Why the World Is Betting Against American Democracy
Nahal Toosi – January 15, 2024
Liesa Johannssen/AP
When I asked the European ambassador to talk to me about America’s deepening partisan divide, I expected a polite brushoff at best. Foreign diplomats are usually loath to discuss domestic U.S. politics.
Instead, the ambassador unloaded for an hour, warning that America’s poisonous politics are hurting its security, its economy, its friends and its standing as a pillar of democracy and global stability.
The U.S. is a “fat buffalo trying to take a nap” as hungry wolves approach, the envoy mused. “I can hear those Champagne bottle corks popping in Moscow — like it’s Christmas every fucking day.”
As voters cast ballots in the Iowa caucuses Monday, many in the United States see this year’s presidential election as a test of American democracy. But, in a series of conversations with a dozen current and former diplomats, I sensed that to many of our friends abroad, the U.S. is already failing that test.
The diplomats are aghast that so many U.S. leaders let their zeal for partisan politics prevent the basic functions of government. It’s a major topic of conversations at their private dinners and gatherings. Many of those I talked to were granted anonymity to be as candid with me as they are with each other.
For example, one former Arab ambassador who was posted in the U.S. during both Republican and Democratic administrations told me American politics have become so unhealthy that he’d turn down a chance to return.
“I don’t know if in the coming years people will be looking at the United States as a model for democracy,” a second Arab diplomat warned.
Many of these conversations wouldn’t have happened a few months ago. There are rules, traditions and pragmatic concerns that discourage foreign diplomats from commenting on the internal politics of another country, even as they closely watch events such as the Iowa caucuses. (One rare exception: some spoke out on America’s astonishing 2016 election.)
But the contours of this year’s presidential campaign, a Congress that can barely choose a House speaker or keep the government open, and, perhaps above all, the U.S. debate on military aid for Ukraine have led some diplomats to drop their inhibitions. And while they were often hesitant to name one party as the bigger culprit, many of the examples they pointed to involved Republican members of Congress.
As they vented their frustrations, I felt as if I was hearing from a group of people wishing they could stage an intervention for a friend hitting rock bottom. Their concerns don’t stem from mere altruism; they’re worried because America’s state of being affects their countries, too.
“When the United States’ voice is not as strong, is not as balanced, is not as fair as it should be, then a problem is created for the world,” said Ronald Sanders, Antigua and Barbuda’s longtime ambassador in Washington.
Donald Trump’s name came up in my conversations, but not as often as you’d think.
Yes, I was told, a Trump win in 2024 would accelerate America’s polarization — but a Trump loss is unlikely to significantly slow or reverse the structural forces leading many of its politicians to treat compromise as a sin. The likelihood of a closely split House and Senate following the 2024 vote adds to the worries.
The diplomats focused much of their alarm on the U.S. debate over military aid to Ukraine — I was taken aback by how even some whose nations had little connection to Russia’s war raised the topic.
In particular, they criticized the decision to connect the issue of Ukrainian aid and Israeli aid to U.S. border security. Not only did the move tangle a foreign policy issue with a largely domestic one, but border security and immigration also are topics about which the partisan fever runs unusually high, making it harder to get a deal. Immigration issues in particular are a problem many U.S. lawmakers have little incentive to actually solve because it robs them of a rallying cry on the campaign trail.
So now, “Ukraine might not get aid, Israel might not get aid, because of pure polarization politics,” said Francisco Santos Calderón, a former Colombian ambassador to the United States.
Diplomats from many European countries are especially unhappy.
They remember how, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many Republicans downplayed concerns about the far-right fringe in their party that questioned what was then solid, bipartisan support. Now, as the debate over the aid unfolds, it seems the far-right is calling the shots.
There’s a growing sense among foreign diplomats that moral or national security arguments — about defending a country unjustly invaded, deterring Russia, preventing a bigger war in Europe and safeguarding democracy — don’t work on the American far-right.
Instead, some are stressing to U.S. lawmakers that funds for Ukraine are largely spent inside the United States, creating jobs and helping rebuild America’s defense industrial base (while having the side benefit of degrading the military of a major U.S. foe).
“If this doesn’t make sense to the politicians, then what will?” the European ambassador asked.
A former Eastern European ambassador to D.C. worried about how some GOP war critics cast the Ukraine crisis as President Joe Biden’s war when “in reality, the consideration should be to the national interests of the United States.”
