometimes it translates to criminal conduct… This commission has taken with a vengeance to address [it].”
Ambassador Katherine Tai, U.S. Trade Representative, acknowledged AANHPI leaders in the Biden administration, including Vice President Harris and others, while recalling pioneers like Representatives Dalip Singh Saund and Patsy Mink, and Secretary Norman Mineta, the first Asian American in a President’s Cabinet. Tai emphasized, “Our administration is fighting against anti AANHPI hate and violence… We are empowering members of our community… to succeed.”
Neera Tanden, Chair of the President’s Domestic Policy Council, emphasized her commitment to representing all Americans, ensuring AANHPI voices are heard in government policies on education, health care, crime, and immigration. She stated, “A priority for us is to make sure the government really represents the needs and views of all Americans.”
Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy shared his parents’ story of overcoming hardships to immigrate to the U.S., illustrating the promise of America. Reflecting on his grandfather, a poor farmer in South India, he said, “My grandfather… could never have dreamed that one day his grandson, would be asked by the President to look out for the health of an entire nation.”
Ajay Bhutoria, AANHPI Commissioner, highlighted the commission’s advocacy on economic equality, data disaggregation, language access, and immigration issues, praising the efforts of key figures like Krystal Ka‘ai and Erika Moritsugu. Bhutoria told News India Times, “The Commission has been advocating for issues important to the community around advancing economic equality, data disaggregation, language access, Green Card backlog, H1B visa stamping.”
Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna emphasized the importance of constructive dialogue over admonishment in bolstering relations between India and the United States. Speaking at the Desis Decide summit, Khanna addressed recent criticisms voiced by Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar regarding Western attempts to lecture India on human rights issues.
Reflecting on India’s colonial history, Khanna stressed the necessity of approaching discussions with sensitivity. “India was colonized for over 100 years,” Khanna remarked, cautioning against a patronizing attitude. “When we’re having a conversation about human rights… you have to understand… just coming in from a perspective of lecturing India is not going to be productive.”
Khanna advocated for a collaborative approach, suggesting that acknowledging mutual imperfections in democracy and human rights could lead to progress. He urged for a shift in the US government’s strategy when addressing Indian leadership.
Agreeing with Khanna’s sentiments, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal highlighted the multifaceted nature of US interests, encompassing economic and geopolitical considerations. She emphasized the importance of holding all nations accountable for human rights violations while maintaining diplomatic relationships.
Congressman Shri Thanedar echoed the call for a robust India-US alliance, emphasizing India’s strategic significance in countering global challenges, particularly China’s assertiveness. Thanedar urged for a commitment from India to strengthen ties with the United States.
Turning to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Khanna expressed optimism about the prospects of a two-state solution under the Biden administration. He referenced a 1990 law that could impede US support for Palestine’s UN membership and anticipated a more nuanced approach from President Biden.
During a panel discussion, speculation arose about Khanna’s potential presidential candidacy, met with laughter from the congressman himself. When asked about the timeline for an Indian-American president, panelists offered varying predictions, with Dr. Bera suggesting it could happen within a decade, Jayapal expressing optimism for a swifter timeline, and Thanedar boldly asserting it could occur within four years.
President Joe Biden made a significant move this week that shook up a key global relationship. During a TV interview, he responded to a question about Israel’s potential invasion of Rafah by stating, “I’m not supplying the weapons.” This statement marked a departure from the long-standing tradition of arms shipments being central to the US-Israel alliance. It was the first time in forty years such a crack had appeared. Biden faced pressure from both domestic and international fronts to prevent further civilian casualties and alleviate the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Consequently, he took the unprecedented step of withholding arms shipments to Israel, a move not seen since President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Aaron David Miller, a former State Department analyst, noted Biden’s reluctance to take actions that might harm the US-Israel relationship but highlighted a shift in Biden’s stance due to concerns about Israel’s potential invasion of Rafah.
Israel’s announcement of ground forces beginning “targeted activity” in Rafah, coupled with the looming threat of a full-scale invasion, prompted Biden’s decision. The situation in Rafah had led to over 100,000 people fleeing the fighting, facing dire shortages of basic necessities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on launching a full ground invasion exacerbated concerns, despite Washington’s urging for a more targeted approach against Hamas in Rafah.
Biden’s primary concern was de-escalating the conflict and avoiding a crisis with neighboring Egypt while minimizing divisions within the Democratic Party. The temporary halt in arms shipments, including high payload weapons like 2,000-pound bombs and JDAM kits, reflected Biden’s attempt to signal his concerns about the situation in Rafah. However, the impact of this pause on Israel’s military capabilities was deemed inconsequential by some experts.
Nonetheless, Biden’s move sparked strong reactions, with Republicans condemning it as outrageous and a sign of weakness, while Democrats viewed it as a necessary step to address humanitarian concerns. The rift between Biden and Netanyahu comes at a critical juncture in ceasefire negotiations, with disagreements over Hamas’ demands for a permanent end to the war.
The longstanding relationship between Biden and Netanyahu has been characterized by turbulence, with occasional praise from Netanyahu but frequent disagreements over Palestinian policy. Despite historical support for Israel, Biden’s recent actions signal a potential shift in US-Israel relations. Netanyahu’s defiant response to Biden’s move underscores his willingness to resist US pressure, while Democratic senators emphasize the importance of minimizing civilian casualties in any military action by Israel.
Donald J. Trump leads President Biden in five pivotal battleground states, according to fresh polls, amid a growing desire for change and dissatisfaction over economic issues and the conflict in Gaza, particularly among young, Black, and Hispanic voters, posing a threat to the Democratic coalition.
The recent surveys conducted by The New York Times, Siena College, and The Philadelphia Inquirer indicate that Mr. Trump holds the lead among registered voters in five out of six key states: Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, with Mr. Biden only leading in Wisconsin among registered voters.
Among likely voters, the race is tighter, with Mr. Trump leading in five states, but Mr. Biden pulling ahead in Michigan and closely trailing in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Despite Mr. Biden’s victories in these states in 2020, winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin would be sufficient for his re-election, provided he secures victories elsewhere as he did four years ago.
These findings remain largely consistent since the last series of Times/Siena polls in battleground states in November, despite various developments such as a 25% increase in the stock market, the commencement of Mr. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, and significant campaign advertisements by the Biden camp across these states.
However, there’s little indication from the polls that these developments have swayed voter sentiment in favor of Mr. Biden or against Mr. Trump. Economic concerns, immigration, the conflict in Gaza, and a desire for change persist as factors affecting the president’s standing. Though Mr. Biden saw a surge in momentum following his State of the Union address in March, he continues to lag behind in national and battleground state polls.
The polls reveal a widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s current state and skepticism regarding Mr. Biden’s capacity to effect substantial improvements. While a majority of voters crave a return to the normalcy promised by Mr. Biden, those in battleground states are particularly anxious for change, with nearly 70% believing that significant changes are needed in the political and economic systems.
Only a small fraction of Mr. Biden’s supporters anticipate major changes in his second term, while even some who oppose Mr. Trump concede that he might disrupt the unsatisfactory status quo.
Mr. Trump’s appeal among young and nonwhite voters seems to have shifted the electoral landscape temporarily, particularly in diverse Sun Belt states like Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada, where Black and Hispanic voters played a pivotal role in Mr. Biden’s previous victories.
Nonetheless, Mr. Biden remains competitive, especially among older and white voters who prioritize democracy as the most crucial issue. This demographic provides him with support in the relatively white Northern swing states.
Economic concerns, including the cost of living, remain paramount for a quarter of voters and pose a significant challenge to Mr. Biden’s prospects. Despite improvements in certain economic indicators, a considerable portion of voters still perceive the economy as poor, impacting their perceptions of the current administration’s performance.
For voters like Jennifer Wright, a registered nurse in Michigan, and Jacob Sprague, a systems engineer in Nevada, economic factors heavily influence their electoral decisions, with both expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.
Despite Mr. Biden’s assertions about the economy’s health, many voters, like Sprague, remain unconvinced, citing personal experiences of rising expenses.
With less than six months until the election, there remains the possibility of an economic upturn bolstering Mr. Biden’s standing. Historically, early-stage polls haven’t always accurately predicted outcomes, and Mr. Trump’s recent gains among traditionally Democratic demographics may not be solidified, especially among disengaged voters.
Additionally, a significant portion of voters blame Mr. Biden more than Mr. Trump for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, presenting an opportunity for the Biden campaign to sway voters as the election approaches.
Abortion emerges as a significant vulnerability for Mr. Trump, with a majority of voters in battleground states supporting its legality. Despite the Biden campaign’s efforts to highlight Mr. Trump’s stance on abortion, voters still prefer Mr. Biden to handle the issue by a significant margin.
However, Mr. Biden’s main challenge may lie in appealing to disaffected voters who desire fundamental changes in American society, a demographic that has traditionally leaned Democratic but has been swayed by Mr. Trump’s anti-establishment brand of conservatism.
Seventy percent of voters believe Mr. Trump will either enact major changes or dismantle the current systems, compared to only 24 percent who expect the same from Mr. Biden. Despite reservations about Mr. Trump personally, a significant portion of voters view him as a force for positive change.
Mr. Trump’s appeal is particularly strong among voters who advocate for substantial systemic changes, a group he leads by a considerable margin. On the other hand, Mr. Biden retains much of his support from voters who believe minor changes suffice.
In conclusion, the polls highlight Mr. Biden’s challenges in retaining support among crucial demographics while also appealing to voters disillusioned with the current state of affairs. As the election nears, economic conditions and the candidates’ ability to address voter concerns will likely play decisive roles in determining the outcome.
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are facing a significant challenge to their operations in the U.S., prompting them to resort to legal action, once again invoking the First Amendment. The company has filed a lawsuit against a new bipartisan law that mandates it to divest TikTok or face a ban in the country. This law, known as the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is designed to address national security concerns arising from TikTok’s ties to China. Despite TikTok’s past successes in court using First Amendment arguments, this new law presents additional hurdles, as it is specifically tailored to address national security threats.
Sarah Kreps, director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy, noted the ongoing efforts to ensure the constitutionality of such measures, emphasizing the evolving legal landscape since the Trump administration’s initial attempts to ban TikTok in 2020. The swift passage of the recent law, signed by President Biden, underscores the bipartisan consensus on the perceived national security risks posed by TikTok.
The law gained momentum in Congress, receiving bipartisan support and advancing rapidly through the legislative process. It was championed by members of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and eventually incorporated into a broader package of foreign aid bills. Despite previous legislative efforts targeting TikTok, this new law distinguishes itself by providing ByteDance with an opportunity to sell TikTok before facing a ban and by authorizing the president to designate other apps with ties to adversarial nations.
However, TikTok remains steadfast in its First Amendment defense, arguing that the law unfairly targets the company and imposes an unattainable deadline for divestment. TikTok contends that the mandated divestiture is not feasible and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the government. While TikTok has successfully defended itself against previous bans using First Amendment arguments, the focus of the new law on national security presents a unique challenge.
The Knight First Amendment Institute has voiced opposition to both the federal law and previous state-level attempts to ban TikTok. According to George Wang, a staff attorney at the institute, any restriction on free speech must be justified by compelling evidence of harm, which the government has yet to provide convincingly.
The passage of the law was facilitated by a classified briefing to lawmakers from the intelligence community, highlighting potential security threats posed by TikTok. Despite some dissenting voices, the bill garnered broad bipartisan support, signaling a rare consensus on the perceived national security risks associated with TikTok.
Kreps observed that such broad bipartisan support lends credence to the notion of TikTok as a national security threat, given the typically polarized political climate. This unanimity among lawmakers and the executive branch strengthens the perception of TikTok as a significant security concern.
TikTok and ByteDance are challenging a new law aimed at addressing national security threats posed by the app’s Chinese ownership. Despite TikTok’s history of successfully using First Amendment arguments in court, the specific focus of this law on national security presents fresh challenges. The bipartisan support for the law underscores the widespread concern over TikTok’s potential risks, as perceived by both lawmakers and the intelligence community.
A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, issued an injunction on Friday, halting a recent Biden administration regulation that aimed to cap late fees charged by credit card companies at $8.
The ruling by US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, a nominee of former President Donald Trump, granted a preliminary injunction requested by various business and banking entities who contended that the new regulation infringed upon several federal laws.
These entities, spearheaded by the conservative-leaning US Chamber of Commerce, initiated legal action against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) subsequent to the finalization of the regulation in March. The regulation, slated for implementation on Tuesday, was forecasted by the CFPB to save consumers approximately $10 billion annually by reducing fees from an average of $32.
A preliminary injunction effectively stalls the implementation of the regulation until a hearing can be convened to delve into the case with more depth.
“The credit card lobby’s lawsuit is an attempt to derail a rule that will save families $10 billion each year in order to continue making tens of billions of dollars in profits by charging borrowers late fees that far exceed their actual costs,” stated a spokesperson for the CFPB in a communication with CNN. “Consumers will shoulder $800 million in late fees every month that the rule is delayed — money that pads the profit margins of the largest credit card issuers. We will continue to defend this rule so that working families can stop paying excessive late fees that Congress banned more than a decade ago.”
The US Chamber of Commerce declined to comment in response to CNN’s inquiry.
“It is disappointing that the court has granted this last-ditch effort by the banks to prevent these critical limits on credit card late fees from going into effect next week,” remarked Chuck Bell, advocacy program director for non-profit Consumer Reports. “Credit card companies have been bilking consumers out of billions of dollars in excessive late fees for far too long.”
The regulation, initially proposed in February 2023, forms part of a broader initiative by the Biden administration to eradicate “junk fees,” which are regarded as concealed or deceptive charges imposed on consumers.
The newly established regulation would be applicable to major credit card issuers — those with over 1 million accounts. Such companies account for over 95% of the total outstanding credit card debt, according to the CFPB.
