Nearly two years after Texas’ six-week abortion ban, more infants are dying
Isabelle Chapman – July 20, 2023
Texas’ abortion restrictions – some of the strictest in the country – may be fueling a sudden spike in infant mortality as women are forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term.
Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 – an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.
In 2021, Texas banned abortions beyond six weeks of pregnancy. When the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights the following summer, a trigger law in the state banned all abortions other than those intended to protect the life of the mother.
The increase in deaths could partly be explained by the fact that more babies are being born in Texas. One recent report found that in the final nine months of 2022, the state saw nearly 10,000 more births than expected prior to its abortion ban – an estimated 3% increase.
But multiple obstetrician-gynecologists who focus on high-risk pregnancies told CNN that Texas’ strict abortion laws likely contributed to the uptick in infant deaths.
“We all knew the infant mortality rate would go up, because many of these terminations were for pregnancies that don’t turn into healthy normal kids,” said Dr. Erika Werner, the chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts Medical Center. “It’s exactly what we all were concerned about.”
The issue of forcing women to carry out terminal and often high-risk pregnancies is at the core of a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, with several women – who suffered difficult pregnancies or infant deaths shortly after giving birth – testifying in Travis County court this week.
One witness became so emotional while testifying Wednesday that she began to vomit on the stand.
After the court called a recess she explained that the reaction is a response to the emotional trauma she endured: “I vomit when there’s certain parts that happen that kind of just makes my body remember.”
Another sobbed as she described feeling afraid to visit a Texas doctor after receiving an abortion out of state. A third spoke tearfully about waiting for her baby’s heart to stop beating so her doctors could provide an abortion she desperately needed.
Prior to the recent abortion restrictions, Texas banned the procedure after 20 weeks. This law gave parents more time to learn crucial information about a fetus’s brain formation and organ development, which doctors begin to test for at around 15 weeks.
Samantha Casiano, a plaintiff in the suit filed against Texas, wished she’d had more time to make the decision.
“If I was able to get the abortion with that time, I think it would have meant a lot to me because my daughter wouldn’t have suffered,” Casiano told CNN after testifying Wednesday.
‘You have no options’
Anti-abortion demonstrators gather in the rotunda at the Capitol in Austin, Texas, in March of 2021. – Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman/AP
When Casiano was 20 weeks pregnant, a routine scan came back with devastating news: Her baby would be stillborn or die shortly after birth.
The fetus had anencephaly, a rare birth defect that keeps the brain and skull from developing during pregnancy. Babies with this condition are often stillborn, though they sometimes live a few hours or days. Many women around the country who face the prospect choose abortion, two obstetrician-gynecologists told CNN.
But Casiano lived in Texas, where state legislators had recently banned most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. She couldn’t afford to travel out of the state for the procedure.
“You have no options. You will have to go through with your pregnancy,” Casiano’s doctor told her, she claimed in the lawsuit.
In March, Casiano gave birth to her daughter Halo. After gasping for air for four hours, the baby died, Casiano said during her testimony on Wednesday.
“All she could do was fight to try to get air. I had to watch my daughter go from being pink to red to purple. From being warm to cold,” said Casiano. “I just kept telling myself and my baby that I’m so sorry that this had to happen to you.”
Casiano and 14 others – including two doctors – are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They allege the abortion ban has denied them or their patients access to necessary obstetrical care. The plaintiffs are asking the courts to clarify when doctors can make medical exceptions to the state’s ban.
Casiano and two other plaintiffs testified Wednesday about hoping to deliver healthy babies but instead learning their lives or pregnancies were in danger.
Plaintiffs Anna Zargarian, Lauren Miller, Lauren Hall, and Amanda Zurawski at the Texas State Capitol after filing a lawsuit on behalf of Texans harmed by the state’s abortion ban on March 7 in Austin, Texas. – Rick Kern/Getty Images/FILE
“This was just supposed to be a scan day,” Casiano told the court. “It escalated to me finding out my daughter was going to die.”
Lawyers representing the state argued Wednesday that the plaintiffs’ doctors were to blame, saying they misinterpreted the law and failed to provide adequate care for such high-risk pregnancies.
“Plaintiffs will not and cannot provide any evidence of any medical provider in the state of Texas being prosecuted or otherwise penalized for performance of an abortion using the emergency medical exemption,” a lawyer said during the state’s opening statement.
Kylie Beaton, another plaintiff, also had to watch her baby die. Beaton, who didn’t testify this week, learned during a 20-week scan that something was wrong with her baby’s brain, according to the suit.
The doctor diagnosed the fetus with alobar holoprosencephaly, a condition where the two hemispheres of the brain don’t properly divide. Babies with this condition are often stillborn or die soon after birth.
Beaton’s doctor told her he couldn’t provide an abortion unless she was severely ill, or the fetus’s heart stopped. Beaton and her husband sought to obtain an abortion out of state. However, the fetus’s head was enlarged due to its condition, and the only clinic that would perform an abortion charged up to $15,000. Beaton and her husband couldn’t afford it.
Instead, Beaton gave birth to a son she named Grant. The baby cried constantly, wouldn’t eat, and couldn’t be held upright for fear it would put too much pressure on his head, according to the suit. Four days later, Grant died.
Maternal mortality
Amanda Zurawski of Austin, Texas, center, is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. – Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP
Experts say that abortion bans in states like Texas lead to increased risk for both babies and mothers.