Foreign diplomats also are watching in alarm as polarizing abortion politics have delayed the promotions of U.S. military officers and threaten to damage PEPFAR, an anti-AIDS program that has saved millions of lives in Africa. That there are questions about America’s commitment to NATO dumbfounds the diplomats I talked to. Then, there are the lengthy delays in Senate confirmations of U.S. ambassadors and other officials — a trend exacerbated by lawmakers from both parties.
“There was always a certain courtesy that the other party gave to let the president appoint a Cabinet. What if these courtesies don’t hold as they don’t seem to hold now?” a former Asian ambassador said. “It is very concerning.”
When Republicans and Democrats strike deals, they love to say it shows the system works. But simply having a fractious, lengthy and seemingly unnecessary debate about a topic of global security can damage the perception of the U.S. as a reliable partner.
“It is right that countries debate their foreign policy stances, but if all foreign policy issues become domestic political theater, it becomes increasingly challenging for America to effectively play its global role on issues that need long-term commitment and U.S. political capital — such as climate change, Chinese authoritarianism, peace in the Middle East and containing Russian gangsterism,” a third European diplomat warned.
The current and former diplomats said their countries are more reluctant to sign deals with Washington because of the partisan divide. There’s worry that a new administration will abandon past agreements purely to appease rowdy electoral bases and not for legitimate national security reasons. The fate of the Iran nuclear deal was one example some mentioned.
“Foreign relations is very much based on trust, and when you know that the person that is in front of you may not be there or might be followed by somebody that feels exactly the opposite way, what is your incentive to do long-term deals?” a former Latin American diplomat asked.
Still, there’s no ambassadorial movement to band together and draw up a petition or a letter urging greater U.S. unity or focus.
The diplomats’ countries don’t always have the same interests. Some have plenty of polarizing politics themselves. In other words, there will be no intervention.
Some of the diplomats stressed they admire America — some attended college here. They acknowledged they don’t have some magical solution to the forces deepening its political polarization, from gerrymandered congressional districts to a fractured media landscape.
They know the U.S. has had polarized moments in the past, from the mid-1800s to the Vietnam War, that affected its foreign policy.
But they’re worried today’s U.S. political divisions could have lasting impact on an increasingly interconnected world.
“The world does not have time for the U.S. to rebound back,” the former Asian ambassador said. “We’ve gone from a unipolar world that we’re familiar with from the 1990s into a multipolar world, but the key pole is still the United States. And if that key pole is not playing the role that we want the U.S. to do, you’ll see alternative forces coming up.”
Russia’s diplomats, meanwhile, are among those delighting in the U.S. chaos (and fanning it). The Eastern European ambassador said the Russians had long warned their counterparts not to trust or rely on Washington.
And now what do they say? “We told you so.”
So the world’s envoys are reconsidering how their governments can deal with this America for many years and presidents to come.
Some predicted that a Republican win in November would mean their countries would have to become more transactional in their relationship with the United States instead of counting on it as a partner who’ll be there no matter what. Embassies already are beefing up their contacts among Republicans in case they win back the White House.
“Most countries will be in defensive positions, because the asymmetry of power between them and the United States is such that there’s little proactively or offensively that you can do to impact that,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States.
When I asked diplomats what advice they’d offer America’s politicians if they were free to do so, several said the same thing: Find a way to overcome your divisions, at least when it comes to issues that reverberate beyond U.S. borders.
“Please create a consensus and a long-term foreign policy,” said Santos, the former Colombian ambassador. “When you have consensus, you don’t let the internal issues create an international foreign policy crisis.”
Davos: Global crises set to dominate gathering of business leaders
Faisal Islam – Economics editor – January 15, 2024
A woman takes a picture in front of a screen displaying AI-generated artwork
Just a week ago, the expectation about the latest gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was of a line being drawn under three years of pandemic, lockdown and Ukraine war energy shocks.
Inflation is falling, and 2024 was set to be the year that central banks start cutting interest rates, including here in the UK. In three years of different rolling, merging global crises, the world economy has been in the shadow of massive geopolitical shifts.
The events of the past few days shows that the “polycrisis” is far from over.
Perhaps the most telling development has been the ability of the Houthis to use relatively cheap drones and armaments to cause havoc with world trade. Air strikes on the Houthis in Yemen were carried out explicitly to keep the currents of trade and economic recovery flowing through the straits leading to the Suez Canal.