The endeavor to target credit card fees aligns with the Biden administration’s endeavors to alleviate financial strains for numerous Americans. Over the past couple of years, high inflation has caused some borrowers, particularly millennials and individuals with lower incomes, to fall behind on their credit card debt.
Furthermore, the regulation aimed to close a loophole from 2010 that the CFPB alleges has been “exploited” by credit card companies to escalate fees on overdue payments.
Based on a national survey conducted by Consumer Reports and published in September, one out of five American adults disclosed that they had incurred a credit card late fee within the preceding 12 months. Eighty-two percent of respondents expressed support for lowering the maximum late fee.
A recent assessment from the U.S. State Department suggests that Israel may have breached international humanitarian law during its military actions in Gaza, though the report refrains from making definitive judgments about Israeli conduct in its conflict with Hamas.
The Biden administration initiated this review of Israel and six other nations receiving U.S. arms. While facing criticism domestically and internationally, this evaluation does not mandate any specific responses.
The report reflects a growing level of scrutiny towards Israel within the administration, coupled with frustration over its handling of the conflict. Despite this, President Biden maintains his support for Israel’s efforts to combat Hamas in Gaza.
The investigation focused on two main inquiries: whether Israel misused U.S. weapons in violation of international law and whether it hindered humanitarian aid.
Regarding the former, the report stated, “It is reasonable to assess that [U.S.] defense articles … have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its [International Humanitarian Law] obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.” Although numerous instances of civilian casualties in Israeli airstrikes raised serious concerns, conclusive evidence was lacking.
Palestinian health officials claim that over 34,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have died in Gaza, while Israel asserts it has killed more than 13,000 Hamas fighters.
On the matter of humanitarian aid, the report initially criticized Israel for impeding aid efforts, but acknowledged subsequent cooperation. However, recent disruptions at the Rafah border crossing have severely impacted aid delivery.
The Biden administration’s decision to withhold a shipment of over 3,000 large bombs to Israel indicates a shift in approach, though it is unlikely to significantly affect Israeli operations in Gaza.
While the U.S. supports Israel’s goal of defeating Hamas in Rafah, it opposes a full-scale assault due to concerns about civilian casualties. The lack of a credible plan to protect civilians in Rafah is a point of contention.
A national security memorandum issued in February mandated the report, prompted by congressional Democrats’ concerns about potential violations of international law.
Although the report does not legally obligate the U.S. to cease arms transfers, it may influence future policy decisions. However, analysts doubt significant changes will occur, noting President Biden’s reluctance to alter his stance on Rafah.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated his resistance to external pressure, including from the White House, highlighting potential challenges in U.S.-Israel relations.
The report raises questions about how President Biden will manage his relationship with Netanyahu, particularly regarding Gaza. Despite threats of policy adjustments, little substantive change has materialized, leaving uncertainty about the administration’s red lines.
President Biden’s firm stance against a significant Israeli military operation in Rafah has put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a difficult position. Launching a major offensive to crush Hamas in southern Gaza risks rupturing ties with the U.S., while failure to act decisively could weaken Netanyahu’s domestic political coalition.
According to White House national security communications adviser John Kirby, the U.S. acknowledges Israel’s need to make its own decisions regarding military actions. However, Biden made it clear that a major invasion of Rafah would prompt significant consequences, including withholding offensive arms transfers to Israel.
Biden’s warning comes amid growing criticism of Israel’s military conduct, particularly concerning civilian casualties in Gaza. Despite emphasizing support for Israel’s security, Biden stated that the U.S. opposes Israel’s ability to wage war in civilian areas.
Netanyahu hinted at Israel’s readiness to confront Hamas in Rafah independently, irrespective of U.S. warnings. Meanwhile, opposition leader Benny Gantz stressed Israel’s duty to defend itself, underscoring the U.S.’s obligation to support Israel’s security.
While some Israeli leaders criticized Biden’s stance, Netanyahu has shown a degree of compliance with U.S. demands behind closed doors. However, he faces pressure from his right-wing base, necessitating a delicate balancing act.
Despite Biden’s frustration over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, his administration aims to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas and negotiate a ceasefire to end the conflict. A key aspect of Biden’s Middle East strategy involves brokering a deal for Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with Israel, contingent upon ending the Gaza war.
Saudi Arabia insists on a pathway to a Palestinian state before establishing relations with Israel. Although Israeli public support for a Palestinian state is mixed, it becomes more acceptable within the context of a broader U.S.-brokered agreement.
The Biden administration envisions post-war Gaza being overseen by the Palestinian Authority, supported by a coalition of Arab security forces. However, Israel asserts the need to defeat Hamas before such arrangements can be implemented.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Herzog, emphasized the necessity of neutralizing Hamas’s military capabilities in Rafah to prevent its resurgence. He underscored the importance of Arab forces intervening only after Hamas is decisively defeated.
TikTok and its parent company ByteDance have taken legal action against a U.S. law aimed at compelling the divestment of the popular social media app from its Chinese-based ownership or facing a ban in the United States. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday against the U.S. government, contends that the law, known as the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act, infringes upon the First Amendment rights.
The legislation grants ByteDance a 270-day window to offload TikTok to a new entity that would oversee its operations in the U.S. Failure to comply would result in the app being barred from American networks and online platforms. Additionally, the president has the authority to grant ByteDance an extra 90 days if deemed necessary.
TikTok and ByteDance argue that a “qualified divestiture” is unattainable, citing commercial, technological, and legal challenges. They assert that such a move would inevitably lead to the shutdown of the app in the U.S., impacting millions of daily users. Furthermore, TikTok criticizes the law for singling out the app by name, while the president is granted the power to identify other applications falling under similar regulations, though TikTok and ByteDance are the sole entities explicitly mentioned in the legislation.
Even if a sale were feasible, TikTok maintains that the law represents an “extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power.” It contends that the legislation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing Congress to circumvent First Amendment protections by invoking national security concerns to compel the divestment of any media outlet.
This legal challenge represents the latest and most significant threat to TikTok’s presence in the U.S., although it is not the first time the company has faced such peril. Previously, the Trump administration attempted to enact a ban on TikTok, which was thwarted by federal courts. Additionally, TikTok has successfully navigated challenges at the state level, including a Montana law that was later blocked by a judge.
However, the current law poses a formidable obstacle to TikTok’s future operations in the U.S., particularly given its national security underpinnings, which may complicate legal defenses. The legislation garnered swift approval in Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan support. The House passed the bill with a decisive 352-65 vote in March, less than a week after its introduction. Subsequently, the measure was included in a broader foreign aid package that President Biden signed into law last month.
In the lead-up to the G20 summit, the Narendra Modi administration frequently employed the phrases ‘mother of democracy’ and ‘vishwaguru’.
The term ‘mother of democracy’ seemed to be introduced as a counter to India’s swift decline in the global democracy index.
‘Vishwaguru’ aimed to convey the message that Modi is a global leader whose presence cannot be overlooked any longer.
India’s presidency of the G20 rotates, and last year it was India’s turn to host the summit. Yashwant Sinha reminisced about his chairing of the G20 during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure, noting that Vajpayee didn’t utilize it for cult-building purposes. However, the current government’s focus during the G20, symbolized by a globe resting on a lotus, was centered on projecting India as a robust democracy with Modi as its singular leader. This shift prompts the question: why has the BJP manifesto now replaced ‘Vishwaguru’ with ‘Vishwabandhu’?
Recently, several Western nations have expressed concerns about events in India. The US, for instance, has raised issues regarding communal tensions, religious freedom, and the arrests of political figures:
The US State Department’s annual human rights assessment highlighted “significant” abuses in Manipur;
It also voiced concerns about communal violence in Gurugram;
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom noted a ‘decline in religious freedom’ in India and urged the Modi government to release 37 individuals of various faiths detained for the ‘peaceful exercise of their freedom of religion or belief’.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that the US closely monitored the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the freezing of Congress party bank accounts, emphasizing the need for fair, transparent, and timely legal processes.
A State Department official called on India to uphold its human rights obligations.
President Joe Biden’s absence as the chief guest at the Republic Day parade, the postponement of the Quad summit, and NSA Jake Sullivan’s cancellation of visits to India have been interpreted by some as indications of US disapproval. The latest negative comment was Biden’s labeling of India as ‘xenophobic’.
Even during the G20 summit in New Delhi, a resolution was passed advocating for religious freedom, freedom of peaceful assembly, and condemning all acts of religious hatred.
In response to criticism, the Modi government’s initial reaction has been to dismiss it as Western propaganda and minimize its impact on domestic politics. Television channels and print media have cooperated, often presenting carefully curated versions of reports that cast the government in a favorable light. Frequently, the mainstream media leads such stories with official denials before briefly acknowledging the criticism and dismissing it.
This age-old tactic, reminiscent of the Cold War era, was employed recently when Germany and the US commented on Kejriwal’s arrest. Envoys were summoned to the External Affairs Ministry and handed formal protests against ‘interference’ in India’s internal affairs. Simultaneously, the government launched a robust diplomatic offensive against what it deemed ‘disinformation’.
One strategy borrowed from the US involves leveraging trade and arms purchases as diplomatic tools, with mixed success. While France, India’s defense collaborator, and Gulf countries have remained relatively silent, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has defended India’s democracy in foreign capitals, and Indian embassies have been tasked with countering ‘Western propaganda’.
The Modi government’s unease with foreign criticism is understandable. Initially, the domestic media highlighted such criticism. However, within the first three years of Modi’s tenure, negative news was largely suppressed in mainstream media. Nonetheless, strategies like ‘sam, dam, dand, bhed’ have failed to silence external critics.
The BBC underwent tax raids and faced FDI inquiries, leading it to separate its Indian newsroom into a distinct company. Emily Schmall of The New York Times recounted being invited to meetings with the government, during which ministers would criticize foreign correspondents. At one such meeting, the “minister of information” read aloud headlines from articles written by the gathered correspondents in a seemingly random manner, with a hint of sarcasm. At least 13 journalists, nine of whom were Muslims in Kashmir, have been booked under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Schmall emphasized that journalism is under threat in India.
Last year, Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur accused The New York Times of spreading lies after it published an article on press freedom in Kashmir. His response mirrored the government’s tendency to dismiss negative reports as false.
When Lancet questioned the accuracy and transparency of Indian healthcare data, the government dismissed it. Similarly, a Harvard study indicating 6.7 million malnourished children in India was labeled as fake news.
To refute the IMF’s lower GDP prediction, former Chief Economic Adviser Krishnamurthy Subramaniam criticized the IMF’s estimates as consistently inaccurate. Incumbent CEA Anantha Nageswaran has also questioned the metrics of ratings agencies like Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P.
Union Minister Rajiv Chandrasekhar described as ‘half-truths’ a report by The Washington Post claiming that India had requested Apple to ‘soften’ its hacking alert.
Despite these efforts, negative news about India continues to surface:
Reporters Without Borders stated that India’s ranking in the World Freedom Index for 2024 is 159 out of 176 countries, compared to 150 in 2022.
India ranked 111 out of 125 countries in the Global Hunger Index 2023, with the highest rate of child wasting at 18.7%. In the previous year, its ranking was 107 out of 121 countries.
India topped the Global Slavery Index for 2023 among G20 countries, followed by China, Russia, Indonesia, and the US.
Youth unemployment in India in 2022 was 23.22%, higher than in Pakistan (11.3%), Bangladesh (12.9%), China (13.2%), and Bhutan (14.4%), according to World Bank data.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and 10 other international rights groups have criticized the misuse of laws like UAPA and financial regulations to silence journalists, human rights activists, and government critics.
Accordingly, an all-out mobilization effort is underway by the Modi regime to counteract this negative narrative. To counter organizations like Freedom House, V-Dem, and the Economic Intelligence Unit, the government-run Niti Ayog has engaged the Modi-friendly Observer Research Foundation to create India’s own democracy index. The Adani group has announced the establishment of a new think-tank. Additionally, pro-government voices, including academic groups, intellectuals, lawyers, and retired judges associated with the Sangh Parivar, are encouraged to issue statements and contribute articles to the media.
The PMO is coordinating the media response, both in print and digital formats. It appears that Vishwabandhu feels he has nothing to lose but his world.
Hamas has reportedly agreed to a temporary cessation of hostilities with Israel amidst ongoing diplomatic maneuvers aimed at securing the release of Israeli hostages held by the group and preventing an Israeli military intervention in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
According to Basem Naim, Hamas’s head of political and international relations, the group has communicated its acceptance of a ceasefire proposal to mediators from Egypt and Qatar. This comes after weeks of intensive diplomatic efforts by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas.
While Israel has indicated its willingness to send a delegation for negotiations on a temporary ceasefire, it has expressed reservations about Hamas’s proposal, deeming it insufficient to meet Israel’s demands. The Israeli government, in a statement from the prime minister’s office, asserted that Hamas’s proposal falls short of their requirements.
Simultaneously, Israel’s wartime Cabinet has unanimously decided to continue military operations targeting Hamas positions in Rafah. Despite efforts by the Biden administration to dissuade Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from launching an offensive in Rafah, the White House remains cautious about Hamas’s ceasefire offer.
President Biden held discussions with Netanyahu, although the conversation occurred prior to Hamas’s announcement. John Kirby, the White House national security communications adviser, emphasized the administration’s commitment to securing the release of Israeli hostages through a temporary ceasefire, as well as safeguarding the lives of over a million Palestinians in Rafah.
Rafah, located on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, serves as a crucial entry point for humanitarian aid into the besieged territory. Following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, which resulted in numerous casualties and the abduction of over 250 individuals, Israel has been engaged in a protracted conflict with the group.
A brief ceasefire in November facilitated the release of more than 100 hostages, a precedent that the administration seeks to replicate in ongoing negotiations. However, the specific details of the proposed truce have not been publicly disclosed by mediators, and Hamas has refrained from elaborating on the terms.