Maternal mortality has long been a top concern for doctors and health-rights activists. Even before the Supreme Court decision, the United States had the highest maternal mortality rate among wealthy nations, one study found.
Amanda Zurawski, the lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, testified Wednesday that her water broke 18 weeks into her pregnancy, putting her at high risk for a life-threatening infection. Zurawski’s baby likely wouldn’t survive.
But the fetus still had a heartbeat, and so doctors said they were unable to terminate the pregnancy. She received an emergency abortion only after her condition worsened and she went into septic shock.
Zurawski described during Wednesday’s hearing how her family visited the hospital, fearing it would be the last time they would see her. Zurawski has argued that had she been able to obtain an abortion, her life wouldn’t have been in jeopardy in the same way.
“I blame the people who support these bans,” Zurawski said.
Zurawski previously said the language in Texas’ abortion laws is “incredibly vague, and it leaves doctors grappling with what they can and cannot do, what health care they can and cannot provide.”
Pregnancy is dangerous, and forcing a woman to carry a non-viable pregnancy to term is unnecessarily risky when it’s clear the baby will not survive, argued Dr. Mae-Lan Winchester, an Ohio maternal-fetal medicine specialist.
“Pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a person will ever go through,” Winchester said. “Putting yourself through that risk without any benefit of taking a baby home at the end, it’s … risking maternal morbidity and mortality for nothing.”
CNN’s Casey Tolan and Daniel A. Medina contributed to this report.
Kansas Republicans have managed to sink nearly as low as infamous and heartless duke
Charles Hammer – July 19, 2023
I was impelled to write this column by a recent history book: “Samuel Pepys and the Strange Wrecking of the Gloucester,” by Nigel Pickford.
The war frigate Gloucester sank in 1682 during a storm off the British coast, imperiling not just its lowly crew but many nobles and — above all — James, Duke of York, who would soon be King of England. James escaped through the frigate’s big rear windows into his own lifeboat.
The tale reminded me of a column I wrote nearly five years ago. In it, I praised Kansas Republican leaders for being more generous to the poor than were the British grandees who starved millions in the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s, forcing scurvy-ravaged millions more onto “ghost ships” sailing for America. Our Kansas Republicans are better people than Sir Charles Trevelyn, the British official who cheered the Potato Famine on.
“The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson,” Sir Charles wrote. “That calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.”
OK, but just how much better are today’s Republican leaders? In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, millionaire President Donald Trump tweeted moral criticism of the suffering Puerto Ricans.
“They want everything done for them,” he groused.
Former Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley once justified cutting estate taxes on the rich as a way to honor “the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
Every darn penny they have? Precisely because of Kansas Republicans, our poor folks have few pennies to blow on women and booze. We stand as a stingy island in the middle of four surrounding states — three of them Republican — that have raised the minimum wage above the lousy national $7.25 hourly.
Citizens of Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma dodged past their leaders with initiative petitions that permitted a vote on the issue. These same three — against the will of fulminating Republican politicians — also voted to expand Medicaid to help the poor.
But in miserly Republican Kansas, we don’t tolerate voter initiatives. Nor do we suffer throwing more money away on doctors for the poor. Kansas stands rock solid among America’s 10 states that refuse to expand Medicaid. It was killed once by the Kansas senate, a second time when vetoed by then Gov. Sam Brownback. An aide to Brownback, Melika Willoughby, explained:
“This isn’t just bad policy, this is morally reprehensible…”
Morals again. Morals are very important to Republicans.
Here’s one good thing about Kansas legislators: By stiffing our own poor folks, Republicans helped fund care for the needy in the 40 states that did expand Medicaid. Our Kansas legislators thus have nobly given away billions in free federal dollars to lavish on health care for the poor of other states.
Republicans demand poor folks work a job to get care under Medicaid. But if a single mother with two children earns $8,751 a year, we cut her off because she is too rich.
So how moral were those fancy rich Britons in 1682 as the frigate Gloucester battled the raging Atlantic ocean? As I said, the Duke of York escaped through the frigate’s rear windows into his own lifeboat, leading Sir John Berry later to write:
“His highness took as many persons of quality with him in the boat as she could carry.”
Persons of quality. Of course. Nearly all of the “quality” was saved. An estimated 130 to 250 others drowned.
“But here I cannot pass in silence,” one observer later wrote, “that those that could swim made up to the Boat where the Duke was, and grappled on the sides thereof, endeavoring to get into it, but their hands were ordered to be cut off…and thereby they were deprived not only of getting into the Boats that came from other Ships, but also of the ability of swimming.”
Surely, then, our Kansas Republican legislators must be better than that.
Opinion: I’m a conservative who’s waiting for Republicans to come to their senses
Yaffa Fredrick – July 19, 2023
Editor’s Note: Adam Kinzinger is a CNN senior political commentator and a former Republican congressman from Illinois. He served 10 years on the House foreign affairs committee. Kinzinger is also a lieutenant colonel and pilot in the Air National Guard. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinion at CNN.
Traditionally committed to national security, global stability and law and order, my Republican Party — yes, I am still a Republican — is now weakening on all three fronts. In doing so, it is fulfilling the cliche that extremists on the right and left eventually come together, like a snake eating its tail.