But oil prices jumped on Friday because the risk of a wider confrontation in the region has also gone up. In three months the crisis in Gaza has led to RAF jets attacking targets in Aden. What will be happening three months from now?
As it happens, this sort of fundamental diplomatic challenge is made for the World Economic Forum. Launched in 1971, and held every year in the Alpine ski resort of Davos, the conference puts together the world’s top business people and politicians, as well as key players from charity and academia.
Where else would the Israeli president, Saudi foreign minister and Qatari prime minister be present in the same space at the same time, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Chinese Premier Li Qiang?
Expectations are low surrounding the grim situation in the Middle East, but this is the sort of place where constructive and unexpected conversations can take place discreetly.
There had been a whiff of decay about Davos since the pandemic. G7 leader appearances were getting rarer. Rishi Sunak hasn’t been and isn’t going this week. In a huge year for elections across the globe the US delegation this year is particularly thin. Republicans in particular view the event with some suspicion.
The Republican Party’s Ron DeSantis, a potential presidential candidate, last year called Davos a “threat to freedom” run by China. The Florida governor said any policies emerging from the forum were “dead on arrival” in his state. The view in Davos is that he thought that such rhetoric would play well in the presidential primaries which also start this week.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is attending, and will be mindful of “Ukraine fatigue” reaching Washington DC and becoming prevalent in developing countries.
Security is always tight at the Davos gathering
For the UK, some in the business community appear ready to go beyond a curious interest in the Labour Party in this election year.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will be competing for the attention of UK business leaders and international investors.
If business investors are worried about Labour’s economic plans, for example for extra investment spending, the World Economic Forum is exactly where it may, or may not surface. I recall then-opposition leader David Cameron’s parade of meetings with world leaders, just before he became prime minister in 2010.
There has been a backlash against some of the corporate do-gooding typical of the event, especially the recent focus by investors on companies’ environmental and social policies.
Put brutally, the world of the past two years has seen massive returns for hydrocarbon extractors, carbon emitters and arms companies.
The optimism will come from a hope that disturbed geopolitics can somehow settle without a further energy shock.
Artificial intelligence will be everywhere, with the ChatGPT-creating Open AI boss Sam Altman being paraded to the world’s business and political leaders by Microsoft, which is now vying with Apple to be the world’s biggest company.
So at the start of a delicate year of disorder and uncertainty in global politics and diplomacy, and question marks about economic recovery from years of such crisis, it is difficult to imagine a better moment for a gathering like the World Economic Forum this week.
The task is to travel towards the light at the end of the tunnel. It will not be easy.
Ukraine says it shot down 2 Russian command and control aircraft in a significant blow to Moscow
Illia Novikov – January 15, 2024
A Russian Beriev A-50 airborne early warning and control plain flies over Red Square during a rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2019. Ukraine’s military chief is claiming that the Ukrainian air force has shot down a Russian Beriev A-50 early warning and control plane and an IL-22 command center aircraft. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, Pool, File)Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, center, arrives at Zurich’s Kloten airport, Switzerland, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. Zelenskyy is in Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos starting Tuesday. (Alessandro della Valle/Keystone via AP)A Ukrainian APC fires towards Russian positions near Avdiivka, in the Donetsk region, Ukraine, Friday, April 28, 2023. The United Nations is appealing for $4.2 billion to help people in Ukraine and displaced outside the country this year. It said Monday, Jan. 15, 2024 that people on the front lines have “exhausted their meager resources” and many refugees also are vulnerable. (AP Photo/Libkos, File)Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, is accompanied by Switzerland’s Foreign Minister Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis, after his arrival at Zurich’s Kloten airport, Switzerland, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. Zelenskyy is in Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos starting Tuesday. (Alessandro della Valle/Keystone via AP)
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian air force shot down a Russian early warning and control plane that can spot targets up to 650 kilometers (400 miles) away and a key command center aircraft that relays information to troops on the ground in a significant blow for the Kremlin’s forces, Ukraine’s military chief said Monday.
The planes are fundamental tools in helping orchestrate Russian battlefield movements in Ukraine. Shooting them down, if confirmed, would be a landmark feat for Ukraine in the almost two-year war, as fighting along the front line is largely bogged down in trench and artillery warfare.
