Tag: Republicans
-
Details on Trump order for blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela
[ad_2]
Details on Trump order for blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
What the newly released Epstein files say about Trump
Early Tuesday morning, the Justice Department released thousands of new documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files, including many that mention President Trump. CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane and Willie James Inman have more.
-
Tech companies are lobbying for more data centers despite alarm among Americans, according to report
Massive tech companies wanting to build more data centers in the U.S. are lobbying for support among Americans, according to a recent report by POLITICO. Gabby Miller joins CBS News with more on her reporting.
-
Justice Department pulls down some Epstein files, says more could come down
[ad_2]
Justice Department pulls down some Epstein files, says more could come down – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
Conservatives need to embrace ‘fusion’ of populism, top leader says, calling AmFest scenes are ‘encouraging’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The future of the conservative movement rests on the ability of candidates and activists to embrace the best tenets of populism while addressing issues that are uncomfortable in “establishment Washington,” the leader of one of America’s oldest conservative policy groups told Fox News Digital.
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, in Phoenix for the first AmericaFest following the murder of Charlie Kirk, said that despite a wave of recent losses for conservatives, there is great hope for the future. The event was packed with thousands of conservatives from around the nation.
“I was expecting to be really encouraged, and I am,” Roberts said of people he has engaged with at AmericaFest. “There’s a lot of passion and encouragement in that room. And I think we have to keep in mind, moving on to a second point, that you have to ignore sort of the naysayers and the doomsayers about conservative politicians losing the midterms.”
He said that despite bad press and wipeouts for the right in Virginia, New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania, conservatives “ought to be more optimistic” after what he called a great first year of the Trump-Vance administration and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., working together.
VIVEK RAMASWAMY CRITICIZES POCKETS OF ‘ONLINE RIGHT’ FIXATED ON HERITAGE IN TURNING POINT ADDRESS
Heritage Foundation president Dr. Kevin Roberts. (Tom Williams/CQ Getty Images)
“What we’ve got to do for 2026 is articulate to the American people — starting with this crowd here at AmFest — what those policy priorities need to be; not just for the short term but for the long term and Heritage certainly is in the middle of that conversation.”
To keep conservatism at the fore in 2026, given recent setbacks, conservatives must run on an “aspirational vision” he said was lacking in several 2025 races – while noting Jack Ciattarelli’s failed bid for governor of New Jersey bid as one of the better-run campaigns.
Looking to the new year, Roberts said Heritage is interested in seeing policymakers asking those uncomfortable questions inside the Beltway, like what the future of the American family looks like, whether the workplace is one where Americans earn dignity and not just a paycheck, and more directly, “what it means to be an American.”
TIM SCOTT TELLS MAGA VOTERS TRUMP ‘IS ON THE BALLOT’ AS GOP FIGHTS TO GROW SENATE MAJORITY IN 2026
“[That’s] to say something, of course, that establishment Washington doesn’t like to talk about,” he said.
“What’s the future, not just of immigration policy, but how can we assimilate the highest percentage of foreign-born population we’ve had in modern American history? This is important for all of us if in fact we’re going to have a healthy society,” he said.
“The bottom line is this, if establishment Washington talks about just sort of sidebar issues in this campaign, then the midterms are going to be a disaster. “
WHY 2026 SHOULD TERRIFY REPUBLICANS AFTER TENNESSEE SPECIAL ELECTION
“They, to state the obvious, have to talk about what the American people are asking, and they actually have to offer policy solutions where I happen to think Heritage has some good things to say.”
In 2028, Trump will be term-limited and a new conservative leader will have to rise.
The best way for conservatives to move forward, he said, is to embrace a “good fusion of the best elements of populism.”
SETTING THE STAGE: WHAT THE 2025 ELECTIONS SIGNAL FOR NEXT YEAR’S MIDTERM SHOWDOWNS
“Namely, exercising popular will over longstanding conservative principles like diminishing the size of the administrative state, but also making sure that we’re sustaining our longstanding, conservative principles,” Roberts said.
“Whoever the standard-bearers are for conservatism in 2028, 2032, 2036, their policy ideas are going to sound a lot like Trump’s, but of course they are going to bring their own imprint into that.”