Nonetheless, the tentative agreement reportedly involves a six-to-eight week cessation of hostilities, during which Hamas would gradually release Israeli hostages, starting with the most vulnerable among them. In return, Israel is expected to release an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners, withdraw troops from select areas of Gaza, and permit movement for Palestinians within the territory.
Additionally, the ceasefire would enable a significant influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza, where the population has endured displacement, casualties, and dire humanitarian conditions due to the prolonged conflict.
Amidst the buzz of Election Day last November, an incident involving a voting machine glitch in an eastern Pennsylvania county caught the attention of Gabriel Sterling, a prominent Republican election official from Georgia. With a social media following of nearly 71,000 on X platform, Sterling felt compelled to address the issue and reassure the public about the integrity of the electoral process. However, his actions were met with mixed reactions, including criticism for intervening in another state’s affairs and the perpetuation of baseless claims regarding widespread electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Despite the backlash, Sterling remained steadfast in his belief that it was the right course of action for Republican officials to defend the electoral process, emphasizing the importance of dispelling misinformation and standing up for the integrity of elections across state lines. He stressed the necessity for continuous affirmation of the legitimacy of elections, particularly in the face of mounting skepticism, especially among Republican voters, fueled by unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.
As the specter of the upcoming presidential rematch between Democratic President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump looms large, concerns persist among election officials regarding public trust in the electoral system. Trump’s repeated claims of election rigging without evidence only serve to exacerbate these concerns, further eroding confidence in the electoral process.
A poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research last year revealed that only 22% of Republicans expressed high confidence in the accuracy of vote counting. Against this backdrop, there is a growing recognition among Republican officials of the need to rebuild trust in the electoral process, not only as a moral imperative but also as a strategic necessity to ensure voter turnout.
Initiated approximately 18 months ago, a collaborative effort spearheaded by the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University and the center-right think tank R Street Institute seeks to address these challenges by fostering dialogue and developing a set of guiding principles to restore faith in elections, particularly among conservative circles. Contrary to misconceptions, the endeavor is not centered around any individual, including Trump, but rather focuses on upholding democratic values and the rule of law.
A key tenet of this initiative is the public affirmation by Republican officials of the security and integrity of elections nationwide, coupled with a commitment to refrain from sowing doubt about electoral processes in other jurisdictions. This approach is endorsed by figures like Kim Wyman, a former top election official from Washington state, who emphasizes the importance of emphasizing commonalities in election procedures across states rather than dwelling on differences.
However, navigating the delicate balance between promoting confidence in elections and respecting jurisdictional boundaries poses a challenge for some officials. While there is consensus on the need to reinforce general principles of election integrity, there is hesitation among some to comment directly on the affairs of other states, fearing that such actions may undermine trust in their own state’s electoral process.
This cautious approach is echoed by officials like Scott Schwab, the secretary of state for Kansas, who underscores the importance of maintaining trust among constituents by adhering to the confines of their role. Schwab emphasizes the critical link between public trust and the perceived integrity of elections, urging officials to exercise prudence in their public statements.
Conversely, there are voices within the Republican ranks advocating for a more proactive stance on election-related issues. Secretary of State Mac Warner of West Virginia advocates for policy reforms, such as the implementation of voter ID requirements, as a means to bolster confidence in the electoral process. Warner argues that genuine confidence stems from robust protocols rather than stifling dissent.
Similarly, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose criticizes what he views as politically motivated legal challenges and attempts to circumvent legislative frameworks governing elections. LaRose contends that transparency is key in addressing electoral shortcomings, cautioning against sensationalized narratives that undermine public trust.
Amidst these differing perspectives, Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson highlights the broader ramifications of partisan discord surrounding elections, particularly the toll it takes on election workers. Henderson stresses the importance of constructive dialogue over unfounded accusations, emphasizing the need for mutual respect and civility in public discourse.
The efforts of Republican officials to uphold the integrity of elections and restore public trust represent a multifaceted endeavor encompassing both principled advocacy and pragmatic considerations. As the nation braces for another contentious presidential election, the success of these efforts hinges on a collective commitment to democratic values and the rule of law, transcending partisan divides for the greater good of the electoral process.
The Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) celebrated its 35th Anniversary on April 26-28, 2024 at its Convention 2024 at Royal Albert Palace, Fords, New Jersey, USA. The convention focused on India’s Present and the Future and what role the Diaspora Indians can play in helping to realize this desirable future with a theme, ‘Opportunities for Diaspora Indians in India’s Big Manifest Future.’ The convention ended with General Body passing four resolutions including one demanding full dual nationality for Overseas Indian Citizens (OCI) card holders.
The convention was inaugurated with a lamp lighting ceremony on April 26th followed by a universal prayer song by GOPIO-Edison President Pallavi Belwariar and an invocation dance in Kathak style by Mitali Nirgude-Kaganeb. The chief guest was Guyana Ambassador to the USA, His Excellency Samuel Hinds, who earlier had served as the Prime Minister and President of Guyana. India’s Deputy Consul General in New York Dr. Varun Jeph delivered the keynote address.
GOPIO Convention 2024 being inaugurated with lighting of the lamp by Ambassador Samuel Hinds, Deputy Consul General Dr. Varun Jeph and GOPIO Officials
New York City Mayor Eric Adams issued a citation honoring the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) on the occasion of its convention and for its contribution to improve life in New York city. The proclamation was presented by Deputy Commissioner for International Affairs Dilip Chauhan who complimented GOPIO for its outstanding work for the benefit of the Indian Diaspora worldwide.
New York City Deputy Commissioner Dilip Chauhan presenting citation from Mayor Eric Adams. From l. to r.: Convener Prakash Shah, Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chauhan, Ambassador Samuel Hinds and President Lal Motwani
Ambassador Hinds fondly shared Guyana’s close relation with India and GOPIO, especially since the late Dr. Cheddi Jagan attended the first GOPIO Convention in New York and later inaugurated Second Global Convention held in New Delhi in 1992 as President of Guyana. Again in 1999, Guyana President Bharrat Jagdeo inaugurated GOPIO Convention in New York.
Ambassador Hinds said, “President Jagan had high regard for GOPIO and was always seeking to support GOPIO.” Dr. Jagan played a significant role in Guyana’s progress. “With oil discovery, Guyana will prosper rapidly,” Ambassador Hinds added.
In his keynote address, Dr. Jeph articulated the tremendous progress India has made in many arenas and currently being the 5th largest economy of the world and will soon become the third largest economy.
Dr. Jeph provided India’s growth, success and potentials with amazing statistics and said that India with 65% of youth has bright prospects.
Dr. Jeph said, “Indian Americans are playing pivotal role in the US economy with start ups and other business ventures, while being just over 1% of the population, your contribution in the economy of over 6%.”
“To the USA, we send brilliance and intelligence of the highest number of foreign students creating formidable future,” Dr. Jeph added.
Dr. Jeph complimented GOPIO’s initiatives to network and help new students from India and said that the Consulate would continue to cooperate in this effort.
The inaugural session started with a welcome by Convention Convener Prakash Shah, who also serves as GOPIO’s Global Ambassador. GOPIO President Lal Motwani said that since the new team was elected last year, the organization has been brought with more activities and restarting its newsletter GOPIO News.
GOPIO Chairman in his remarks said that since its inception in 1989, GOPIO had taken up issues of civil rights and human rights violations of the Indian Diaspora around the world and that Indian Diaspora communities have achieved political mainstream in many of the countrie with signficant Diaspora population.
Dignitaries and GOPIO officials at the inauguration, from l. to r.: Indian Deputy Consul |General Varun Jeph, Ambassador Samuel Hinds, Dr. Thomas Abraham, Lal Motwani and Prakash Shah
Dr. Abraham said, “The 35 million strong Indian Diaspora community is the fastest growing Diaspora community worldwide spread into 180 countries and we are remitting over $100 billion dollars every year which has helped India to reach a foreign reserve of over $650 billion and this flow will continue in the same level or more in the near future.”
There were nine conference sessions on Saturday, Aprill 27th at the convention which included how Indian Diaspora can participate in India’s big manifest as well as some on the Diaspora life and social segments.
The first session on “GOPIO Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Worldwide Networking of the Diaspora Businesses,” was chaired by Convener Prakash Shah, who is also President First Growth Mortgage and Realty LLC. Speakers were Dr Vithal Dhaduk, who developed and sold Pharma Companies; Braj Aggarwal, President, Braj Aggarwal CPA PC, New York; Sunil Hali, Chairman, Radio Zindagi, Indian Eye, NDTV USA, New Jersey; Hotel & Realty Veteran Bhavik Shah and Falguni Pandya of Namaste Global.
Panel on GOPIO Chamber of Commerce and Networking Worldwide Diaspora Businesses, From l. to r.: Session Chair and Moderator Prakash Shah, Falguni Pandya, Bhavik Shah, Dr. Vithal Dhaduk Sunil Hali and Braj Aggarwal
During the Women’s Panel session titled “Diaspora Women Making A Difference”, GOPIO women shared their personal stories of contributions to their adopted homelands. Rooted in Motherland India, five women, namely Soruba Rani Kuusto, Dr. Vimal Goyle, Dr. Rini Johar, Beena Kothari and Suman Kapoor of New Zealand, represented the diversity in membership across GOPIO. Guided and mentored by the panel Chair and Facilitator J. Nami Kaur who is GOPIO’s International Coordinator-at-Large, they presented their vision for Diaspora engagement in India’s Manifest Future.
Conference Panel Women – Session Chair Nami Kaur moderating the session. Panelists from l. to r.: Soruba Rani Kuusto, Rini Johar, Beena Kop0thari, Dr. Vimal Goyle, Ritu Chopra and Suman Kapoor
Session on “Medical and Health Issues and how Diaspora Indians can Participate in India’s Frontline Role in Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines and other Health Areas” was chaired and moderated by Dr. Asha Samant, GOPIO’s International Coordinator-at-Large, Co-Convener GOPIO Convention-2024 and Associate Professor at Rutgers School of Dental Medicine (UMDNJ), Livingston, New Jersey. Speakers were Dr. Anil Diwan, President and Executive Chairman of NanoVirisides, Inc., Shelton, CT, who spoke on “New Frontiers in Drug Development;” Rakesh Grover, President and CEO, Carnegie Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Delran, NJ; Dr. Anurag Pande, Vice President, Scientific Affairs, Sabinsa Corporation, East Windsor, NJ; Dr. Jaya Daptardar, Chief Compliance Officer of Bridges Health Care and CEO of Active Ayurveda and Yoga LLC, as well as President of GOPIO-CT, Fairfield, CT and Hari Singh Panaser, Chairman, Global Indian Trade and Culture USA; VP, Coolsoft LLC and Global Business Consultant, Birla Soft, Monroe, NJ.
Speakers at Medical, Health and Pharma Opportunities with India – From l. to r.: Chair and Moderator Dr. Asha Samant, Dr. Anil Diwan, Dr. J.M. Daptardar, Dr. Rakesh Grover, Hari Singh Panaser and Dr. Anurag Pande
The Panel on the Emergence of India as a Global Powerhouse which was organized by The Indus Entrepreneur – NJ Chapter (tie.org) focused on the growth of the Digital Economy, Supply Chain and Manufacturing. The session moderator, Professor Suresh Kumar, President of TiE NJ made a powerful bull case regaining its spot among the top three global economies by 2047 and even moving up to the top 2 by 2075. He said that political stability, generation of mass employment by growth of manufacturing, and making the right geo-political alliances over the next decade will be key to sustaining the recent Indian success. The other panelist included Anjan Lahari, CEO of Navikenz and ex CEO of Birlasoft who cautioned against overconfidence and complacency: Neha Shah, CEO of GEP – who emphasized the importance of digital supply chains; Naveen Puri, Founder of InnoPharma – who stressed in training the workforce and keeping them flexible to develop new skills as neede; and Sanyukta Kulkarni,Manager of Route Development (Indian subcontinent), DB Schenker Inc. who spoke on “Growth of Logistic Operations in India.”
Panel on Digital Infrastructure, Supply Chain Logistics and AI – From l. to r.: Navneet Puri, Sanyukta Kulkarni, Chair and Moderator Dr. Suresh Kumar, Neha Shah, GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham and Anjan Lahari
There was a session on Diaspora Youth and Young Achievers and the role they can play in India’s Future and how GOPIO can facilitate their participation? It was put together and chaired by Ms Vasu Pawar, CEO/Founder of Step2StepUp Inc. and co-chaired by Bhavya Gupta, Founder and Managing Partner of ACE Consultants, New Jersey. The keynote address was delivered by Kunal Devmane from Mumbai, India, who was a keynote speaker at G20-India and author of Buffering to Streaming; Sutro Founder and CEO Ravi Kurani; Investment Management Expert Monica Arora; Grammy Award Winner and Audience Specialist Falguni Shah; Creative Music Genius Neil Nayyar; and Hotel & Realty Veteran Bhavik Shah.
Young professional achievers recognized after their session. From l. to r.: Session Chair and Moderator Vasu Pawar, Ravi Kurani, Falu Shah, Monica Arora, Neil Nayyar, Kunal Devmane and GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham. Not visible in the photo ae=re Session Co-chair Bhavya Gupta and Bhavik Shah
Session on “Technologies and AI, and other Innovations: How Diaspora Indians are leading Research and Innovations” was chaired by GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham, who is a Nanotechnologist and President of Innovative Research and Products in Stamford, CT. It was moderated by Prof. Rajasekhar Vangapaty who is Academic Advisor to Fashion Institute of Technology. Prof. Siddhartha Dalal, Professor of Professional Practice in Applied Analytics, Columbia University, New York, delivered the keynote address. Other speakers were: Kathirvel Kumararaja, President, Founder and CEO, DevJee, Inc., New York, NY, who spoke on “Bridging Traditional Wisdom and Modern Healthcare: Opportunities for Diaspora Indians in India’s Health Innovation Economy;” Abraham Pannikottu, CEO. American Engineering Group, Akron, Ohio, “India’s Opportunities and Challenges of AI in Défense Sector on Overseas Small Business Partnerships;” Dr. Kris Mani, President, NSR Technologies, Basking Ridge, NJ who spoke on “Nanotechnology and Other Technologies;” Dr. Jatin V. Mehta, CEO, MetaSense Digital Marketing, Philadelphia, PA, “Mastering SEO & Marketing with AI.”