Adam Kinzinger – CNN
That’s not only bad for America, but bad for the prospects of the GOP — particularly in light of the fact that the party’s leading 2024 presidential contender is currently under both federal and state indictment and facing further potential charges in Washington, DC, and Georgia (all of which he denies wrongdoing in).
The radical right has embraced positions on these bedrock Republican principles to try to lock in the support of the most fervent members of the base. But these stances will almost certainly doom them with the moderates and swing voters who turned out for President Joe Biden in 2020. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a better way to ensure that the GOP won’t win back the presidency.
Let’s start with the GOP’s decision to insert culture wars into a bill — the National Defense Authorization Act — that funds every function of the Defense Department, in a manner that all but guaranteed alienating a voting majority in America.
Among other maneuvers, the extreme conservatives in the House want to ban a Defense Department policy that covers travel costs for service members who must seek abortions out of state, extending an existing provision that provides funds to those who must get specialized care not available near their posts. The Pentagon put this extension in place when some states limited or banned abortion access after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion last year.
How do I know this amendment is politically toxic? First, over the last several years, there has been steady public support for abortion rights, which now includes more than one-third of all Republicans, according to Pew Research Center. Second, there’s the unseemly effort to stop funding for the military with an amendment that has nothing to do with defense. Granted, others try to attach similar off-topic amendments to bills. But they are not usually as likely to torpedo getting necessary funds to the Pentagon.
Thanks to overwhelming GOP support, the anti-abortion travel reimbursement amendment made it into the House bill. Republicans also added limits on transgender care and prohibitions on programs related to diversity. All three fit the extreme right movement’s so-called “anti-woke” agenda, which seeks to block the government from supporting various groups of Americans on the basis of race, sexual orientation and gender identity.
GOP presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has madeanti-wokeness, opposition to abortion and criticism of rights for transgender people central to his appeal to primary voters, but there’s little evidence that his stand will win over people in a general election. And House members who cling to his message in an effort to win primary voters may very well suffer defeat in a general election.
Unfortunately, further extremist (and self-defeating) mischief is taking place in the Senate, where Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has put a hold on military nominations. Under the Senate’s arcane rules, Tuberville has been blocking consideration of some 265 military officers for several months. His reason? The Defense Department’s travel support for service members seeking out-of-state abortion services.
Tuberville’s grandstanding won’t persuade the Senate to change the Pentagon policy, but as an Air National Guard lieutenant colonel, I can tell you that blocking promotions is bad for the smooth operation of the chain of command at the heart of America’s national security structure. It’s also bad for morale. And it’s personally insulting to the men and women who are willing to sacrifice so much for this country.
But these culture war issues aren’t the only threat this crowd of extremists is posing to global stability. Last week, they tried unsuccessfully to tie up the defense bill by trying to scale back US aid to Ukraine by hundreds of millions of dollars.
As much of the world understands, Ukraine is in a fight for its life against a Russian military that invaded in February 2022. The Russian attack was unprovoked and pitted the much larger country, run by the autocratic leader Vladimir Putin, against a democracy that has thus far been able to defend itself, thanks in large part to US aid.
The defense of democracy has long been a conservative ideal, and that includes standing with our allies under attack. It’s hard to see the opposition to aid as anything other than the betrayal of an ally and friend.
Although the House ultimately voted down the amendment to limit aid to Ukraine, the fact that it was even introduced shows just how out of step much of the Republican Party is with the public on the issue of Ukraine. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from last month, 65% of Americans support the US arming Ukraine — including 81% of Democrats, 56% of Republicans and 57% of independents. In that same poll, large majorities of Americans said they would support a US presidential candidate who would continue to provide strong military aid to Ukraine.
And then there’s the hostility these GOP extremists are directing at law enforcement, traditionally a wellspring of Republican support. This newfound animosity was on full view last week when FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared before the House Judiciary Committee.
Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and several equally exercised Republicans members attacked a “weaponized” bureau for serving as an anti-conservative attack dog. Jordan and others have been using this word — “weaponization” — to argue, without solid evidence, that the federal government in general is pursuing an anti-conservative agenda. Echoing leftists who call for defunding the police, the House’s right-wing extremists want to slash the FBI’s budget.
The attacks on Wray revolved around hot-button campaign issues, including the investigations into former President Donald Trump’s handling of top-secret documents, the plea agreement in the case of Hunter Biden’s tax crimes and the FBI’s surveillance efforts. At one point, finger-pointing Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said the FBI “deserves better than you” to Wray.
Following Trump’s example, Wray’s congressional interrogators treated him with the disrespect you might expect from members of the radical left in the 1960s. I’m certain that as they mimicked the former president, they were attempting to court his voters; but I saw House members leading their party into a political wilderness where moderate voices may just join Democrats to end the GOP’s control of the House.
It is a display of sheer political malpractice for any Republican to suggest cutting FBI funding. While the left-wing’s call to “defund” the police has been much derided, a Gallup poll from last October found rising public support for the FBI. The agency is now seen favorably by 79% of Democrats — and 50% of Americans overall.
As appalling and politically misguided as the far-right’s behavior has been, most Republicans in both the House and Senate have not been inclined to oppose it directly. They obviously fear losing the support of Trump and his followers. But I think this choice is short-sighted and may ultimately backfire.