“Those of us who focus on ideas and policy for a living need to do our jobs zealously well to keep offering not just the long-standing policy ideas, but some innovative ones as well,” he added.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Looking ahead to Heritage’s work in 2026, Roberts said the think tank will focus on family, the future of free enterprise, national security, and citizenship.
“And then we’re also focused, especially on the side of our enterprise that works on advocacy and campaigns, “Heritage Action [For America]“, what those particular places are where we can tell that story to the American people. And hopefully, people running for office will take those issues and run with them,” he said.
-
Even After the Erika Kirk Summit, Candace Owens Is Still Being Candace Owens
For someone who gets her information from dreams and is guided by her hunches, Candace Owens is apparently very in touch with her own comments section. Before sitting down to discuss the results of her four-and-a-half-hour conversation with Erika Kirk—widow of Charlie Kirk and CEO of Turning Point USA—Owens used her Tuesday livestream to make a noxious joke for members of her audience who worried she was selling out to the Israeli government.
“Okay, everybody, Shabbat Shalom,” Owens said. “Happy Hanukkah to our greatest friends and allies. And, you know, this is a good time to mention that Israel does have a right to defend itself.” She kept going: “Tucker Carlson is Adolf Hitler, and TikTok does need to be purchased by the Mossad. It’s just how I’m feeling today. I am not different. Maybe you are different. Welcome back to Candace.” The independent conservative podcaster danced when, instead of her normal Kanye West theme song, she played “Hava Nagila.” The entire performance, of course, was sarcastic; afterward, she ribbed her audience for worrying that she might have been flipped by her time with Kirk. “I keep telling you guys, I am not governable.”
For the last month, Owens has used her YouTube channel—on which she has nearly 5.7 million subscribers—to spin fanciful theories about Charlie’s killing. She has claimed that Israel and France had something to gain from his death and has suggested that other employees of his right-wing organization might have played a role in it too. At first, Owens and Kirk’s Monday summit in Nashville looked like a sign that Owens might ease off the conspiracies, just in time for AmericaFest—TPUSA’s annual summit, which started Thursday and runs through December 21.
But ultimately, Tuesday’s livestream, titled “Erika And I Sat Down. Here’s What Happened,” proved that Owens had no intention of changing. The opening display was her shtick in a nutshell: luridly antisemitic and very online, with a complete disregard for the seriousness of the subject at hand. If you didn’t know the backstory, how could you ever predict that the next 30 or so minutes of the show would be a discussion of a public assassination?
So far, Kirk has remained quiet about the substance of the conversation, aside from publishing a post on Monday night that said it was “very productive.” If Kirk watched Owens’s Tuesday livestream, it’s hard to imagine that she’s sticking with that assessment.
Erin Vanderhoof
Source link -
Trump Unsure Whether Impact of Economic Policies Will be Felt in Time for Midterms
U.S. President Donald Trump expressed uncertainty about whether Republicans would keep control of the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections because some of his economic policies have yet to take full effect, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.
Trump, in an interview conducted on Friday, told the Journal, “I can’t tell you. I don’t know when all of this money is going to kick in,” when asked about the whether Republicans would lose the House in November.
The White House did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.
The president has argued that his economic policies, including his imposition of widespread tariffs on imports, are creating jobs, boosting the stock market and attracting increased investment into the United States.
After campaigning last year on promises to tame inflation, Trump has in recent weeks alternated between dismissing affordability problems as a hoax, blaming President Joe Biden for them, and promising his economic policies will benefit Americans next year.
“I think by the time we have to talk about the election, which is in another few months, I think our prices are in good shape,” Trump said in the interview.
Last month the president rolled back tariffs on more than 200 food products in the face of growing angst among American consumers about the high cost of groceries.
The president did not say whether he would lower tariffs on additional goods, the Journal reported.
Trump’s overall approval rating edged up to 41 percent in a new Reuters/Ipsos poll but the approval rating on his performance on the cost of living was just 31 percent.
Democrats have won a string of victories in state and local elections in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City, where growing voter concerns about affordability, including high food prices, were a key topic.
Officials have said Trump will hit the road in the new year to campaign for Republican candidates and emphasize his economic policy successes. Trump has said his tax cuts and tariffs on foreign goods will put more money in the pockets of American families.