Speakers at the Conference Session on Technologies and AI, from l. to r. Prof Raj Vangapaty, Dr. Jatin Mehta, Convention Convener Prakash Shah, Prof. Siddhartha Dala, Dr. Thomas Abraham, Kathirvel Kumararaja, Abraham Pannikottu and Dr. Kris Mani
There was a GOPIO Academic Council Roundtable coordinated by GOPIO Edison President Pallavi Belwariar and was chaired by the Academic Council Chair Dr. Neerja Arun Gupta who is currently the Vice Chancellor Gujarat University. It was atte3nded by GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham and Guyana Ambassador Samuel Hinds. The Council discussed the role of academics in manifestation of future India, Student Start Ups with GOPIO Chamber of Commerce and future studies abroad programs for NRI and PIO students. It also did brainstorm on showcasing India to Diaspora and starting virtual and offline programs. Lastly, it resolved to create a Global Network for Academics.
Photo left: Participants at the GOPIO Academic Council Roundtable, Right: Ambassador Hinds speaking at the session. Sitting are Session Coordinator Pallavi Belwariar, GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham and GOPIO Academic Council Chair Dr. Neerja Arun Gupta
A non-business session on ‘Diaspora Languages and Literature’ was put together by GOPIO General Secretary Ram Gadhavi. Scholars including Dr. Babu Suthar (Gujarati), Anoop Bhargav (Hindi), Ashok Vidwans (Marathi), Dr. Vasu Ranganathan (Tamil), Raju Thomas (Malayalam), and Dilip Chakraborty (Bengali) discussed diaspora writers and the status of their respective languages. While summarizing the session, Suthar highlighted three main issues, the debate surrounding the concept of ‘diaspora’ versus ‘transnationalism’; the challenge of preserving Indian languages in the USA due to socio-cultural differences, with differing opinions on whether to prioritize language preservation or adapt to local culture; and the role of language in connecting individuals to their cultural roots and expressing shared experiences, exemplified by Suthar’s struggle to express himself in Gujarati following the 2002 violence. The audience also shared concerns about maintaining Indian language and culture abroad.
Panel Discussion on Diaspora Languages and Literature – From l. to r.: Ashok Vidwans, Raju Thomas, Anoop Bhargava, Dr. Babu Suthar, Dr. Vasu Ranganathan and Dilip Chakraborty
A second non-business session on “Diaspora Indians Aging Gracefully,” was put together by Bharat Rana, President, Federation of Indian Senior Association of North America (FISANA) and President of GOPIO-North Jersey. The speakers were Mukund Mehta, President, India Home, Inc. and President, Indo-American Senior Citizen Center of New York, Queens, NY; Sudha Acharya, GOPIO Founding Co-Convener and Executive Director, South Asian Council for Social Services (SACSS), Flushing, New York; Anand Patel, Businessman and Philanthropist and Owner of Numerous Dunkin’ Donuts Chain franchises, currently serving as Board of Director of FISANA, Past President of FISANA and Currently Member of FIA Trustees; and Suman Kapoor, Hospitality Entrepreneur, GOPIO Waikato, New Zealand.
Convener Prakash Shah said, “We had the most successful Convention at a time that we consider is pivotal for India and for India’s 38 million strong Diaspora. We are dealing with an Outbreak but this time it isn’t an Outbreak of a Covid like disease but an Outbreak of Optimism!”
“We are very confident that with the infrastructure base having been built, India will rapidly evolve into becoming a net defense exporter and a multifaceted manufacturing hub in pharmaceuticals, automobiles, smartphones, semiconductors and aircraft among many others including continuing the high growth in service sector,” Shah continued.
Audience at the Convention
All these conference sessions brought very interesting and useful knowledge as well as mastery of Indians in their specialized fields. The speakers and audience appreciated GOPIO’s vision and mission in planning such conference topics. Convention attendees agreed that right now India with its third largest Start-Up-Ecosystem and having already achieved 125 Unicorns is the best investment opportunity in the world and therefore especially attractive to the Diaspora Indians.
At the Finale Awards banquet, four individuals and two organizations were honoured with community service awards: Dr Neerja A. Gupta who is the first woman Chancellor of Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, India; Dr. V.K. Raju M.D. who has been providing great Service in eradicating childhood blindness; Dharmatma Saran who has been named as the cultural ambassador of India to the world for promoting networking of young women achievers through his annual Miss India Worldwide Pageant and Lion Hina Trivedi of Chicago as a great community builder. Two organizations are also recognized, Heart and Hand for the Handicapped (HHH) for its great service to physically and mentally challenged children and South Asian Council for Social Services (SACSS) for its outstanding services to communities in the New York Area.
Community Service Awardees with Ambassador Samuel Hinds and GOPIO officials. From l. to r.: Dr. Thomas Abraaham, Chitranjan Belwariar, Nami Kaur, Prakash Shah, Kewal Kanda, Gujrat University Vice Chancellor Dr. Neerja Arun Gupta, HHH President Balaji Jilla, Ambassador Hinds, Lal Motwani, Eye Specialist Dr. V.K. Raju, Community Motivator Lion Hina Trivedi, Miss India World Pageant CEO Dharmatma Saran, Rajul Shah, SACSS Executive Director Sudha Acharya and Board Member Dr. Swarna Shah, Dr. Asha Samant and Jay Bhandari
Others recognized by GOPIO include Dr Vithal Dhaduk, Pharmaceutical Business in USA. developed and sold pharma companies; Sabinsa Vice President Anurag Pande, Businesswoman Poonam Khubani; AAHOA Past Chairman Bharat Patel; TV Asia Chairman and CEO Dr. H.R. Shah, Parikh Worldwide Media Chairman Dr. Sudhir Parikh, Indian Eye/Radio Zindagi CEO Sunil Hali, New India Abroad Publisher Rajeev Bhambri; Indian Panorama Editor and Publisher Prof. Indrajit Saluja, Emalayalee and India Life Editor George Joseph, Universal News Network editor Ajay Ghosh and Pravasi Channel producer Sunil Tristar. GOPIO Convention Co-Conveners Dr. Asha Samant and businessman Kenny Desai were also recognized at the convention.
Media Recognition, from l. to r.: Prakash Shah, Dr. Thomas Abraham, Prof. Indrajit Saluja of Indian Panorama, Dr. Sudhir Parikh of ITV/News India/Desi Talk, Ambassador Hinds, Dr. H.R. Shah of TV Asia and Lal Motwani.Recognition to media for their services to community and GOPIO. From l. to r. Dr. Thomas Abraham, Prakash Shah, Rajeev Bhambri of New India Abroad, Ambassador Samuel Hinds, Deputy Consul General Dr. Varun Jeph, Sunil Tristar of Pravasi Channel and India Life, Lal Motwani, George Joseph of emalayalee, and Sunil Hali of The Indian Eye and Radio Zindagi
The GOPIO General Body meeting on April 28th passed important resolutions, many of which are designed to accomplish and accelerate the Diaspora Participation in India’s high growth in its ‘Suvarna Kaal’. These resolution to Govt. of India include to grant full dual nationality to OCI card holders, make OCI at par with Indian citizens in doing business in India and provide Aadhar Card to NRIs who are citizens of India. A fourth resolution urged Biden Administration and US Congress to pass legislation to eliminate the backlog of Indians waiting for permanent residence in the USA.
Edison Town Mayor Sam Joshi, since he was out of town, joined the convention at its concluding GOPIO General Body session and offered all his help for GOPIO to move forward in Edison and nearby areas. GOPIO in turn told the Mayor Joshi that it would initiate some programs for needy including supporting soup kitchens in Edison.
GOPIO General Body Meeting Attendees with Edison Mayor Sam Joshi
The General Body also unanimously elected Dr. Thomas Abraham as Chairman of GOPIO International for the remaining of the current term.
The Convention was attended by many from around the World and from various parts of the USA. The entertainment included a Comedy Hour by the Internationally Acclaimed Comedian Dan Nainan on the first day and concluded with a superb performance of Sarangi and Ghazals by Ustad Kamal Sabri, a seventh Generation Maestro who was accompanied by Avinash Mistry on the Tabla. Grammy Award winner Falu Shah and GOPIO-|Edison President Pallavi Belwariar rendered some songs as well.
Entertainers at the Convention From l to r Avinash Mistry Ustad Kamal Sabri Dan Nainan Falu Shah and Pallavi Belwariar
In the afternoon, GOPIO organized a special trip to the recently consecrated Akshardham Temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey for outside delegates. GOPIO, which is 4 Ps, the premier, pioneer, popular and purposeful, organization of Global Indian Diaspora was founded in world’s financial center – New York in 1989 as a non-political and secular organization. Since then, GOPIO has blossomed like a banyan tree with Diaspora in all continents with Life Members and chapters in 35 countries. GOPIO is regarded as the most influential and productive organization dealing and taking up issues concerning to global Indian Diaspora to various authorities and governments. Government of India closely follows GOPIO and seriously takes its suggestions.
Note: For more information or question, please call GOPIO Convention Convener Prakash Shah at 908-267-5021
The United States is inching closer to potentially banning TikTok as House lawmakers greenlighted a contentious bill in a sweeping aid package aimed at supporting Israel and Ukraine. With a bipartisan vote of 360-58, this move represents yet another setback for TikTok in Washington. The social media giant, currently under the ownership of ByteDance, its Chinese parent company, is grappling with the threat of being ousted from the US market, where it boasts a user base of 170 million.
The legislation adopted by the House over the weekend mirrors an earlier version from March, proposing to remove TikTok from American app stores unless it undergoes a change in ownership promptly. By bundling the TikTok measure with funding for Ukrainian military gear and Israeli missile defense, House Republicans are exerting pressure on Senate counterparts to address the entire package in a single decisive vote.
Experts anticipate swift action from the Senate on the aid package, raising expectations for its approval. President Joe Biden has signaled his willingness to endorse the TikTok legislation if it crosses his desk. This accelerated push underscores how external policy imperatives have converged to pose a significant and potentially dire threat to an app cherished by many American youths but viewed by US authorities as a national security hazard.
The latest version of the bill, if enacted, grants TikTok a 270-day window to secure a new proprietor, an extension from the approximately six months initially proposed. Moreover, it affords the White House the discretion to prolong this deadline by an additional 90 days if progress toward a sale is evident.
TikTok has vehemently opposed the legislation, launching an extensive lobbying campaign in an effort to thwart its passage. The company argues that the bill encroaches upon the First Amendment rights of its users and jeopardizes small enterprises. In a statement posted on X, TikTok lamented the House’s decision, lambasting it as a move that would stifle free speech, disrupt millions of businesses, and dismantle a platform contributing $24 billion annually to the US economy.
Hinting at potential legal action to challenge the divestiture legislation, TikTok has vowed to continue its fight, invoking its legal prerogatives. A legal showdown over the law could set the stage for a high-stakes clash over Americans’ access to digital content.
While Senate lawmakers had been divided on the House’s proposal for a forced TikTok sale, sentiment shifted somewhat with the unveiling of the latest draft featuring an extended deadline. In the run-up to the House vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stressed the urgency of approving foreign aid. Schumer disclosed a tentative agreement for the Senate to consider the foreign aid package on Tuesday, suggesting a growing momentum behind the legislation.
Paul Gallant, a policy analyst at Cowen Inc., assesses the likelihood of the TikTok bill’s passage as reasonably high, estimating an 80% chance of Senate approval. Gallant anticipates that TikTok is unlikely to be stripped from the broader aid package, predicting Senate deliberation within one to two weeks, though indications suggest it could happen even sooner.
Lawmakers in the House, from both sides of the aisle, united on Saturday to advance a significant foreign aid package to the Senate, effectively ending a prolonged and contentious standoff over the destiny of the legislation and virtually ensuring the provision of billions of dollars in fresh assistance to beleaguered allies worldwide.
The exceptional weekend voting sessions marked the conclusion of months of intense deliberation within the House Republican caucus regarding whether and how Congress should intervene with further military assistance for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, while also extending humanitarian aid to civilian victims in conflict zones like Gaza and other war-ravaged regions globally.
The discourse had splintered House Republicans into opposing factions, setting Reagan-era traditionalists, proponents of robust international interventions to counter the ambitions of Russia and China, against a newer strain of “America First” conservatives advocating for curtailing foreign expenditure and redirecting focus to domestic issues, notably the migrant crisis along the southern border.
Ultimately, Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana defied his conservative detractors, bringing forth a series of four bills on the House floor to furnish overseas assistance. Notably, he disentangled these funds from a separate border security proposal that failed to garner support during Saturday’s proceedings. Johnson underscored the aid as a straightforward yet vital extension of America’s commitment to democratic allies facing threats from autocratic regimes.
“I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important,” Johnson emphasized earlier in the week. “I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten. I believe Xi and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil.”
Representative Mike McCaul of Texas revealed that Johnson sought divine guidance before making the pivotal decision to forge ahead. McCaul noted Johnson’s internal conflict between preserving his position and doing what he perceived as morally right, indicating Johnson’s reliance on prayer for clarity.