Despite his lead in the polls, Trump does not have a lock on the 2024 presidential nomination. He did not win the presidency the last time he ran, and it’s clear that he has been a drag on GOP senators and representatives who have campaigned in the years since.
On this evidence, I’d say that the extremists are hurting, not helping, the national Republican Party. At some point, more and more normal Republicans will see the damage they are doing. In the meantime, conservatives like me will wait for our party to come to its senses.
Editorial: In DeSantis’ Florida, obsession with LGBTQ Floridians keeps hitting new lows
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board – July 18, 2023
Joe Raedle/Orlando Sentinel/TNS
By now, most Floridians get it: The DeSantis administration is obsessed with targeting the LGBTQ community in Florida dishonestly, irrationally and repetitively across multiple venues.
The latest salvos will be fired on Wednesday, when the state Board of Education takes up a group of proposals that would once again drag Florida educators down the path of persecution. Sooner or later, local school boards — who are elected by, and accountable to, the voters of each county — must start pushing back against this ridiculous, ongoing assault.
The policies up for adoption at Wednesday’s meeting could be a good place to start — assuming they pass, which they likely will. “They’re just continuing the fear mongering from session,” says Jon Harris Maurer, public policy director for Equality Florida, describing 2023 legislative changes that fall squarely into the more-of-the-same-homophobic-nonsense category.
An expansion of the rules intended to force students to use bathrooms associated with their gender determination at birth. This is an offshoot of 2023’s ridiculous “potty purity” law (HB 1521) that attempts to keep transgender individuals out of bathrooms that correspond with their identity across multiple venues, including private businesses and government buildings. Lawmakers have consistently ignored the fact that by determining gender through at-birth assignment, the law is all but guaranteed to generate more uneasiness because it forces individuals to use restroom facilities that don’t match with their current appearance or names. Yet lawmakers seem intent on forcing these uncomfortable confrontations, and have combined the bathroom provision with another rule that threatens the licensure status of teachers who violate it. Yet in most polls taken over the past 10 years, fewer than 40% of voters think that bathroom use by transgender people should be so illogically dictated.
A provision that would extend the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” provisions to middle schools. Remember when DeSantis’ then-communications director put extensive effort into convincing Floridians that the prohibition on classroom discussion of gender and sexual protection was to protect very young children from too much sexy talk — which she used as cover for the ugly contention that anyone who lined up against that legislation was a “groomer?” Well, this rips that argument to shreds: Middle-school-aged children are certainly aware that same-sex relationships exist. Yet this rule also threatens teachers with misconduct charges for talking too much about that reality.
A new rule that seems to be aimed at “protecting” students from unexpected exposure to drag queens at any school-sponsored event or activity, because that’s something that apparently happens all the time. (Or not.) The rule is written so broadly and confusingly that it could apply to many situations that most people would describe as harmless, including performances of Shakespeare plays, showing of the Disney film “Mulan” or a review of some religious texts.
Finally, a rule that punishes teachers that talk too much about preferred pronouns, which could make life difficult for English teachers.
We say these measures are likely to pass, because the Board of Education is currently acting as the public-school arm of DeSantis’ political committee. Still, we laud the organization of human-rights groups including Equality Florida, who intend to mobilize for Wednesday’s meeting (scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the Rosen Shingle Creek resort on Universal Boulevard in Orlando).
Their continued vocal opposition provides an ongoing reminder that, no matter how many times DeSantis and his supporters attack, this will never be something that passes without comment — and that it runs counter to the sentiments of the vast majority of the American people, who have long ago adopted a live-and-let-live approach to gender identity and sexual orientation. In an August 2022 Quinnipiac University poll, fewer than one in four Americans still opposed same-sex marriage. Support for civil-rights protections for LGBTQ people are almost as strong.
We hope, however, that local school officials are also paying attention. Unlike DeSantis’ supporters, who largely hold themselves aloof from the sentiments of Florida voters, they have to face their supporters. Even in the most conservative counties, many school board members are starting to express anguish over the pain they’re being forced to inflict. A widespread rebellion against these cruel and illogical policies might bring retaliation, since DeSantis has become increasingly fond of removing anyone from public office who dares to disagree with him.
But it would be a noble sacrifice. Florida needs more public officials to find the courage to stand up to Florida’s self-designated emperor and say “Governor, for someone so focused on ‘Don’t Say Gay,’ you sure seem to bring it up a lot. Find someone else to execute your politicized cruelty. We’re done.”
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick.
Texas traps pregnant migrants in razor wire, pushes kids back into Rio Grande, state trooper complains
Peter Weber, Senior editor – July 18, 2023
Razor wire at U.S. border in Texas Suzanne Cordeiro / AFP via Getty Images
Rolls of razor wire Texas installed along the U.S. side of the Rio Grande have ensnared several migrants, including a pregnant woman “in obvious pain” while having a miscarriage and a father trying to free his child “stuck on a trap” of razor wire–covered barrels in the water, a Texas state trooper wrote in July 3 email to a superior, the Houston Chronicle reported Monday.
The Dallas Morning News also obtained the email and a corroborating July 4 note from a second Department of Public Safety trooper. Both were identified by name. In recent weeks, as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) “Operation Lone Star” border initiative, Texas has rolled out about 88 miles of razor wire along the Rio Grande and also put buoys in the middle of the river to deter migrants from crossing over from Mexico. This has sparked conflicts with the U.S. Border Patrol, complaints from local businesses, and legal challenges from Mexico.