Reporting by Anusha Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Christopher Cushing
Reuters
Source link -
Indiana delivers a courageous contrast to NC Republican fealty | Opinion
It has long been obvious that North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature is impervious to shame, but a vote by Republican lawmakers in Indiana this week should deeply embarrass Republican lawmakers here.
Twenty-one of Indiana’s Republican state senators joined 10 Democrats on Thursday to reject President Donald Trump’s push for a mid-decade redistricting. The proposed new map likely would have shifted Indiana’s U.S. House delegation from 7-2 in Republicans’ favor to 9-0 Republican.
The vote was a setback for Trump, who is urging Republican-controlled states to further gerrymander their congressional districts to prevent Democrats from winning control of the U.S. House in 2026. Legislatures in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina have gone along, but enough Indiana Republicans refused.
One of them, state Sen. Spencer Deery, said he voted no to preserve confidence in elections. “The power to draw election maps is a sacred responsibility directly tied to the integrity of our elections and the people’s faith in our constitutional system,” he said.
What a striking contrast that is to the behavior of North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers.
State Senate leader Phil Berger, a Rockingham County Republican, urged his caucus to comply with Trump’s call to redistrict. He said it was necessary to prevent Democrats from obstructing Trump’s agenda.
But Berger also had his own concerns. It was reported that Berger, now facing a tough primary, could earn a Trump endorsement if he pushed the redistricting through. He did so in October, and the endorsement came this week.
House Speaker Destin Hall also caved to Trump’s demand that North Carolina’s districts be further stacked in his favor. The new map passed the House in October along party lines.
Hall falsely cast the new map as a response to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s call for a referendum to allow a redrawing of California’s districts. But Newsom only acted after Texas redistricted to create five additional districts favoring Republicans.
“Our state won’t stand by while Democrats like Gavin Newsom redraw districts to aid in their effort to obtain a majority in the U.S. House,” Hall said in a statement. “We will not allow them to undermine the will of the voters and President Trump’s agenda.”
So, Hall went ahead and undermined the will of the voters. Polls show that Trump and his agenda are underwater in North Carolina.
The redrawn North Carolina map is expected to produce another Republican U.S. House seat in an evenly divided state where Republicans have already gerrymandered their way to a lopsided 10-4 advantage.
During the Senate’s floor debate on the new districts, Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, a Wake County Democrat, said, “This map represents the highest and most egregious form of unadulterated and unfettered partisan power grabs I’ve witnessed in my nine years serving in the Senate.”
Sen. Terence Everitt, another Wake County Democrat, used even stronger language. “History will remember the day fascism came to North Carolina,” he told the Republican senators. “And y’all couldn’t wait to get on your knees.”
In a remarkable turn, Everitt’s condemnation brought him a rebuke from Senate Rules Chair Bill Rabon, a Southport Republican. In a letter to Everitt, Rabon, said the Democrat’s words violated the Senate’s decorum. Meanwhile, manipulating congressional districts to appease Trump and deprive voters of their voice is, in Rabon’s view, not offensive.
Trump and Vice President JD Vance leaned on Indiana’s Republican senators who opposed drawing a new map, but those senators chose to do what was right and fair. One who stood up to Trump, Republican Sen. Mike Bohacek, said, “We don’t bend a knee to bullying and threats.”
North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers cannot say the same.
Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com
Ned Barnett
Source link -
Indiana Republicans defy Trump’s push for redistricting as Senate rejects bill
[ad_2]
Indiana Republicans defy Trump’s push for redistricting as Senate rejects bill – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
20 Republicans vote with Dems to reverse Trump executive order on federal unions
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Twenty House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a bill reversing President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking most federal unions on Thursday.
The bill was led by Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, who got a vote on his measure by filing a discharge petition. It’s designed to force a vote on legislation over the wishes of leadership provided it gets support from a majority of House lawmakers.
The bill, called the Protect America’s Workforce Act, is aimed at repealing a March 2025 executive order by Trump.
The final vote passed 231 to 195, with all the “no” votes coming from Republicans.
6 HOUSE DEMOCRATS EXPLAIN BREAKING WITH PARTY TO END SHUTDOWN
President Donald Trump speaks to a gathering of top U.S. military commanders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., Sept. 30, 2025. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)
Trump’s order blocked collective bargaining with unions at an array of federal agencies, including parts of the departments of Defense, State, Veterans Affairs, Justice and Energy.