The passage of the foreign aid bills marked a significant triumph for the relatively inexperienced Speaker, who assumed leadership less than six months prior. The package, approved through four distinct votes, allocated approximately $61 billion for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel, $8 billion for Indo-Pacific allies, and included additional national security measures such as a potential ban on TikTok.
However, the move carried political risks, exacerbating tensions among conservatives already discontented with Johnson’s bipartisan collaborations with President Biden on major legislation. This discontent manifested in a nascent effort to unseat Johnson, with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene spearheading a motion to vacate, backed by Representatives Thomas Massie and Paul Gosar.
While Johnson dismissed the threat, emphasizing the imperative of supporting Ukraine amid its struggle against Russia, some allies acknowledged the possibility of Greene’s motion materializing.
Yet, the conservative dissent extended beyond ideological differences. Some were concerned about escalating federal debt, others advocated for an isolationist stance akin to Trump’s priorities, and a faction harbored distrust towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, stemming from past political entanglements.
The migrant crisis also emerged as a pivotal point of contention, with Johnson initially demanding border security provisions alongside foreign aid, later abandoning this stance to focus solely on international assistance, a move met with incredulity by conservatives.
Despite Johnson’s efforts to mollify conservative objections by introducing amendments aligning with Republican national security interests, his strategy failed to garner full support within the GOP, with over half the conference voting against the Ukraine funding.
The Israel aid component further divided Democrats, reflecting internal disagreements over U.S. policy towards the Middle East. While the bill included significant humanitarian aid, some progressives opposed it for its perceived lack of conditions on assistance to Jerusalem, emphasizing the importance of enforcing human rights and international law.
Saturday’s passage marked the third attempt by Johnson to secure aid for Israel, following previous setbacks in November and February. Despite challenges, the aid package now advances to the Senate, expected to pass in the coming week.
The inaugural criminal trial of a sitting or former U.S. president is currently underway in Manhattan, sparking discussions on the potential ramifications of a conviction for former President Trump as he gears up for another White House bid.
In the New York trial, Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, with potential implications for his 2024 presidential campaign. Although a conviction wouldn’t automatically disqualify him from running, it could disrupt his candidacy and introduce the possibility of a convicted felon as the GOP nominee.
Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, highlighted the significance of a potential conviction, stating, “If he happens to be convicted on 34 counts, that takes its toll even on someone like Donald Trump, who seems to be that Teflon candidate.”
The trial commenced this week in Manhattan, with jury selection marking a historic moment as the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to reach a jury. The case revolves around events during the 2016 election, particularly a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, to suppress her allegations of a past encounter with Trump. Trump, denying the affair, reimbursed Cohen, categorizing it as a legal expense, a move contested by the Manhattan district attorney as unlawful.
Despite the legal proceedings, Trump, having secured the delegates for the Republican nomination, retains the ability to run for federal office even if convicted. He continues to frame his legal troubles as politically motivated, asserting his innocence.
Saltzburg remarked on Trump’s unique position, noting, “He’s the only person in America who could probably be charged in four different cases and have his popularity among his base go up, because the base is already convinced that he’s affected, that he’s being targeted.”
However, a conviction would label him a felon, potentially alienating key voter demographics such as independents and law-and-order Republicans.
The sentiment is echoed in recent polls, including a Yahoo News/YouGov poll indicating that a majority of voters, including Republicans, consider the hush money case a serious offense. Another poll by Bloomberg and Morning Consult found a significant portion of swing state voters unwilling to support Trump if convicted.
Republican strategist Matthew Bartlett highlighted the clash between courtroom trials and the campaign trail, emphasizing the polarization of opinions regarding Trump’s legal issues.
The hush money case, among the four criminal indictments against Trump, stands out for its potential impact on his political future. Apart from this case, Trump faces federal charges related to mishandling classified materials post-presidency and allegations of attempting to subvert the 2020 election in Georgia.
Furthermore, a conviction could impede Trump’s ability to cast a ballot in Florida for the 2024 election, presenting a paradoxical situation for the former president.
With the trial expected to run for several weeks, Trump’s campaign must adapt to the scheduling constraints, relying on weekend events, virtual engagements, and media coverage to maintain momentum.
While Trump navigates legal challenges, President Biden must leverage the situation strategically, balancing engagement with the campaign while addressing accusations of political bias.
An acquittal in New York could strengthen Trump’s position, potentially influencing perceptions of his other legal battles and boosting his chances in the upcoming election.
However, the timeline for the trial’s conclusion remains uncertain, with potential delays and complications along the way. Democrats are hopeful that prolonged legal proceedings will deflate Trump’s campaign, allowing Biden to consolidate support.
Despite the possibility of a conviction, experts suggest that prison time is improbable in this case. Regardless, a conviction would pose significant hurdles for Trump’s political aspirations, although it wouldn’t necessarily preclude him from seeking office.
Reflecting on the unprecedented nature of the situation, experts underscore the gravity of the charges against Trump, all intertwined with his tenure as a politician. Will Thomas, a professor at the University of Michigan, remarked on the extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing the historical significance of a former president facing multiple criminal indictments.
The ongoing trial in Manhattan carries profound implications for Trump’s political future, shaping public perception and potentially altering the course of the 2024 presidential race.
The $95 billion package recently approved by the House, poised for Senate approval next week, is set to address various international concerns, including military aid for Ukraine and Israel, replenishing U.S. weapons systems, and providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza. President Joe Biden has committed to promptly signing the package upon receipt.
The breakdown of the spending is as follows:
For Ukraine and U.S. weapons stockpiles, approximately $61 billion is allocated. This includes a substantial $13.8 billion designated for the purchase of weapons by Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine is slated to receive over $9 billion in economic assistance through “forgivable loans.”
Israel is set to receive about $26 billion in support, with a portion earmarked for replenishing its missile defense systems. Furthermore, over $9 billion is allocated for humanitarian aid in Gaza, particularly pertinent given the recent Israel-Hamas conflict.
Approximately $8 billion is allocated for bolstering U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region and countering China. This includes over $3.3 billion for submarine infrastructure and development, along with an additional $1.9 billion to restock U.S. weapons provided to Taiwan and other regional allies.
This comprehensive package aims to address key international concerns while reinforcing strategic alliances and promoting stability in various regions.
Former President Trump’s choice for his running mate in the upcoming November election holds immense significance, potentially serving as a gateway to the GOP’s presidential candidacy in 2028. Unlike traditional scenarios where a vice president would typically wait eight years before pursuing the presidential nomination, Trump’s selection could instantly elevate the chosen candidate as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination in just four years. This unique circumstance underscores the exceptional weight of Trump’s decision this year.
Alex Conant, a figure from Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 campaign, emphasizes the significance, stating, “To the extent that whoever he picks as vice president could be the presumptive front-runner four years from now, it’s a bigger deal than normal.” This potential nominee not only carries the prospect of assuming the presidency but also inheriting the mantle of the MAGA movement that has reshaped the Republican Party under Trump’s leadership.
While loyalty remains a paramount criterion for Trump in selecting his running mate, the contenders vying for his favor are acutely aware of the extraordinary opportunity this decision presents. Younger Republicans, in particular, perceive this as a chance not just for the vice presidency but as a strategic move towards positioning themselves for the 2028 presidential race.
Among those under consideration is Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who, despite being 58 years old, is viewed favorably due to his strong fundraising abilities and compelling personal narrative as the sole Black Republican in the Senate. Senator JD Vance, another potential contender at 39, has also garnered attention as a staunch Trump ally, although he hasn’t directly discussed the possibility with Trump himself.
Other names circulating as potential future faces of the party include Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, aged 45; Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, aged 39; Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, aged 41; and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, aged 51.
While speculation about the impact on the 2028 race looms large, insiders caution against overestimating its influence on Trump’s decision-making process. Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor, underscores Trump’s prioritization of loyalty over electoral considerations, suggesting that Trump’s choice will primarily reflect on his own image rather than future electoral strategies.
The details of Trump’s vice presidential search remain largely undisclosed, with periodic mentions of candidates on his “short list.” Similar to his approach in 2016, Trump is likely to delay the announcement until closer to the Republican National Convention in July, utilizing the suspense to his advantage for fundraising and media attention.
The anticipation surrounding Trump’s pick echoes the strategic maneuvering seen in the 2020 Democratic cycle, where then-candidate Joe Biden positioned himself as a bridge to the next generation of leaders. However, while Biden’s eventual vice presidential pick, Kamala Harris, was initially seen as a potential frontrunner for 2024, uncertainties have since arisen regarding her presidential prospects.
For Republicans vying for Trump’s endorsement, the stakes are high, offering a potential fast track to the presidential nomination if Trump secures victory in November. However, there’s also a cautionary tale in the fate of former Vice President Mike Pence, whose fallout with Trump over the election results damaged his standing within the party.
As the Republican contenders jockey for position on this year’s ticket, they tread a delicate balance between ambition and loyalty, hoping to avoid the pitfalls that befell Pence in his post-Trump political journey.
The U.S. blocked on Thursday a draft resolution that would have allowed the United Nations General Assembly to vote on allowing a Palestinian state to become a full member state of the U.N. The move has triggered backlash from other states and pro-Palestinian groups, as global divisions continue to sharpen over Israel’s war on Gaza.
The U.S. was the only nation in the 15-member U.N. Security Council to vote against the resolution. Twelve—including Russia, China, France, and Japan—voted in favor, while two—the U.K. and Switzerland—abstained.
On April 2, the Palestinian Authority again submitted a request to reconsider its 2011 request for full U.N. membership. The U.S. has been urging the Palestinian Authority not to press ahead for a U.N. vote—pressure that was ignored by Abbas.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement that “the Biden administration should be ashamed and embarrassed” of its “unjust veto.” The Muslim advocacy group also criticized what it says are limits of the U.N. Security Council in addressing conflict.
“For decades, the UN Security Council has failed to prevent unjust wars and genocide around the world,” the statement said. “The world should no longer accept a flawed system in which five nations can exercise veto power over the affairs of more than eight billion people, including nearly two billion Muslims who are not represented among the five permanent members.”
The U.N. Security Council was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and security, as well as to recommend new U.N. members to the General Assembly. It consists of 10 rotating members elected on two-year terms and five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.). A typical resolution in the Security Council requires affirmative votes from nine members to pass, though any of the five permanent members reserve veto power.
Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan expressed disappointment at the number of countries that have supported the Palestinian request. “Regardless of the Palestinians’ failure to meet the necessary criteria for UN membership, most of you sadly decided to reward Palestinian terror with a Palestinian State,” he said. “It’s very sad because your vote will only embolden Palestinian rejectionism even more and make peace almost impossible.”
Riyad Mansour, a Palestinian-American diplomat and the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N., thanked those who voted in favor of the request and reiterated his people’s resolve. “The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination,” he said. “We will not stop in our effort. The State of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful.”
The U.S. has found itself increasingly isolated by the international community because of its support of Israel. But as the human costs of the conflict in Gaza mount, President Joe Biden has also gradually shifted his tone towards his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, calling Netanyahu’s approach to the war a “mistake.” The U.S. vetoed calls at the U.N. for a humanitarian ceasefire for months, but one was eventually passed in March, after the U.S. abstained from voting. Still, the U.S. has maintained its support for Israel, helping it recently shoot down missiles from Iran and vowing “ironclad commitment to the security of Israel.”
Former President Trump is leading President Biden among potential voters in the upcoming presidential election, an Emerson College Polling national survey released Thursday found, with Biden’s polling rate dropping since early April.
Trump leads Biden 46 percent to 43 percent, according to the poll. Support for Biden dropped 2 percentage points since the previous Emerson College poll in early April, while Trump’s polling stayed at 46 percent.
Another 12 percent reported being undecided, according to Thursday’s results. When undecided voters were pressed to pick a candidate, Trump’s support rose to 51 percent, while Biden’s climbed to 48 percent.
When independent candidates were thrown into the mix, support for Trump dropped to 44 percent and 40 percent for Biden. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received 8 percent of support, another 8 percent reported being undecided, and 1 percent supported Cornel West.
Among issues that voters cited as most critical in forming their opinion of each candidate were the economy and immigration. When asked about specific economic issues, 70 percent said they think the cost of living is rising, and that 70 percent was more likely to support Trump over Biden, the survey found.
“Voters who think the cost of living is rising support Trump over Biden, 56% to 32%,” said Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling. “Those who feel the cost of living is easing or staying the same support Biden over Trump, 94% to 6% and 67% to 18%”
The Israel-Hamas war also came up as a point of contention among the polled voters, with a plurality of voters, 44, percent, saying they feel they’re not getting the full picture when it comes to the war.
“Perceptions of receiving accurate war information show a significant split,” Kimball said. “Biden leads among those who think they are getting accurate information (53% to 36%), while Trump leads among skeptics (53% to 38%). Those unsure are divided, with 44% leaning toward Trump and 42% toward Biden.”
The Emerson College Polling survey was conducted April 16-17 among 1,308 registered voters and has a 2.6 percent margin of error.
The 2024 presidential race will almost certainly be very close, especially in the few swing states that could decide the Electoral College vote. Hence, a great deal of attention has been paid to the question of “spoilers”—third party or independent candidates who could pull enough votes from President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump to keep one of them from winning an important state.
Now that No Labels has decided not to run a presidential candidate, there are three third-party campaigns going on—one by Cornell West, an African American former Harvard professor who is running as an independent, and another by Jill Stein, who ran as the candidate of the Green Party in 2012 and 2016. And finally, the one getting the most attention, and according to polls the most support, is an independent run by environmentalist and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of former President John Kennedy.
For any of these candidates to actually win, they need to first qualify for the ballot in at least enough states to account for 270 electoral votes. That is highly unlikely given the difficulty of getting on ballots in the first place. But for any of these candidates to be a spoiler, they need only get on the ballot in a few swing states. Remember that in Arizona and Georgia in 2020, Biden won by .3% of the vote. When races are that close, third-party candidates can become spoilers.