The trooper, stationed in Eagle Pass, said Operation Lone Star service members have been ordered to push children back into the Rio Grande and told not to give water to asylum seekers even as Texas sweltered in extreme heat.- ADVERTISEMENT -https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-11-1/html/r-sf-flx.html
He recounted seeing National Guard soldiers push a 4-year-old girl trying to cross the razor wire back into the river “due to the orders given to them,” adding that the girl then passed out from exhaustion in temperatures “well over 100 degrees.” The 4-year-old girl, 19-year-old pregnant woman, and others lacerated by the razor wire or injured trying to avoid it in the June 30 incidents were transferred to emergency medical services, the trooper wrote.
On June 25, he added, troopers came across a group of 120 hungry and exhausted people, including small children and nursing babies, resting along the river. The shift officer in command ordered the troopers to “push the people back into the water to go to Mexico,” the trooper recounted, and when the troopers refused and asked for new guidance, they were told to drive off. Other troopers and federal Border Patrol agents then stepped in and provided care to the migrants.
“I truly believe in the mission of Operation Lone Star,” the trooper wrote. “I believe we have stepped over a line into the inhumane.” He specifically said migrants need to be given water, and “the wire and barrels in the river needs to be taken out as this is nothing but a in humane [sic] trap in high water and low visibility.”
DPS spokesman Travis Considine told the Chronicle there is no policy against giving water to migrants and passed along emails from DPS Director Steven McCraw acknowledging seven additional cases in July of migrants needing “elevated medical attention” due to the razor wire. McCraw called for a safety audit and investigation of the trooper’s reports. A spokesman for Abbott said “Texas is deploying every tool and strategy to deter and repel illegal crossings between ports of entry,” criticizing President Biden’s border policies.
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025
The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.
Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman – July 17, 2023
Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.
Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.
Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.
He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.
Mr. Trump and his advisers are openly discussing their plans to reshape the federal government if he wins the election in 2024.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.
“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.
“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.
Equal Rights Amendment: Democrats in Congress are making a fresh push for the nearly century-old amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution.
U.F.O. Records: Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, is pushing legislation to create a commission with broad authority to declassify government documents about U.F.O.s and extraterrestrial matters.
Assailing the F.B.I.: HouseRepublicans bombarded Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, with criticisms during a contentious hearing. Stoked by Donald Trump, Republicans have been trying to undermine the bureau’s legitimacy with the public.
The strategy in talking openly about such “paradigm-shifting ideas” before the election, Mr. Vought said, is to “plant a flag” — both to shift the debate and to later be able to claim a mandate. He said he was delighted to see few of Mr. Trump’s Republican primary rivals defend the norm of Justice Department independence after the former president openly attacked it.
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”
The agenda being pursued by Mr. Trump and his associates has deep roots in a longstanding effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut the so-called administrative state.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Mr. Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.
Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.
That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.
Some elements of the plans had been floated when Mr. Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Mr. Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.
“It would be chaotic,” said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”
The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decades-long effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.
Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.
The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.
Mr. Trump and his allies have been laying out an expansive vision of power for a potential second term.Credit…Christopher Lee for The New York Times
“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”
Personal power has always been a driving force for Mr. Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Mr. Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mr. Mueller ousted, but was defied.
Early in Mr. Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Mr. Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.
Now, Mr. Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
One idea the people around Mr. Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.
Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)
Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.
Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.
Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Mr. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”
Such an order was drafted in Mr. Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.
The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn in the White House.Credit…John Tully for The New York Times
The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Mr. Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Mr. Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Mr. Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.
Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Mr. Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.
“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Mr. Vought said.
Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Mr. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.
Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.
“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”
Mr. Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.
On his campaign website, Mr. Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.
Mr. Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.
The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.
Mr. Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but President Biden rescinded it. Mr. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.
Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.
“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Mr. Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”
Mr. Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.
“We will demolish the deep state,” Mr. Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”
Jonathan Swan is a political reporter who focuses on campaigns and Congress. As a reporter for Axios, he won an Emmy Award for his 2020 interview of then-President Donald J. Trump, and the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Award for “overall excellence in White House coverage” in 2022. More about Jonathan Swan
Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent. A recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, he previously worked at The Boston Globe and The Miami Herald. His most recent book is “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.” More about Charlie Savage
Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. More about Maggie Haberman
A version of this article appears in print on July 17, 2023, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump and Allies Seeking Vast Increase of His Power.
Tucker Carlson Turns a Christian Presidential Forum Into a Putin Showcase
Jonathan Weisman – July 15, 2023
FILE – Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio, March 2, 2017, in New York. A former Donald Trump supporter who became the center of a conspiracy theory about Jan. 6, 2021, filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Wednesday, July 12, 2023, saying the network made him a scapegoat for the Capitol insurrection. Although the lawsuit mentions Fox’s Laura Ingraham and Will Cain, former Fox host Carlson was cited as the leader in promoting the theory. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)More
DES MOINES, Iowa — Bob Vander Plaats, the conservative evangelical kingmaker in Iowa politics, now knows what happens when you turn over your Republican presidential showcase to Tucker Carlson.
Jesus is out. Vladimir Putin is in.