It also affected workers at the departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), Interior and Agriculture.
During debate on the bill Thursday afternoon, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said undoing Trump’s executive order was akin to encouraging “more work-from-home policies for our federal employees,” which he said Americans voted against when they elected Trump and Republicans to lead in Washington.
“It is important to remember that public sector unions are fundamentally different from their private sector counterparts,” Comer also argued. “In fact, none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a major champion of private sector unions, believed that public sector unions made no sense.”
“In the private sector, unions represent workers and sit across the bargaining table from representatives of business owners. However, federal unions are not negotiating with a profit-seeking corporation. They are negotiating with the public’s elected representatives.”
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, said, “Union bosses love this bill for one reason, and that’s because it protects their telework perks, it shields them from accountability, and gives them effective veto power over a duly elected president with a mandate to clean up a bloated federal bureaucracy.”

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, attends a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, July 17, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued, “Collective bargaining is essentially the freedom to negotiate the best possible work environment.”
“I’m thankful for this bipartisan effort to restore collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million public servants that are part of our federal government,” Jeffries said.
Rep. Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa., who said his district was home to thousands of federal workers, argued that restoring collective bargaining rights for those workers is “a lifeline that ensures fair wages, safe workplaces, and the basic dignity that every worker deserves,” including corrections officers and people who work with veterans and seniors.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., also appeared on the House floor to debate in favor of the bill, arguing, “These are career public servants, many of them veterans who show up every single day to serve our country. Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open.”
Discharge petitions are rarely successful in the House but have been used more frequently this year as Republicans grapple with a razor-thin majority.
58 HOUSE DEMS VOTE AGAINST RESOLUTION HONORING ‘LIFE AND LEGACY’ OF CHARLIE KIRK
In Golden’s case, five House Republicans had signed onto the petition along with 213 Democrats — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Bresnahan, Don Bacon, R-Neb., Lawler and Nick LaLota, R-N.Y.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A vote to advance the bill won support from 13 Republicans on Wednesday night, setting it up for the Thursday vote.
That number grew early on Thursday afternoon during another procedural vote to set up final passage, with 22 Republicans voting to push the bill to its final step.
To be successful, however, the measure would still have to be taken up successfully in the Senate and get signed into law by Trump.
-
Senate rejects extension of health care subsidies as costs are set to rise for millions of Americans
The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.”Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on health care. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees. An intractable issueThe votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.”When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”A plethora of plans, but little agreementRepublicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON —The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.
Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.
Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.
“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”
Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.
Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.
But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.
The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on health care. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.
The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.
An intractable issue
The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.
Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.
“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.
Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.
Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”
A plethora of plans, but little agreement
Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.
Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.
Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.
If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
-
Supreme Court poised to strike down Watergate-era campaign finance limits
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.
The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.
For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.
The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.
“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.
In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.
They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.
Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.
Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.
Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.
At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.
Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.
“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.
If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.
The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.
Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.
Precedents might have stood in the way.
In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.
“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.
Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.
“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”
The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.
Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.
Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.
“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”
Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.
“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”
David G. Savage
Source link -
Californians sharply divided along partisan lines about immigration raids, poll finds
California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines over the Trump administration’s immigration raids this year in Los Angeles and across the nation, according to a new poll.
Just over half of the state’s registered voters oppose federal efforts to reduce undocumented immigration, and 61% are against deporting everyone in the nation who doesn’t have legal status, according to a recent poll by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab released to The Times on Wednesday.
But there is an acute difference in opinions based on political leanings.
Nearly 80% of Democrats oppose reducing the number of people entering the United States illegally, and 90% are against deporting everyone in the country who is undocumented, according to the poll. Among Republicans, 5% are against reducing the entries and 10% don’t believe all undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave.
“The big thing that we find, not surprisingly, is that Democrats and Republicans look really different,” said political scientist Amy Lerman, director of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab, who studies race, public opinion and political behavior. “On these perspectives, they fall pretty clearly along party lines. While there’s some variation within the parties by things like age and race, really, the big divide is between Democrats and Republicans.”
While there were some differences based on gender, age, income, geography and race, the results largely mirrored the partisan divide in the state, Lerman said.