Russia has largely ensured its air dominance during the war, as Ukraine fights with its fleet of Soviet-era warplanes against Moscow’s more more modern aircraft.
Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, didn’t say how the two aircraft — a Beriev A-50 and an Il-22 — were brought down, but Ukraine has received sophisticated air defense systems from its Western allies.
Zaluzhnyi also did not say where the interceptions occurred, though he attached a video to his social media post with an airplane tracker showing two targets disappearing above the Azov Sea, which lies between Ukraine and Russia, north of the Crimea Peninsula and the Black Sea.
There was no immediate official comment from Moscow. Russian war bloggers said both planes had come under friendly fire, though they presented no evidence of that. They claimed the Il-22 was damaged but made a successful landing.
The A-50, which is topped with a large radar, typically carries a crew of 15. The Russian air force reportedly has been operating a fleet of nine such aircraft.
A February 2023 drone attack at an airfield in Belarus damaged a parked A-50, but Russian and Belarusian officials described the damage as minor.
The Il-22 is an airborne command post. It oversees military operations and sends radio signals to troops on the front line. The Russian air force reportedly has a dozen such planes.
Ukraine is eager to impress its Western supporters with its ability in deploying the advanced weapons it has received.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was due to meet Swiss President Viola Amherd in Bern later Monday before attending the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday.
Ukrainian officials are striving to keep world attention on the war amid concerns that the conflict is slipping down the list of global priorities.
The United Nations appealed Monday for $4.2 billion to help people in Ukraine and displaced outside the country this year.
Martin Griffiths, the U.N.’s humanitarian chief, acknowledged that “the competition for funding is getting greater” because of crises elsewhere, including the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
The Kremlin is eager to replenish its weapons stockpiles. It has in recent times turned to Iran and North Korea for supplies.
Pyongyang has likely supplied several types of missiles to Russia to support its war in Ukraine, along with its widely reported shipments of ammunition and shells, the U.S. and its allies have alleged.
Russian and Iranian defense and foreign ministers spoke by phone Monday to discuss bilateral military and military technical cooperation and regional security issues, according to official statements. They noted that the two countries are preparing to sign a landmark cooperation treaty.
Ukraine is also determined to build up its stocks for a protracted conflict and is “dramatically expanding” its domestic manufacturing capacity for military items, a U.S. think tank said.
Ukraine is well-positioned to succeed in its plans to make up for any shortfall in Western-supplied weaponry, the Institute for the Study of War said.
“Ukraine is heavily industrialized, with a highly educated and technically sophisticated population,” the think tank said late Sunday. “It had a massive arms industry during the Soviet period and continued to be a significant arms exporter after independence.”
In his closing pitch to Iowa Republicans, Trump says their votes can help him punish his enemies
Thomas Beaumont, Hannah Fingerhut, Jill Colvin – January 14, 2024
Supporters react as Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally at Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, Sunday, Jan. 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives to deliver pizza to fire fighters at Waukee Fire Department in Waukee, Iowa, Sunday, Jan. 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)Republican presidential candidate former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, center, greets audience members at a campaign event at Jethro’s BBQ in Ames, Iowa, Sunday, Jan. 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Supporters react as Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally at Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, Sunday, Jan. 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)ASSOCIATED PRESS
INDIANOLA, Iowa (AP) — Donald Trump implored his supporters Sunday to brave frigid temperatures and deliver him a decisive victory in Monday’s Iowa caucuses, saying their vote would help bring to Washington the retribution he has repeatedly promised if he returns to the White House.
The former president has set sky-high expectations for his own performance in the first contest of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. He spent the day before the caucuses trying to ensure he meets them. His main GOP rivals all spent Sunday in Iowa as well, making last-minute appeals to Iowans open to hearing them.
At a rally in Indianola, Trump said his supporters could fight back against his political enemies, claiming that the four indictments he faces were driven by politics and renewing his false claims about the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Many in the crowd wore white and gold caps identifying them as Trump caucus captains who will help round up support for him Monday night.
“These caucuses are your personal chance to score the ultimate victory over all of the liars, cheaters, thugs, perverts, frauds, crooks, freaks, creeps and other quite nice people,” Trump told the audience. “The Washington swamp has done everything in its power to take away your voice. But tomorrow is your time to turn on them and to say and speak your mind and to vote.”
More than 30 minutes before the doors opened for Trump’s rally at Simpson College, Marc Smiarowski said he planned to do just that.