Carlson was given the task of interviewing six Republican presidential hopefuls at the Family Leadership conference in Des Moines on Friday. Consequently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine became the dominant issue of debate, on a day when Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa used the event to sign a near-total abortion ban into law.
In the hands of Carlson, the former Fox News host who was recently fired, Ukraine became the bad actor in the conflict, not Russia.
The most heated exchange came when Carlson interviewed former Vice President Mike Pence before a packed auditorium in Des Moines’ convention center. Pence was berating the Biden administration for being too slow to provide advanced weaponry to Ukraine.
“We promised them 33 Abrams tanks in January. I heard again two weeks ago in Ukraine, they still don’t have them,” Pence said. “We’ve been telling them we’ll train their F-16 pilots, but now they’re saying maybe January.”
Carlson interjected, to the delight of much of the audience. “Wait, I know you’re running for president, but you are distressed that Ukrainians don’t have enough American tanks?” he asked, in his trademark confrontational style.
For good measure, Carlson called Ukraine an American “client state,” accused Ukraine’s Jewish leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of persecuting Christians and strongly indicated Pence had been conned, despite evidence to the contrary.
Pence was not alone. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., argued that by degrading Russia’s military, U.S. aid to Ukraine was making the United States stronger and more secure.
Carlson responded with a signature dismissive response.
“The total body count from Russia in the United States is right around zero; I don’t know anyone who’s been killed by Russia,” Carlson said. “I know people personally who have been killed by Mexico,” he said, adding, “Why is Mexico less of a threat than Russia?”
It didn’t go any better for his first target, Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who led border security under former President George W. Bush. He found himself making the case to Carlson that bombing Mexican drug cartels might be problematic since it would be an act of war against a friendly neighboring state.
The divide in the Republican Party between traditional conservatives who favor the projection of American military might and a new, more isolationist wing that leans toward Russia is nothing new. But the Family Leadership Summit was supposed to be a showcase of Christian values, where social issues like abortion and transgender rights were expected to be center stage.
But by making Carlson something of a master of ceremonies, Vander Plaats, the president of The Family Leader, which hosted the summit, dealt the crowd a wild card. By the time the spotlight turned to Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, Eric Teetsel, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, praised her as “still willing to come up onstage” after the preceding appearances.
Pence had his laments after his appearance. “I regret that we didn’t have very much time during my time onstage to talk about the progress for life or issues impacting the family,” he said, before adding, “I’m really never surprised by Tucker Carlson.”
House Republicans push through defense bill limiting abortion access and halting diversity efforts
Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking – July 14, 2023
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed a sweeping defense bill Friday that provides an expected 5.2% pay raise for service members but strays from traditional military policy with Republicans add-ons blocking abortion coverage, diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and transgender care that deeply divided the chamber.
Democrats voted against the package, which had sailed out of the House Armed Services Committee on an almost unanimous vote weeks ago before being loaded with the GOP priorities during a heated late-night floor debate this week.
The final vote was 219-210, with four Democrats siding with the GOP and four Republicans opposed. The bill, as written, is expected to go nowhere in the Democratic-majority Senate.
Efforts to halt U.S. funding for Ukraine in its war against Russia were turned back, but Republicans added provisions to stem the Defense Department’s diversity initiatives and to restrict access to abortions. The abortion issue has been championed by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who is singularly stalling Senate confirmation of military officers, including the new commandant of the Marine Corps.
“We are continuing to block the Biden administration’s ‘woke’ agenda,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.
Turning the must-pass defense bill into a partisan battleground shows how deeply the nation’s military has been unexpectedly swept up in disputes over race, equity and women’s health care that are now driving the Republican Party’s priorities in America’s widening national divide.
During one particularly tense moment in the debate, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke of how difficult it was to look across the aisle as Republicans chip away at gains for women, Black people and others in the military.
“You are setting us back,” she said about an amendment from Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., that would prevent the Defense Department from requiring participation in race-based training for hiring, promotions or retention.
Crane argued that Russia and China do not mandate diversity measures in their military operations and neither should the United States. “We don’t want our military to be a social experiment,” he said. “We want the best of the best.”
When Crane used the pejorative phrase “colored people” for Black military personnel, Beatty asked for his words to be stricken from the record.
Friday’s voted capped a tumultuous week for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as conservatives essentially drove the agenda, forcing their colleagues to consider their ideas for the annual bill that has been approved by Congress unfailingly since World War II.
“I think he’s doing great because we are moving through — it was like over 1,500 amendments — and we’re moving through them,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. She told reporters she changed her mind to support the bill after McCarthy offered her a seat on the committee that will be negotiating the final version with the Senate.
Democrats, in a joint leadership statement, said they were voting against the bill because Republicans “turned what should be a meaningful investment in our men and women in uniform into an extreme and reckless legislative joyride.”
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have chosen to hijack the historically bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to continue attacking reproductive freedom and jamming their right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people,” said the statement from Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California.
The defense bill authorizes $874.2 billion in the coming year for the defense spending, keeping with President Joe Biden’s budget request. The funding itself is to be allocated later, when Congress handles the appropriation bills, as is the normal process.
The package sets policy across the Defense Department, as well as in aspects of the Energy Department, and this year focuses particularly on the U.S. stance toward China, Russia and other national security fronts.
Republican opposition to U.S. support for the war in Ukraine drew a number of amendments, including one to block the use of cluster munitions that Biden just sent to help Ukraine battle Russia. It was a controversial move because the weapons, which can leave behind unexploded munitions endangering civilians, are banned by many other countries.