One remarkable finding was that nearly a quarter of survey respondents personally knew or were acquainted with someone in their family or friend groups directly affected by the deportation efforts, Lerman said.
“That’s a really substantial proportion,” she said. “Similarly, the extent to which we see people reporting that people in their communities are concerned enough about deportation efforts that they’re not sending their kids to school, not shopping in local stores, not going to work,” not seeking medical care or attending church services.
The poll surveyed a sample of the state’s registered voters and did not include the sentiments of the most affected communities — unregistered voters or those who are ineligible to cast ballots because they are not citizens.
A little more than 23 million of California’s 39.5 million residents were registered to vote as of late October, according to the secretary of state’s office.
“So if we think about the California population generally, this is a really significant underestimate of the effects, even though we’re seeing really substantial effects on communities,” she said.
Earlier this year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a series of raids in Los Angeles and surrounding communities that spiked in June, creating both fear and outrage in Latino communities. Despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected Democrats, the Trump administration also deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation’s second-largest city to, federal officials said, protect federal immigration officials.
The months since have been chaotic, with masked, armed agents randomly pulling people — most of whom are Latino — off the streets and out of their workplaces and sending many to detention facilities, where some have died. Some deportees were flown to an El Salvador prison. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by state officials and civil rights groups.
In one notable local case, a federal district judge issued a ruling temporarily blocking federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal and lifted that order, while the case moves forward.
More than 7,100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in the Los Angeles area by federal authorities since June 6, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
On Monday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Bass and other elected officials hosted a congressional hearing on the impact of immigration raids that have taken place across the country. Garcia, the top Democrat on the House’s oversight committee, also announced the creation of a tracker to document misconduct and abuse during ICE raids.
While Republican voters largely aligned with Trump’s actions on deportations, 16% said that they believed that the deportations will worsen the state’s economy.
Lerman said the university planned to study whether these numbers changed as the impacts on the economy are felt more greatly.
“If it continues to affect people, particularly, as we see really high rates of effects on the workforce, so construction, agriculture, all of the places where we’re as an economy really reliant [on immigrant labor], I can imagine some of these starting to shift even among Republicans,” she said.
Among Latinos, whose support of Trump grew in the 2024 election, there are multiple indications of growing dissatisfaction with the president, according to separate national polls.
Nearly eight in 10 Latinos said Trump’s policies have harmed their community, compared to 69% in 2019 during his first term, according to a national poll of adults in the United States released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center on Monday. About 71% said the administration’s deportation efforts had gone too far, an increase from 56% in March. And it was the first time in the two decades that Pew has conducted its survey of Latino voters that the number of Latinos who said their standing in the United States had worsened increased, with more than two-thirds expressing the sentiment.
Another poll released earlier this month by Somos Votantes, a liberal group that urges Latino voters to support Democratic candidates, found that one-third of Latino voters who previously supported Trump rue their decision, according to a national poll.
Small business owner Brian Gavidia is among the Latino voters who supported Trump in November because of financial struggles.
“I was tired of struggling, I was tired of seeing my friends closing businesses,” the 30-year-old said. “When [President] Biden ran again I’m like, ‘I’m not going to vote for the same four years we just had’ … I was sad and I was heartbroken that our economy was failing and that’s the reason why I went that way.”
The East L.A. native, the son of immigrants from Colombia and El Salvador, said he wasn’t concerned about Trump’s immigration policies because the president promised to deport the “worst of the worst.”
He grew disgusted watching the raids that unfolded in Los Angeles earlier this year.
“They’re taking fruit vendors, day laborers, that’s the worst of the worst to you?” he remembered thinking.
Over a lunch of asada tortas and horchata in East L.A., Gavidia recounted being detained by Border Patrol agents in June while working at a Montebello tow yard. Agents shoved him against a metal gate, demanding to know what hospital he was born at after he said he was an American citizen, according to video of the incident.
After reviewing his ID, the agents eventually let Gavidia go. The Department of Homeland Security later claimed that Gavidia was detained for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants. He is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups alleging racial profiling during immigration raids.
“At that moment, I was the criminal, at that moment I was the worst of the worst, which is crazy because I went to go see who they were getting — the worst of the worst like they said they were going to get,” Gavidia said. “But turns out when I got there, I was the worst of the worst.”
Seema Mehta, Brittny Mejia
Source link