“I’m here in part out of spite,” said the 44-year-old public utility worker who drove 40 miles from Huneston to see Trump. “I can’t abandon him. After what they did to him in the last election, and the political persecution he faces, I feel like I owe him this. He’s our only option.”
He was among more than 100 layered in Carhartt coveralls with hats and hoods pulled down tight to fight off the minus 18-degree Fahrenheit (minus 28-degree Celsius) chill. It was a test run for Iowa’s caucuses Monday night — and of the devotion Trump said last week would make his supporters “walk on glass” for him.
He took it a step further on Sunday, suggesting casting a vote for him would be worth dying for.
“You can’t sit home,” Trump said. “If you’re sick as a dog, you say ‘Darling, I gotta make it.’ Even if you vote and then pass away, it’s worth it.”
Even as he predicted his supporters would deliver a substantial victory over his nearest rival, he sought to temper expectations that he could cross 50% of the vote, a threshold never crossed in a contested Republican caucus. The previous record for a margin of victory was Bob Dole’s nearly 13-point win over Pat Robertson in 1988.
“Well we should do that. If we don’t do that, let ’em criticize us, right?” Trump told volunteers in Des Moines on Sunday morning. Still, he told them: “Let’s see if we can get to 50%.“
Both former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has bet big on Iowa, exuded confidence in national interviews as they compete for a caucus showing that will boost their campaigns even if they don’t beat Trump.
The final Des Moines Register/ NBC News poll before Monday’s caucuses found Trump maintaining a formidable lead, supported by nearly half of likely caucusgoers, compared with 20% for Haley and 16% for DeSantis. Haley and DeSantis remain locked in a close battle for second.
“With our folks, they’re committed, they’re gonna be there,” DeSantis said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” noting that the Republican calendar doesn’t end with Iowa. “We’re going to have a good night.”
The sun was out across Iowa, but some streets and highways remained covered in snow from a Saturday blizzard. Temperatures stayed below 0 degrees Fahrenheit all day and were not forecast to rise into positive territory until Tuesday. The weather — by far the coldest since Iowa started leading the presidential selection process in 1976 — continued to disrupt plans.
Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufmann predicted the weather wouldn’t substantially dampen turnout, saying Iowans can handle cold weather as long as the roads aren’t icy.
Because of travel conditions from Des Moines, Haley canceled a Sunday morning stop in the eastern city of Dubuque about an hour before it was to start. She swapped in a virtual town hall.
Voters walking into the venue were given the news by campaign staffers, who offered some a T-shirt, hat or yard sign as consolation.
“I don’t blame her,” said John Schmid, 69, a retiree from Asbury, a few miles outside Dubuque. He is a Haley supporter but wanted to see the “refreshing” candidate in person.
“It’s just part of living in Iowa in January,” he said.
Haley did make it to an event in Ames, a college town much closer to Des Moines.
“It’s been 11 months, and it comes down to tomorrow,” Haley said of Monday’s votes, repeating her frequent call to GOP voters to elect her as a “new generational leader that leaves the negativity and the baggage behind and focuses on the solutions of the future.”
Trump continued picking up support from Republicans who’d remained on the sidelines. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who ran for the GOP nomination himself but failed to catch fire, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio endorsed him Sunday. In picking Trump, Rubio passed over DeSantis, the governor of his home state, and Haley, who endorsed Rubio at a crucial moment in his own unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign.
Some voters, too, were waiting until the last minute to make up their minds.
Judy Knowler, 64, of Peosta, had hoped to see Haley in person to help her make up her mind.
“I have one foot in Nikki’s camp but we’ll see,” she said in Dubuque. “It’s an opportunity most Americans don’t get to be this close in person.”
After his rally, Trump dropped by a Casey’s convenience store in Waukee with Burgum, where he picked up pizzas that a store worker said would be “the best you’ll ever have.”
He then headed to a firehouse, where he passed out the pizza, and chatted with a group of first responders about their trucks, posed for photos, and ate a slice.
“This is good pizza, by the way,” he said.
Fingerhut reported from Dubuque and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard in Des Moines, Iowa, and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Costco rotisserie chickens being prepared – Bloomberg/Getty Images
Costco boasts nearly 130 million members worldwide. The vast majority of these are found in the United States, but regardless of whether they’re shopping in the U.S. or abroad, customers turn to Costco for the same reason: the store’s shockingly low prices.