Most of those efforts to stop U.S. support for Ukraine failed. Proposals to roll back the Pentagon’s diversity and inclusion measures and block some medical care for transgender personnel were approved.
GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas, who served as a White House physician, pushed forward the abortion measure that would prohibit the defense secretary from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.
Jackson and other Republicans praised Tuberville for his stand against the Pentagon’s abortion policy, which was thrust into prominence as states started banning the procedure after the Supreme Court decision last summer overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade law.
“Now he’s got support, he’s got back up here in the House,” Jackson said.
But it’s not at all certain that the House position will stand as the legislation moves to the Senate, which is preparing its own version of the bill. Senate Democrats have the majority but will need to work with Republicans on a bipartisan measure to ensure enough support for passage in their chamber.
McCarthy lauded the House for gutting “radical programs” that he said distract from the military’s purpose.
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee, led by Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, dropped their support due to the social policy amendments.
Smith, who is white, tried to explain to Crane and other colleagues why the Pentagon’s diversity initiatives were important in America, drawing on his own experience as a businessman trying to reach outside his own circle of contacts to be able to hire and gain deeper understanding of other people.
Smith lamented that the bill that the committee passed overwhelmingly “no longer exists. What was once an example of compromise and functioning government has become an ode to bigotry and ignorance.”
Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
GOP’s Far Right Seeks to Use Defense Bill to Defund Ukraine War Effort
Karoun Demirjian – July 13, 2023
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) participates in a hearing regarding Air Force General Charles Q. Brown’s nomination to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — A group of right-wing House Republicans pushing to load up the annual defense bill with socially conservative policies on abortion, race and gender have another demand: severe restrictions on U.S. military support for Ukraine.
The pressure raises the prospect of a divisive floor fight over America’s backing for the war effort just as President Joe Biden tries to rally European allies to support Kyiv in its conflict with Russia.
The group’s proposals on military aid stand no chance of passing the House, where there continues to be strong bipartisan support for backing Ukraine’s war effort, or going anywhere in the Senate. But the far right’s insistence on casting votes on the matter anyway has further imperiled the defense legislation and transformed what is ordinarily a broadly supported measure that provides the annual pay raise to U.S. military personnel and sets Pentagon policy into a partisan battleground that has placed Republican divisions on display.
The House on Wednesday began debating the $886 billion measure, sidestepping the rifts as Republican leaders toiled behind the scenes to placate ultraconservative lawmakers who are demanding votes to scale back Ukraine aid and add social policy dictates. But those disputes will eventually have to be resolved to pass the bill, which had been expected to receive approval Friday — a timetable that is now in doubt as the hard right threatens to hold up the process.
The right-wing lawmakers are seeking votes on a series of proposals that would hamstring U.S. support for Ukraine, including one to curtail all funding for Kyiv until there is a diplomatic solution to the conflict and another that would end a $300 million program to train and equip Ukrainian soldiers that has been in place for nearly a decade.
“Congress should not authorize another penny for Ukraine and push the Biden administration to pursue peace,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., argued to lawmakers on the House Rules Committee this week, appealing to them to allow votes on several proposals she has written on the topic. “Ukraine is not the 51st state of the United States of America.”
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said votes to curtail support for Ukraine were every bit as important to the members of his group as votes to restrict abortion access and services for transgender soldiers. Asked whether some might seek to block the bill without such votes, he replied: “They might.”
Because Speaker Kevin McCarthy holds only a slim margin of control in the House, any rebellion by the right wing could stop the defense measure in its tracks, denying him the votes he would need from his side to advance it to final passage. But if he bows to the demands for votes on Ukraine, it would put divisions in Congress over the war on display at a critical junction in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, and just after Biden has appealed to allies this week during a NATO summit to remain united in support.
“We can see from what’s taken place at the NATO summit, the significance and importance of us all speaking with one voice and making sure that we’re giving the Ukrainians what they need to win this war,” Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview Wednesday. “It will be absolutely the worst thing to do to have a show of division — that’s playing right into Putin’s hands,” he said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Some mainstream Republicans say they relish the fight, seeing it as a potential opportunity to put the rebellious right wing of the party in its place.
“It’s going to fail big time,” Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., said of the hard right’s bid to scrap American support for Ukraine. “So I hope they make it in order — I think you’ll see it go down overwhelmingly.”
The defense bill is the latest forum right-wing lawmakers have been using to challenge McCarthy’s leadership. Their protest, which began during January’s protracted speaker fight, resumed last month, when 11 far-right lawmakers brought the House floor to a standstill to express their fury at McCarthy’s debt ceiling deal with Biden. They have threatened similar tactics in the future if he fails to bow to their demands.
McCarthy had been bracing for a difficult fight over Ukraine funding in the coming months, when the Biden administration is expected to request billions of dollars to keep Kyiv’s war machine humming.
Hoping to head off a revolt from the right wing, the speaker publicly declared he was opposed to any additional funding for Ukraine beyond the limits of the debt ceiling deal, despite having publicly proclaimed just weeks before: “I vote for aid for Ukraine; I support aid for Ukraine.”
But with the defense bill, the ultraconservative faction is trying to force the issue now.