Of the three most talked about “spoilers,” Jill Stein has the best chance of getting on a large number of state ballots. She is substantially ahead in the delegate count for the Green Party’s virtual convention in July and likely to be the nominee. Because the Green Party has been around since 1984, they have state party organizations, and they have run candidates for office.
1 Even though they don’t have very many winning candidates, they have enough of an infrastructure that as of this writing they claim to be on the ballot in 20 states, and they are running active campaigns in others. In the 2000 presidential race between former Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush, consumer advocate Ralph Nader was the Green Party candidate on the ballot in Florida. Bush’s lead was less than one percent of the vote. If you assume many of Nader’s voters would have voted for Al Gore, his 1.6% of the vote would have been more than enough to put the state into Gore’s column.
The other “spoiler” candidate, Cornel West, is underfunded and without an institutional infrastructure behind him. So far, he has secured ballot access in only three states: Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah. While many people worry that he could pull votes from Biden in big cities with Black populations in key swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, he does not appear, at least yet, to have caught on enough in any swing states to become a spoiler.
Unlike Stein and West, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to be closer to becoming a spoiler. Conventional wisdom has that because of his famous name and his environmental work, he will take votes from Biden. However, his anti-vax campaign and his attraction to conspiracy theories have led some to argue that he is also a threat to Trump. So how is Kennedy doing on ballot access? In some states, qualifying for the ballot as a party is easier (fewer signatures) than qualifying for the ballot as a candidate only.
2 Therefore, Kennedy’s strategy has been to create a political party called “We the People” for which he will be the nominee and use it for ballot access in five states—California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Although he is doing better in the polls than all the other third-party candidates, he seems unlikely to be a spoiler in the three heavily Democratic states of California, Delaware, and Hawaii. Nor does he seem likely to be a spoiler in the heavily Republican state of Mississippi.
But North Carolina is a state that Democrats have won in the past and is likely to be very close. There, a Kennedy candidacy could keep Biden from a win. The most recent Quinnipiac poll showed Trump leading by two points in the two-way race in North Carolina and by three points in the five-way, with RFK Jr. getting double-digit support.
Table 1 shows the differences between filing as an independent and filing as part of an organized party establishment in some states.
As Table 2 illustrates we will not know the exact composition of the presidential ballots until sometime this summer. However, Table #2 shows where Kennedy has been successful so far. They claim to have achieved ballot access in — Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Iowa, and Utah—although Utah is the only state that has confirmed access. In the others, there is either legal or legislative activity around the question of Kennedy’s ballot access. Note that in the eight states where the Kennedy campaign claims to have achieved ballot access, the total is only 51 electoral college votes.
And, in addition to North Carolina, the only other state in this group that is a swing state is New Hampshire. Nonetheless, if Kennedy costs Biden New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes and North Carolina’s 16 electoral college votes, these two states could decide the election. In July, the filing deadlines will pass for Michigan.
In August, the filing deadlines will pass for Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Every time Kennedy gets on a ballot in a swing state, he comes closer and closer to becoming a spoiler in 2024, and so far, his organization has shown the ability to raise money and meet filing deadlines. No wonder the DNC has begun a campaign to educate voters on Kennedy as a ‘stalking horse” for Trump. And the Biden campaign has chosen to publicize the rest of the Kennedy family’s allegiance to him and the Democratic Party.
President Joe Biden embarked on a sentimental journey back to his childhood home in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, initiating a three-day campaign tour across the state by advocating for increased taxes on the affluent and depicting Donald Trump as disconnected from the realities of working-class America.
During his visit, Biden balanced his efforts to counter the populist allure of his Republican predecessor with moments of reflection on his past. He lingered at his former residence, where the stars and stripes fluttered gently on the porch while neighbors gathered beneath blossoming trees and a serene sky. In the backyard, he shared moments with local children, some clad in school uniforms, capturing photographs to commemorate the occasion.
Seeking to bolster his standing in a crucial swing state, Biden began his journey in Scranton, a city deeply intertwined with his political narrative. Against the backdrop of Scranton’s 75,000 residents, the president aimed to shift the dialogue surrounding the economy, which has left many Americans disenchanted amid persistent inflation and high interest rates despite low unemployment rates.
Expressing his desire for a fairer tax system that leaves more money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, Biden contrasted the perspectives of his hometown with the opulent Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where Trump resides. He emphasized his proposal for a 25% minimum tax rate for billionaires, framing taxes as investments in the nation’s future.
“Scranton values or Mar-a-Lago values,” Biden remarked, highlighting the competing economic visions in the upcoming election. He criticized decades of Republican policies that favored tax cuts for the wealthy, labeling them as detrimental to the nation’s prosperity, with Trump emblematic of this failed approach. He humorously remarked on the declining fortunes of Trump’s social media venture, Truth Social, suggesting it might fare better under his proposed tax plan.
Amidst Biden’s address, he condemned Trump’s alleged disparagement of fallen veterans as “suckers and losers,” labeling such remarks as disqualifying for presidential leadership. Later, addressing grassroots organizers at a union hall, Biden stressed the importance of traditional political engagement, emphasizing the necessity of door-to-door outreach.
Throughout his itinerary, Biden’s roots in Scranton were celebrated, with enthusiastic crowds lining the streets to greet his motorcade. Instances of opposition, mainly concerning Biden’s stance on Israel’s military actions in Gaza, were limited.
Reflecting on Biden’s ties to Scranton, local officials praised his enduring connection to the community, portraying him as a leader who remains mindful of his upbringing. As Biden took the stage at the community center, chants of “four more years” reverberated through the crowd, prompting the president to jest about returning home, indicating that he was already there.
Scranton, described by political analyst Christopher Borick as a symbol in American politics, serves as a litmus test for Biden’s electoral appeal. While it aligns with the populist wave of the Republican Party, Biden secured victory in the city and surrounding areas in 2020. Repeating this success in 2024, coupled with minimizing Trump’s margins in rural areas, could pave the way for another triumph in Pennsylvania.
Acknowledging the rising cost of living under Biden’s administration, Republican representatives expressed skepticism about the efficacy of scripted appearances in addressing economic concerns. Trump’s tax cuts in 2017, skewed in favor of the wealthy, are set to expire in 2025, prompting Biden’s push for their extension alongside plans to generate $4.9 trillion in revenue over a decade through higher taxes on the affluent and corporations, including a proposed “billionaire’s tax.”
Biden’s campaign in Pennsylvania coincides with the commencement of Trump’s inaugural criminal trial, presenting both opportunities and challenges for Democrats. While Biden’s team views the contrast between Trump’s legal entanglements and his focus on economic issues favorably, the trial’s potential to monopolize national attention poses a complication.
Despite the backdrop of Trump’s legal woes, Biden refrained from direct mention, opting instead to emphasize the values instilled in him during his upbringing in Scranton, where wealth does not determine one’s worth.
Nikki Haley Joins Hudson Institute as Chair, Eyes Presidential Run
The Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., revealed on April 15th that Nikki Haley, former GOP presidential contender, will be taking on the Walter P. Stern chair. This move sees the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former South Carolina governor become the fourth member of Trump’s cabinet to do so, as reported by The Guardian.
Expressing her thoughts on the significance of robust partnerships and the necessity of identifying adversaries, Haley underscored the crucial role of Hudson’s mission. She stated, “They believe that to secure a safe, free, and prosperous future for all Americans, citizens must be informed, and policymakers must be equipped with solutions. I am thrilled to collaborate with them in safeguarding the values that have distinguished the United States as the premier nation on Earth.”
Haley’s new position allows her to maintain a prominent presence while contemplating a potential second bid for the presidency in 2028, according to The Hill.
John P. Walters, President and CEO of Hudson, lauded Haley as “a proven, capable leader in both domestic and foreign affairs.” He commended her for remaining resolute in defending freedom and advocating for American security and prosperity amid global political turbulence.
Despite securing victories in Vermont and the District of Columbia, Haley opted to suspend her presidential campaign in March following a substantial defeat in the Super Tuesday primaries. Throughout her campaign, she positioned herself as the prime candidate to steer away from the policies of the previous administration. Haley’s campaign strategy in its final weeks involved intense criticism of both Trump and Biden, highlighting their age and urging the emergence of a new generation of leaders. Notably, polls suggested that in hypothetical matchups against Biden, she outperformed other leading Republican contenders.
Haley directed sharp criticism towards Vice President Kamala Harris, asserting to the people of South Carolina that one of them—either herself or Harris—would soon occupy the presidency. She consistently targeted Trump during her campaign, particularly criticizing his foreign policy stances and the escalating national debt, stressing that “Chaos follows Trump” on two occasions.
Nevertheless, as noted by NPR, Haley encountered challenges in maintaining a coherent message, balancing the need to appeal to the Republican base while also attracting independents, moderate Republicans, and disenchanted Trump voters. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, she stumbled by not explicitly mentioning slavery as the cause of the Civil War, though she promptly corrected her error.
Similarly, Haley faced scrutiny over her response to a controversial ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that threatened access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). She asserted that “Embryos are babies,” in an interview with Ali Vitali of NBC, but later clarified her stance, emphasizing the importance of preserving fertility treatments for women during an interview with Newsman.
Although Haley gained momentum towards the end of last year, surpassing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in several polls, she ultimately fell short of overtaking the former president, who remains the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency.
President Biden aims to prevent a full-scale escalation in the Middle East following Iran’s launch of hundreds of missiles and drones, most of which were intercepted, towards Israel in retaliation for an attack on an Iranian facility in Damascus that eliminated a top general.
Biden’s focus now shifts to persuading Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other allies against further escalating tensions, which have been strained since the Gaza conflict began in October. Biden assured Netanyahu that the U.S. would refrain from participating in any offensive actions against Iran in the future.
White House national security spokesperson John Kirby faced inquiries on whether Biden’s efforts to deter war with Iran were effectively communicated to Netanyahu. Kirby emphasized Israel’s success in intercepting the missiles, highlighting the message of solidarity and self-defense conveyed by President Biden.
Israel’s war Cabinet, however, seems to diverge from this sentiment, with Minister Benny Gantz affirming intentions to retaliate against Iran.
At home, there are pressures on Biden to retaliate against Tehran, with Senators Marsha Blackburn and Lindsey Graham advocating for aggressive strikes on Iran.
Regarding the safety of U.S. military personnel in the region, Kirby refrained from discussing details of Israel’s attack in Damascus but emphasized the need for contextual conversations to ensure the protection of American troops and facilities.
Biden is in discussions with Secretary of State Antony Blinken regarding potential adjustments to the U.S. presence in the region to ensure the safety of troops, ships, and facilities.
Iran’s attack may alter the stance of some Democrats who had expressed concerns about Israel’s military operations in Gaza, particularly following an incident where aid workers were inadvertently killed by Israeli forces. Senator Mark Kelly expressed the need for continued aid to Israel despite his concerns.
Kirby, addressing concerns about the risk of wider war, stated that Biden’s actions aimed at de-escalation, exemplified by deploying additional resources to counter the recent attack.
A senior administration official emphasized the U.S.’s commitment to containing the crisis to Gaza, urging Israel to carefully consider its next steps without escalating the situation further.
Iran launched a massive aerial assault on Israel on Saturday night, deploying over 300 drones and missiles in retaliation for a lethal Israeli airstrike in Syria a fortnight earlier, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing hostilities between the two regional adversaries.
The strikes inflicted minor damage on a single Israeli military base, with most of the airborne threats intercepted, according to Israeli military sources. The United States claimed it assisted in downing numerous drones and missiles.
Nevertheless, the extensive assault, targeting locations within Israel and its controlled territory, heralded a precarious new phase in the protracted covert conflict between Iran and Israel.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, via a statement aired on state television, announced the launch of “dozens of drones and missiles” from Iran towards Israel “in response to the Zionist regime’s crimes.” Subsequently, via social media, they asserted hitting military targets within Israel, cautioned the United States against involvement, and issued threats of further strikes in case of attacks on Iran or its interests.
A hospital spokesperson, Inbar Gutter, disclosed that a total of 12 individuals were admitted to the Soroka Medical Center in southern Israel overnight.
Among the targeted areas was the Golan Heights, a strategically vital region bordering Syria that Israel annexed almost six decades ago. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia, claimed responsibility for firing numerous rockets at an Israeli barracks there, though it remained unclear if this barrage was part of the broader Iranian assault.
In the aftermath of the attacks, while Iranians in Tehran gathered to celebrate, air-raid sirens reverberated across extensive areas of southern Israel, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The Israeli government issued warnings regarding potential missile strikes in the Negev Desert, where several military installations are situated. Moreover, the airspaces of Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon were shut down.
President Biden curtailed a weekend at his Delaware vacation residence to confer with his national security advisors. He also held discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The President of the United Nations Security Council announced an emergency session scheduled for 4 p.m. on Sunday to address Iran’s assaults on Israel, following a request by Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Gilad Erdan.
The United States is anticipating imminent strikes by Iran on multiple targets within Israel, CNN sources report. The Biden administration is bracing for a potentially volatile and unpredictable period in the Middle East. President Joe Biden warned that these attacks could happen “sooner than later” and issued a stern public message to Tehran: “Don’t.”
A conflict between Iran and Israel would mark a significant escalation in the region, a scenario the US has sought to avoid since the Israel-Hamas war began in October. The US is prepared to assist in intercepting any weapons aimed at its ally.
According to senior administration officials and intelligence sources, Iranian proxies might also be involved in the upcoming attacks, which could target locations both inside Israel and across the region. The US is poised to intercept weapons launched at Israel, indicating strong ongoing cooperation between the two militaries.
US intelligence has observed Iran moving military assets internally, including drones and cruise missiles, suggesting preparations for attacks on Israeli targets from within Iranian territory. There’s uncertainty whether Iran plans an initial strike from its soil or is posturing to deter potential counterattacks.