Bargains form the basis of Costco’s brand, and discounted products can be found everywhere in the store. Furthermore, some of the store’s most iconic products — such as the $4.99 rotisserie chicken or $1.50 hot dog and soda combo — have not experienced price increases for years. But while the prices of these products are widely and frequently celebrated, few customers are aware of the outsized social, environmental, and ethical costs associated with them.
In an effort to drive down prices and maximize profit, Costco has been linked with some rather unsavory business practices including rearing animals in horrible conditions, the use of illegal labor, and questionable product labeling. Although prices remain low, it appears that Costco’s well-loved bargains do not come cheap.
Costco’s Chickens Were Reared Inhumanely
Chickens at Costco farm – mercyforanimals/YouTube
Costco’s $4.99 rotisserie chicken is the store’s most celebrated product. In fact, the cheap chicken is so integral to the brand that Costco has spent $1 billion building an industry-leading chicken processing plant in Nebraska with the sole goal of streamlining its rotisserie chicken supply chain. That being said, a $4.99 chicken is never going to be far from controversy, and Costco’s rotisserie chicken has received its fair share of criticism in recent years.
The majority of these complaints stem from a 2021 investigation of a Costco-controlled poultry farm. Videos taken by nonprofit organization Mercy For Animals showed birds living in cramped, filthy conditions. Some were even suffering from open wounds. When confronted with the evidence, Costco claimed to the New York Times that much of the footage was unremarkable and also stated that the company adhered to standards laid out by trade associations (via CNN). Despite pressure, Costco has not followed the lead of many other food businesses and signed on to the Better Chicken Commitment, a welfare policy designed to improve the lives of industrially reared broiler chickens.
Following the Mercy For Animals investigation, two shareholders, represented by the litigation nonprofit Legal Impact for Chickens, launched a lawsuit against Costco. The lawsuit alleged that decisions made by Costco executives caused the company to neglect its livestock, meaning the fast-growing chickens were often unable to access food and water. The case was dismissed, but during the summer of 2023, Costco announced it was reviewing and investigating the issue. No actions have been reported.
Several Costco Products Have Been Linked With Child Labor
A Darigold plant – Ian Dewar Photography/Shutterstock
An article published by The New York Times at the end of 2023 alleged that numerous migrant children were and are working for the producers of various Costco products. According to the article, the vast majority of these children use forged documents to gain and keep employment. Lax checks and the huge workforces associated with many plants and factories mean that child workers are often missed by private auditors, while senior employees often turn a blind eye. What’s more, auditors rarely visit businesses during the night shift when child labor is most prevalent.
As part of its article, NYT interviewed Miguel Sanchez, a child migrant who works at Darigold, a milk supplier for Costco. In his interview, Sanchez detailed dangerous working conditions that resulted in him suffering from an injury. Other workers noted that minors were a common part of the workforce.
This is not the only instance of child labor linked with Costco. Underage workers have also been found to work in sanitation teams, cleaning slaughterhouses which supply Costco with meat. Packers Sanitation Services, the company that employed these minors, had over 100 underage workers on its payroll and was fined $1.5 million. In all these instances, Costco has said it was not aware of any child labor practices in its supply chain.
Customers’ Private Health Data Was Shared With Meta
Costco Pharmacy sign – Bloomberg/Getty Images
Costco boasts a pharmacy as part of its business. As with any pharmacy, Costco’s pharmacy frequently requires and receives customers’ private healthcare information, including their prescriptions and prior illnesses or conditions. This information is both private and sensitive, meaning it should be treated with the utmost care. Unfortunately, Costco has not always managed to do this.
According to The Seattle Times, a lawsuit raised against Costco in 2023 alleged that the company had shared millions of Americans’ medical information with Meta without customer consent. This was due to Costco’s improper use of Meta Pixel, a tracking code that is designed for use as a business tool. By having Meta Pixel active on the health care section of Costco’s website, any sensitive information that customers entered was automatically shared with Meta. Health-specific targeted ads were reported as a result of the illicit information sharing.
Meta itself has said that using Meta Pixel in this way is against company policy and claims that steps are taken to educate businesses on how to use Meta products properly. Costco has refused to comment on the issue, and the lawsuit is currently ongoing.