Greene, who has become one of McCarthy’s closest allies, demurred Wednesday when asked whether she would help other right-wing members block progress on the bill if leaders denied her a vote to curtail Ukraine funding. Despite being one of the most outspoken hard-right members of the House, Greene has routinely taken McCarthy’s side in disputes with his rank and file, and has refused to lend any support to the efforts to undermine his leadership. But her involvement is an indicator of how deeply a vote on Ukraine might split House Republicans.
Ukraine assistance is a tricky issue for the GOP politically. Both of the front-runners for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, former President Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have said they would like to limit U.S. assistance to Ukraine. According to a recent poll by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, while more than 70% of Republicans want to see Ukraine win the war, only half support sending U.S. military aid to help the country defeat Russia.
Last year, 57 House Republicans voted against a measure to provide $40 billion in military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine. Congress approved a total of more than $113 billion in Ukraine aid last year.
House GOP leaders expressed confidence Wednesday that they could defeat any proposal to strip funding for Ukraine, thus preserving the integrity of the underlying defense bill. But they worried aloud about the social policy measures, which they noted would alienate Democrats whose votes would be needed to pass the bill.
Ultraconservatives are pushing for votes on proposals that would undo a Pentagon policy offering time off and travel reimbursement to service members traveling out of state to obtain an abortion, to end diversity training in the military, and to ensure that medical services for transgender troops are limited.
“Those I think are actually dicier,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., chair of the Rules Committee. “You’re not going to get any Democrats that way.”
GOP leaders appealed to their colleagues Wednesday to support the bill as is, highlighting provisions already included that would ban drag shows at military installations and the teaching of critical race theory.
“This bill goes after the woke, failed, far-left policies that far-left Democrats have wrongfully forced onto the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform,” Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 4 Republican, told reporters.
Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington – July 12, 2023
Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.
The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.
Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.
However, it remains unclear what the funds were for.
The lawyers who made the Venmo transactions were: Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy who recently successfully argued that affirmative action violated the US constitution; Kate Todd, who served as White House deputy counsel under Donald Trump at the time of the payment and is now a managing party of Ellis George Cipollone’s law office; Elbert Lin, the former solicitor general of West Virginia who played a key role in a supreme court case that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; and Brian Schmalzbach, a partner at McGuire Woods who has argued multiple cases before the supreme court.
Other lawyers who made payments include Manuel Valle, a graduate of Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago Law School who clerked for Thomas last year and is currently working as a managing associate at Sidley, and Liam Hardy, who was working at the Department of Justice’s office of legal counsel at the time the payment was made and now serves as an appeals court judge for the armed forces.
Will Consovoy, who died earlier this year, also made a payment. Consovoy clerked for Thomas during the 2008-09 term and was considered a rising star in conservative legal circles. After his death, the New York Times reported that Consovoy had come away from his time working for Thomas “with the conviction that the court was poised to tilt further to the right – and that constitutional rulings that had once been considered out of reach by conservatives, on issues like voting rights, abortion and affirmative action, would suddenly be within grasp”.
None of the lawyers who made payments responded to emailed questions from the Guardian.
According to his résumé, Vasisht’s duties included assisting the justice with the administrative functioning of his chambers, including personal correspondence and his personal and office schedule.
Vasisht did not respond to an emailed list of questions from the Guardian, including questions about who solicited the payments, how much individuals paid, and what the purpose of the payments was. The Guardian also asked questions about the nature of Thomas’s Christmas party, how many guests were invited and where the event took place.
Reached via WhatsApp and asked if he would make a statement, Vasisht replied: “No thank you, I do not want to be contacted.”
Legal experts said the payments to Vasisht raised red flags.
Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W Bush administration and has been a vocal critic of the role of dark money in politics, said it was “not appropriate” for former Thomas law clerks who were established in private practice to – in effect – send money to the supreme court via Venmo.
“There is no excuse for it. Thomas could invite them to his Christmas party and he could attend Christmas parties, as long as they are not discussing any cases. His Christmas party should not be paid for by lawyers,” Painter said. “A federal government employee collecting money from lawyers for any reason … I don’t see how that works.”
Painter said he would possibly make an exception if recent law clerks were paying their own way for a party. But almost all of the lawyers who made the payments are senior litigators at big law firms.
Kedric Payne, the general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said that – based on available information – it was possible that the former clerks were paying their own party expenses, and not expenses for Thomas, which he believed was different than random lawyers in effect paying admission to an exclusive event to influence the judge.
He added: “But the point remains that the public is owed an explanation so they don’t have to speculate.”
Thomas has been embroiled in ethics scandals for weeks following bombshell revelations by ProPublica, the investigative outlet which published new revelations about how the billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow has paid for lavish holidays for the justice, bought Thomas’s mother’s home, and paid for the judge’s great-nephew’s private school education. The stories have prompted an outcry on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have called for the passage of new ethics rules.
Thomas is known for having close relationships with his former clerks. A 2019 article in the Atlantic noted that the rightwing justice has a “vast network” of former clerks and mentees who are now serving as federal judges and served in senior positions throughout the Trump administration. The large presence of former Thomas clerks, the Atlantic noted, meant that the “notoriously silent justice may end up with an outsize voice in the legal system for years to come”.
Thomas’s chamber did not respond to a request for comment.
Got a tip on this story? Please contact Stephanie.Kirchgaessner@theguardian.com