President Biden reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel’s security, emphasizing their readiness to support and defend Israel against Iranian aggression. The White House emphasized the “real,” “credible,” and “viable” threat posed by Iran following Israel’s recent attack on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of three Iranian generals.
The US, along with Britain and France, issued new travel advisories for government personnel in Israel due to the looming Iranian threat. US Navy forces in the Red Sea have intercepted missiles aimed at Israel in the past, and additional military assets are being deployed to the Middle East to enhance regional deterrence efforts and protect US forces.
The Defense Department is bolstering air defenses for troops stationed in Iraq and Syria following multiple attacks by Iran-backed forces in recent months. While the US does not anticipate direct attacks on its forces, precautionary measures are being taken.
There’s speculation that any Iranian attack on Israel would likely be carried out by proxy forces rather than directly by Iran, as Tehran is wary of a dramatic escalation. However, Iran has urged its proxy militias to launch a large-scale attack against Israel using drones and missiles.
President Biden has been briefed regularly on the situation and is actively engaged in efforts to de-escalate tensions. US officials are in constant communication with Israel, urging restraint and providing support to ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been urging other countries to press Iran to avoid escalating the conflict. Diplomatic efforts include discussions with Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, and European allies to convey the message to Iran.
In response to the heightened threat level, the US State Department has restricted the travel of government personnel in Israel, and France has advised its citizens against traveling to Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories due to the risk of military escalation.
On October 7th, a tragic event unfolded as Hamas militants breached Israel’s borders from Gaza, resulting in approximately 1,200 casualties, mostly civilians, and the capture of over 250 individuals, initiating a harrowing conflict. In the subsequent six months, Israel retaliated by launching incursions and airstrikes on Gaza, reportedly claiming the lives of around 33,000 Palestinians, predominantly women and children, as documented by the United Nations. Moreover, Israel’s military actions and control over humanitarian aid entering Gaza have led to a dire situation, with an estimated one million people teetering on the edge of famine.
This crisis has elicited widespread condemnation and legal challenges, notably a case brought forth by South Africa at the United Nations’ highest court. In January, the court issued an interim order suggesting the plausibility of Israel engaging in acts of genocide, a claim vehemently denied by Israel. Consequently, pressure from Israel’s allies has intensified, particularly following an incident on April 2nd when Israeli military strikes resulted in the deaths of seven aid workers, including six foreign nationals affiliated with the NGO World Central Kitchen, deemed by the military as a “grave mistake.”
Following these tragic events, President Joe Biden issued a stern ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging immediate measures to safeguard civilians and facilitate the delivery of food aid into Gaza. Failure to comply would prompt a reassessment of the United States’ military support, which amounts to billions of dollars annually. In response, Israel initiated the opening of new aid channels into Gaza.
Internally, Netanyahu faces significant domestic unrest, with mass protests demanding a resolution to the hostage situation involving the remaining 133 captives. Some demonstrators have joined anti-government rallies, advocating for Netanyahu’s resignation. Addressing the six-month milestone of the conflict, Netanyahu emphasized the perceived achievements of the war, asserting determination to secure a comprehensive victory, secure the release of all hostages, eradicate Hamas across Gaza, and ensure Israel’s long-term security. Netanyahu reiterated to the international community that no ceasefire would be entertained without the return of the hostages.
Reportedly, negotiations between Israel and Hamas are ongoing through intermediaries, with hopes of reaching a resolution.
Reflecting on the six-month mark of the conflict, various world leaders have voiced their perspectives:
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described October 7th as a “most appalling attack” in Israel’s history, emphasizing the need for an end to the conflict, the release of hostages, and immediate humanitarian intervention in Gaza.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock condemned Hamas’ actions and reiterated the call for the release of hostages and cessation of violence.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan stressed the imperative of halting Israel’s military operations in Gaza and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and the facilitation of humanitarian aid.
U.K. Foreign Minister David Cameron demanded the release of hostages by Hamas, advocated for Israel’s right to self-defense within the bounds of international law, and urged for increased humanitarian aid and a temporary ceasefire.
U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden acknowledged Israel’s mistakes while upholding high standards for accountability, amidst public and legislative pressure to suspend arms sales to Israel.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres mourned the loss of life on both sides and condemned Hamas’ actions, calling for the unconditional release of hostages and a humanitarian ceasefire.
Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defense Micheál Martin honored the victims of the conflict while calling for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and enhanced humanitarian aid efforts.
The global response underscores the urgency of ending the violence, addressing humanitarian concerns, and pursuing a sustainable resolution to the protracted conflict, prioritizing the well-being and security of both Israelis and Palestinians.
A seismic event rocked the Northeast last Friday, as a 4.8 magnitude earthquake jolted the region. Yet, beneath the surface, there are signs of political tremors brewing.
According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, President Biden and former President Donald Trump find themselves in a statistical dead heat, with Biden holding a slight 2-point advantage at 50% to Trump’s 48%.
The proximity of the race between these two well-known figures might suggest a locked-in voter base, given their previous showdown. However, the survey reveals that approximately 40% of respondents remain open to changing their allegiance.
Moreover, shifts are occurring within key demographic groups. Young voters, Latinos, and independents are either wavering in their support for Biden or remain undecided. Conversely, there’s a noticeable sway towards Biden among older voters and college-educated white voters, particularly men.
These demographic shifts could potentially reshape the electoral map. Democrats are eyeing gains in Sun Belt states like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and New Mexico, where growing diversity and fewer blue-collar white voters offer opportunities. Meanwhile, Republicans may strengthen their hold in parts of the industrial Midwest.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, remarks on the significance of these trends, noting, “We’re in the beginnings of a seismic shift in the nature of our parties…where does that end up and where are we in 10 years with these trends?”
Analyzing data from Marist’s survey alongside 2020 exit polls, notable shifts emerge within various demographic groups:
– College-educated white men: Biden leads by 21 points in 2024 compared to Trump’s 3-point lead in 2020, marking a significant shift in Biden’s favor.
– College-educated white voters overall: Biden holds a 24-point lead in 2024, compared to his 3-point lead in 2020.
– College-educated white women: Biden leads by 28 points in 2024, compared to his 9-point lead in 2020.
– Over 45: Biden leads by 6 points in 2024, reversing Trump’s 3-point lead in 2020.
– Under 45: Trump holds a 1-point lead in 2024, a significant shift from Biden’s 14-point lead in 2020.
– Independents: Trump leads by 7 points in 2024, a reversal from Biden’s 13-point lead in 2020.
– Nonwhite: Biden leads by 11 points in 2024, a substantial decrease from his 45-point lead in 2020.
The trend of college-educated white voters gravitating towards the Democratic Party continues. Trump’s 2016 victory largely relied on white voters without college degrees, but Biden’s appeal among educated white voters remains strong.
The survey highlights the salience of immigration and racial issues in GOP politics, with a significant majority of Republicans favoring the deportation of migrants and expressing concerns about perceived discrimination against white Americans.
Despite Biden’s current lead in the polls, there’s a need for a broader margin to secure an Electoral College victory, as emphasized by Miringoff.
However, Biden faces challenges in retaining key groups that supported him in 2020. Independents and young voters have expressed disapproval of his administration’s performance, particularly regarding his handling of the Gaza conflict.
Furthermore, support among nonwhite voters, especially Latinos and young Black voters, has waned. In the survey, 56% of Latinos disapprove of Biden’s performance, while younger Black voters show a significant divide from older counterparts.
The emergence of third-party candidates, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., poses additional challenges. Kennedy attracts 11% support in the poll, drawing from disenchanted voters across demographics.
The Biden campaign acknowledges the importance of swaying undecided voters away from third-party options, viewing a second Trump presidency as a pressing concern. However, regaining support, particularly among young voters and Latinos, remains an uphill battle, with lingering discontent over Biden’s policies.
While the campaign seeks to leverage its financial resources through organized efforts and TV ads, the shifting dynamics among voters, particularly within white, college-educated demographics, could potentially offset the need for replicating 2020 support levels among young people and Latinos.
The rivalry intensifies between President Biden and former President Trump as they gear up for the general election campaign for the White House.
Biden and Trump both clinched their party nominations last month, but the road ahead promises to be challenging as they square off in a rematch of the 2020 race. With the election poised to be closely contested, the outcome hinges on a handful of battleground states.
Biden secured most of these crucial states during his victory four years ago. However, recent polls indicate Trump leading in these battlegrounds.
Arizona:
In 2020, Biden flipped Arizona, a historic win as the state hadn’t favored a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996. This year, with 11 electoral votes up for grabs, the state remains a pivotal battleground, particularly given concerns over immigration. Trump maintains a lead in polls, posing a challenge for Biden to retain the state, especially with a potential rightward shift among Hispanic voters.
Georgia:
Similarly, Biden’s victory in Georgia in 2020 marked a significant win, breaking a decades-long Republican stronghold. However, recent polls show Trump ahead, albeit with narrow margins. Biden’s challenge lies in rallying Black voters, a crucial demographic that played a pivotal role in his previous win.
Michigan:
Michigan, part of the Democratic stronghold in the Midwest, saw Biden win by a slim margin in 2020. However, Trump now leads in polls, complicating Biden’s path to victory. Biden faces challenges in winning over union workers and Arab American voters, particularly due to concerns over inflation and foreign policy.
Nevada:
Nevada, traditionally Democratic-leaning, has been a closely contested state in recent elections. Trump leads in polls, albeit marginally. Biden’s support among Latino voters will be crucial in maintaining the state in his favor.
North Carolina:
Despite Democratic efforts, North Carolina has remained elusive, with Trump leading in recent polls. Biden’s campaign focuses on narrowing the gap, particularly by targeting Black and Latino populations.
Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes make it a crucial battleground. While Trump won the state narrowly in 2016, Biden reclaimed it in 2020. Recent polls indicate a close race, with neither candidate holding a significant lead.
Wisconsin:
Biden’s narrow win in Wisconsin in 2020 underscores its importance in the battleground landscape. Trump leads in polls, albeit marginally. However, Biden remains optimistic, considering Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as sources of hope.
As the candidates gear up for the election, the battle for these key battleground states intensifies, setting the stage for a closely watched showdown between Biden and Trump.
The Delhi Committee of Chicago Sister Cities International, ComEd and Navy Pier, came together as partners through a shared commitment to Chicago and its diverse communities to host this year’s Global Connections: Holi event on Saturday, March 23rd. “As the Chairman of the Delhi Chicago Sister Cities Committee, it’s really an honor to present and be a part of this Holi celebration,” said Smita N. Shah, Delhi Committee of Chicago Sister Cities International Chairman and SPAAN Tech, Inc. President & CEO. “Navy Pier’s Global Connections Program curated a memorable celebration that has grown into the largest program in the United States for Holi. Chicago Sister Cities International is proud to be its partner as it represents why we do what we do: honor the diverse international communities that make up Chicago, celebrate the best of their culture and support the desire for others to experience the American Dream, all of which makes Chicago stronger.”
Picture: Asian Media USA
“Holi is a reminder that good always triumphs over evil and those forces that wish to divide us, make no mistake about it, not here in the city of Chicago. Black. Brown. White. Asian. Young. Old. Rich. Poor. We are the greatest city in the world because of the diversity that makes up this city,” said City of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. “Chicago’s positive impact is felt all around the world…thanks to the hard work of Chicago Sister Cities International and the volunteer work of our committee members like Smita [Shah], who are so passionate about our city, so passionate about diplomacy and so passionate about our democracy.”
The free, public event transformed the Aon Grand Ballroom and Navy Pier Beer Garden into the country’s largest Holi celebration of its kind, featuring live music, traditional cultural performances, authentic food from local vendors, the iconic powder-throwing (which pay homage to the bright colors of spring and represent the triumph of good over evil) and more.
Picture: Asian Media USA
Delhi’s position as a sister city to Chicago demonstrates the strong relationship between India and the city, and the cultural impact the established Indian-American community had on Chicagoland. Under Shah’s leadership, the Delhi Committee of Chicago founded the Annual Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi Luncheon in 2014, honoring the long-standing exchange of ideas between Mahatma Gandhi and the U.S., and the ever important principles of truth and non-violence. Shah, who serves on President Biden’s Advisory Commission on Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders also helped secure the designation of October 2nd as Mahatma Gandhi Day in Chicago.
This program would not have been possible without the generous support of Niranjan S. Shah and Pratima Shah, the winner of the Pravasi Bharatiya Award, Darryl Tom for whom whose family the famous Ping Tom Park is named, and the Sue Ling Gin Foundation.
“We have about 260,000 Indian, Indian American, Indian origin people (here), so thank you, Mayor, for making it a great home for them and for hosting Holi every year,” said Indian Counsel General Somnath Ghosh. “This is the second year of celebration for me, and I see it is even bigger than last year. I hope to see the event continue to grow in the years to come and look forward to many more celebrations in Chicago.” For a full video of this weekend’s celebration, please visit here.
Founded in 1998, SPAAN Tech, Inc. is a leading global, award-winning, engineering and construction management firm. SPAAN Tech provides and implements sustainable solutions in transportation, aviation, water, energy, and technology. SPAAN Tech has been recognized by Inc. Magazine as One Of The Fastest Growing Companies and by the Small Business Commerce Association as Best of Business in Chicago Engineering Services. Learn more about SPAAN Tech, Inc. at https://www.spaantech.com/ (Photographs and Press release by: Asian Media USA)
(IPS) – The IMF no. 2 recommends non-alignment as the best option for developing countries in the second Cold War as geopolitics threatens already dismal prospects for the world economy and wellbeing.
IMF warning
Ominously, International Monetary Fund (IMF) First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath warns, “With the weakest world growth prospects in decades – and…the pandemic and war slowing income convergence between rich and poor nations – we can little afford another Cold War”.
While recognizing globalization is over, she appeals to governments to “preserve economic cooperation amid geoeconomic fragmentation” due to the second Cold War.
Picture: Reuters
Growing US-China tensions, the pandemic, and war have changed international relations. The US calls for ‘friend-shoring’ while its European allies claim they want to ‘de-risk’. While still pleading for ‘globalization’, China realistically stresses ‘self-reliance’.
Multilateral rules were rarely designed to address such international conflicts as ostensible ‘national security’ concerns rewrite big powers’ economic policies. Hence, geoeconomic conflicts have few rules and no referee!
Historical perspective
After the Second World War, the US and USSR soon led rival blocs in a new bipolar world. After Bandung (1955) and Belgrade (1961), non-aligned countries have rejected both camps. This era lasted four decades.
World trade-to-GDP rose with post-war recovery and, later, trade liberalisation. With the first Cold War, geopolitical considerations shaped trade and investment flows as economic relations between the blocs shrank.
According to her, such flows increased after the Cold War, “reaching almost a quarter of world trade” during the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s and 2000s.
However, globalization has stagnated since 2008. Later, about “3,000 trade restricting measures were imposed” in 2022 – nearly thrice those imposed in 2019!
Cold War economics
Gopinath sees “ideological and economic rivalry between two superpowers” as driving both Cold Wars. Now, China – not the Soviet Union – is the US rival, but things are different in other respects too.
In 1950, the two blocs accounted for 85% of world output. Now, the global North, China and Russia have 70% of world output but only a third of its population.
Economic interdependence grew among countries as they became “much more integrated”. International trade-to-output is now 60% compared to 24% during the Cold War. This inevitably raises the costs of what she terms economic ‘fragmentation’ due to geopolitics.
With the Ukraine war, trade between blocs fell from 3% pre-war to -1.9%! Even trade growth within blocs fell to 1.7% – from 2.2% pre-war. Similarly, FDI proposals “between blocs declined more than those within blocs…while FDI to non-aligned countries sharply increased.”
China is no longer the US’s largest trading partner, as “its share of US imports has fallen” from 22% in 2018 to 13% in early 2023. Trade restrictions since 2018 have cut “Chinese imports of tariffed products” as US FDI in China fell sharply.
However, indirect links are replacing direct ties between the US and China. “Countries that have gained the most in US import shares…have also gained more in China’s export shares” and FDI abroad.
A BIS study found “supply chains have lengthened in the last two years”, especially between “Chinese suppliers and US customers”. Hopefully, Gopinath suggests, “despite efforts by the two biggest economies to cut ties, it is not yet clear how effective they will be”.
For Gopinath, trade restrictions “diminish the efficiency gains from specialisation, limit economies of scale due to smaller markets, and reduce competitive pressures.”
She reports IMF research suggesting “the economic costs of fragmentation… could be significant and weigh disproportionately on developing countries”, with losses around 2.5% of world output.
Losses could be as high as 7% of GDP depending on the economy’s resilience: “Losses are especially large for lower income and emerging market economies.”
Much will depend on how things unfold. She warns, “Fragmentation would also inhibit our efforts to address other global challenges that demand international cooperation.”
Policy options
Policymakers face difficult trade-offs between minimizing the costs of fragmentation and vulnerabilities, and maximizing security and resilience.
Gopinath recognizes her ‘first best solution’ – to avoid geoeconomic hostilities – is remote at best, given current geopolitical hostilities and likely future trends. Instead, she urges avoiding “the worst-case scenario” and protecting “economic cooperation” despite polarization.
She wants adversaries to “target only a narrow set of products and technologies that warrant intervention on economic security grounds”. Otherwise, she advocates a “non-discriminatory plurilateral approach” to “deepen integration, diversify, and mitigate resilience risks”.
Despite the odds, Gopinath appeals for a “multilateral approach…for areas of common interest” to “safeguard the global goals of averting climate change devastation, food insecurity and pandemic-related humanitarian disasters”.
Finally, she wants to restrict “unilateral policy actions – such as industrial policies”. They should only address “market failures while preserving market forces”, which she insists always “allocate resources most efficiently”.
Not recognising the double standards involved, she wants policymakers “to carefully evaluate industrial policies in terms of their effectiveness” But, she is less cautious and uncritical in insisting on neoliberal conventional wisdom despite its dubious track record.
Unsurprisingly, two IMF staffers felt compelled to write in 2019 of ‘The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named’. Despite much earlier extensive European and Japanese use and US President Biden’s recent embrace of industrial policy, the Fund seems caught in an ideological trap and time warp of its own making.
While making excessive claims about gains from globalisation, Gopinath acknowledges “economic integration has not benefited everyone”.
Thankfully, she urges developing countries to remain non-aligned and “deploy their economic and diplomatic heft to keep the world integrated” as the new Cold War sets the world further back.
Pragmatically, Gopinath observes, “If some economies remain non-aligned and continue engaging with all partners, they could benefit from the diversion of trade and investment.”
By 2022, “more than half of global trade involved a non-aligned country…They can benefit directly from trade and investment diversion”, reducing the Cold War’s high costs. (IPS UN Bureau)
As the 2024 general election begins in earnest, voters’ assessment of the economy and of the candidates’ ability to manage it will, as usual, have a strong impact on the outcome of the race. With little more than seven months until Election Day, the economy remains a key advantage for former President Donald Trump, and a drag on President Biden’s reelection prospects. Here are four takeaways from recent survey research on this topic:
Inflation and high prices remain the electorate’s top concern and dominate voters’ assessment of the economy. In a just-released Economist/YouGov survey, 22% of voters identify inflation/prices as their most important issue, compared to only seven percent who cite jobs and the economy. According to a Data for Progress analysis, 68% of those who put inflation and prices first named the cost of food as their principal concern, followed by housing (17%), utilities (eight percent), and gas (three percent).
Despite some modest recent improvement, voters’ sentiments about the economy remain negative. A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) survey found 31% of voters endorse the proposition that the economy has improved over the past two years, up by 10 percentage points since December. In another sign of progress, a New York Times (NYT) survey from early March found that 26% regard economic conditions as excellent or good, up from 20% since last July.
Still, 74% of the NYT respondents regard the economy as only fair (23%) or poor (51%). And as an analysis of the WSJ data shows, inflation is still the main reason why economic sentiment remains depressed. More than two-thirds of voters say that inflation is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly three-quarters say that price increases are exceeding gains in household income. This helps explain why only 24% of voters expect the economy to get better over the next 12 months.
The Economist/YouGov survey helps us understand how key subgroups of the electorate are feeling about the economy. Only 22% of Black Americans, 13% of Hispanics, and 18% of young adults believe that they are better off financially today than they were a year ago.
(The figure for the electorate as a whole is a rock-bottom 15%.) And during a period in which party affiliation has a much greater effect on economic evaluations than it did two decades ago, only 26% of Democrats say that their economic circumstances have improved over the past year. Just 19% of Black Americans, 14% of Hispanics, 12% of young adults, and 21% of the full electorate believe that economic conditions are getting better, while an outright majority of voters (52%) say that things are getting worse.
President Biden continues to get low marks for his handling of inflation. Overall, only 35% of voters approve of his handling of this issue. Among Hispanics, just 34% approve; for young adults, 28%; among lower-income voters, 29%.
These recent polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. Much can change between now and Election Day, as it has in the past. In 2012, for example, President Obama faced negative economic ratings and low consumer confidence early on. But as the year went on, voters’ sentiments improved, and Obama went on to defeat Mitt Romney in the fall. If the pace of inflation continues to moderate, allowing the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, history could repeat itself. If this improvement occurs early enough to affect public opinion, which typically lags behind actual economic conditions, an outright decline in food prices might be enough to secure a second term for Biden, but there are few signs that this will occur. He will have to hope that the stabilization of prices will be enough to change the voters’ evaluation of his performance for the better.
Five members of the US Congress who are of Indian descent have called for a briefing from the Justice Department regarding a series of attacks on Hindu temples across the nation. The temples have been targeted with vandalism, some of which included pro-Khalistan and anti-India graffiti. The Congress members expressed their concern in a joint letter, stating, “Attacks at mandirs from New York to California have contributed to increased collective anxiety among Hindu Americans.” The letter highlighted the lack of leads on suspects and the resulting fear and intimidation within affected communities. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi is leading this initiative, supported by Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, Ami Bera, and Shri Thanedar.
The members emphasized the need for law enforcement coordination and federal oversight to ensure equal protection under the law. They raised questions about the frequency and timing of these incidents, suggesting a potential connection and underlying intent. They stressed the impact of hate crimes on marginalized communities and called for collaborative efforts to combat such acts targeting religious, ethnic, racial, and cultural minorities. The Congress members requested clarity on the Department’s strategy concerning hate crimes against Hindus in the US.
Recent incidents include the defacement of a Hindu temple in Hayward, California, with pro-Khalistan graffiti in January, following a similar incident in Newark, also in California. The Hindu American Foundation noted that these attacks appear to be on the rise, with at least two incidents occurring in the past few weeks. Pro-Khalistani activists were implicated in incidents of arson and vandalism at the Indian consulate in San Francisco in 2023.
Despite assurances from the Biden administration to address these acts of hate, including promises of punishment for those responsible, no arrests have been made thus far. The Congress members’ call for a briefing reflects their commitment to addressing these alarming trends and ensuring the safety and security of Hindu American communities.
Critics lambasted President Biden on Saturday for designating March 31, coinciding with Easter Sunday this year, as Transgender Day of Visibility.
The White House released a statement on Friday, with President Biden declaring, “I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility.”
The proclamation urged all Americans to support transgender individuals and strive to eradicate violence and discrimination against them, including those who are gender nonconforming or nonbinary.
Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, criticized Biden’s announcement as part of what he deemed the “administration’s years-long assault on the Christian faith.”
Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s national press secretary, demanded an apology from Biden’s campaign and the White House to the millions of Catholics and Christians who view Easter Sunday solely as a day to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christian scholars also dismissed the proclamation, with Chad C. Pecknold, a theology professor at Catholic University, remarking, “In my expert theological opinion, Mr. Biden has repeatedly demonstrated that he’s far more committed to the progressive faith than the Catholic one.”
Conservative radio host Larry O’Connor reacted satirically, exclaiming, “HE/SHE/THEY/ZE IS RISEN!”
Governor Hochul of New York followed suit by issuing her own proclamation in line with Biden’s announcement.
However, Biden’s consistent focus on transgender representation has often led to controversy.
In June, Rose Montoya, a transgender influencer, sparked outrage after revealing her prosthetic breasts at a Pride celebration on the White House South Lawn.
Sam Brinton, a nonbinary former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Energy, faced dismissal from the administration and subsequent arrest for involvement in a series of luggage thefts at airports.
Furthermore, the Biden Administration has made efforts to minimize Christian elements from official celebrations.
For instance, at the 2024 White House Easter Egg Roll held on Monday, children of the National Guard were prohibited from submitting designs with religious themes. A flyer for the event stipulated, “The submission must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements.”
Easter typically occurs between March 22 and April 25 each year.
Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT), the parent company overseeing Donald Trump’s social media venture Truth Social, experienced a significant decline of over 21% in its stock value on Monday, marking a notable downturn following its highly anticipated debut the prior week.
Closing at $48.66 on Monday, Trump Media boasted a market capitalization of $6.65 billion, translating to a stake of $3.8 billion for the former president. This figure represents a decline from Trump’s initial stake, which stood at slightly over $4.5 billion after the company’s public introduction last week.
The drop in stock value coincided with an updated regulatory filing released early Monday, shedding light on substantial losses incurred by the company and emphasizing heightened risks associated with its association with the former president.
The filing disclosed that Trump Media recorded sales slightly surpassing $4 million, juxtaposed with net losses nearing $60 million for the full fiscal year ending December 31. The company cautioned investors to anticipate continued losses amidst escalating challenges in achieving profitability.
“Trump Media & Technology Group has historically incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operating activities,” the filing highlighted.
Moreover, Truth Social, despite attracting approximately 9 million users since its inception, remains heavily reliant on the reputation and popularity of Donald Trump for its success.
The regulatory filing underscored that Trump Media could face elevated risks compared to conventional social media platforms due to its unique offerings and the involvement of the former president. Potential risks encompassed advertiser harassment and scrutiny of Truth Social’s content moderation practices.
“The value of Trump Media & Technology Group’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Trump were to suffer,” the filing cautioned.
Of significant note, Trump Media acknowledged its heavy dependence on advertising, with ad sales constituting a substantial portion of its revenue stream. Concerns were raised that a decrease in user numbers or engagement, potentially triggered by the departure of prominent individuals and entities who contribute content to Truth Social, could deter advertisers and adversely impact the company’s financial performance.
The filing further disclosed that stakeholders remain subject to a six-month lockup period before being permitted to sell or transfer shares. This lockup period, however, could offer a window of opportunity for the former president, who is contending with financial challenges, including a $454 million fraud penalty and fundraising deficits ahead of a potential 2024 election rematch against Biden.
The sole exception to the lockup period would entail a special dispensation granted by the company’s board, though such a move is likely to be met with legal challenges from public shareholders, according to experts cited by Yahoo Finance.
Trump Media made its public debut on the Nasdaq following a merger with special purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition Corp., a transaction endorsed by shareholders in late February.
The genesis of Truth Social stemmed from Donald Trump’s removal from major social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter—referred to as X—following the events of the January 6 Capitol riots in 2021. Despite subsequently regaining access to these platforms, Trump embarked on establishing Truth Social as an alternative.
In its filing, Truth Social reaffirmed its mission to serve as a sanctuary for “cancelled” content creators and foster an environment conducive to unrestricted discourse, devoid of censorship or cancellation due to political affiliations.