Terrible Conditions Were Reported At Costco’s Egg Suppliers
An egg-laying hen at a Costco farm – Direct Action Everywhere – DxE/YouTube
It’s not just Costco’s rotisserie chickens that have been victims of inhumane farming practices but the company’s egg-laying hens, too. Initially, calls to improve the chicken’s lifestyles centered upon the removal of battery cages from the company’s supply chain. These cages were shown to cause the birds immense suffering due to the chickens’ inability to move properly in such a small space. Celebrities such as Bill Maher and Brad Pitt called for the company to remove them in 2015, and Costco listened; 97% of Costco eggs were cage free by September 2022.
Unfortunately, the near complete removal of battery cages from Costco’s supply chain does not mean hens are reared in humane conditions. Videos recorded by a network of animal rights activists, Direct Action Everywhere, at a chicken farm that supplied eggs for Costco’s Kirkland brand showed appalling conditions. The barn the animals were kept in was filthy, and dead and rotting birds littered the floor. Many living chickens also bore injuries associated with the increased aggression the animals display in cage-free systems.
In a response to the video, reported by The Seattle Times, Costco said: “We have reinspected the barn and other operations of this supplier, and based on these inspections and prior audits, we are comfortable with the animal-welfare aspects of the operation.”
Costco Is Clamping Down On Membership Card Sharing
Costco member card being checked – View Press/Getty Images
Costco runs a membership model wherein customers must pay an annual fee to shop at its stores. In order to ensure that non-members do not slip into the shop — and benefit from its low prices — all members are given a card they must display when prompted by cashiers or other staff members. These cards usually feature a photograph of the member, ensuring one card cannot be used by numerous people. However, savvy shoppers have frequently used the self-checkout lanes to get away with using another person’s membership card.
Costco committed to closing this loophole during the summer of 2023 by requiring all customers to show their membership cards when using the self-service checkouts. While an unpopular policy for those who have benefited from this loophole, many members think it is only fair that such a policy gets put in place. After all, they pay for access to discounted goods, so why shouldn’t others?
Some Costco members are not in favor of the crackdown. Many of these individuals are tired of being forced to prove they are members time and again. As one Redditor put it, “I think people are getting more annoyed when they’re getting accused of card sharing and have to jump through hoops to prove that it’s them. It doesn’t help that the picture quality on Costco’s cards is cra***.”
The Company’s Advertising Practices Have Been Challenged
Costco canned tuna in boxes – The Image Party/Shutterstock
In 2023, it was announced that Costco was being taken to court over false and deceptive advertising and labeling practices. The product at the center of the lawsuit was Kirkland Signature White Albacore Tuna in Water. This product carried the “Dolphin Safe” label on its packaging. The plaintiff in the case, Melinda Wright, claimed that this label was directly misleading as the method in which tuna was caught is not dolphin safe.
The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act lays out specific criteria tuna products need to achieve to be labeled as dolphin safe. Due to Costco supplier’s use of potentially harmful longline fishing techniques to catch tuna, the Kirkland Signature White Albacore Tuna cannot be defined as dolphin safe according to the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. This suggests that Wright, and other customers like her, were deliberately misled by Costco, which sought to play up the product’s environmental credentials.
This is not the first time Costco has been accused of mislabeling seafood. Also in 2023, the grocery store brand was forced to pay $33,000 AUD after it sold imported Canadian lobsters in its Australian stores, per 9News. In this instance, it was not how the lobsters were caught that was misrepresented but where. Although hailing from Canada, the crustaceans were erroneously labeled as being from Australian waters.
Costco Accepted Illegal Kickbacks From Drug Companies
Tony Gagliese talking – The Fifth Estate/YouTube
Kickbacks, often known as rebates, are payments drug companies make to pharmacy chains. These payments are made to ensure the pharmacy will stock the company’s drugs. Kickbacks are legal in some parts of Canada but not in Ontario, which outlawed the practice during 2013 in an effort to lower drug prices. Despite the law, two senior pharmacy executives at Costco in Ontario — Joseph Hanna and Lawrence Varga — demanded kickbacks from drug salesmen several years after 2013.
Tony Gagliese, a salesman for drug company Ranbaxy, secretly recorded Costco pharmacy executives asking for kickbacks in 2018. The Ontario government subsequently launched an investigation into the brand’s illegal kickback practices. It found Costco had accepted over $7.2 million in illegal kickbacks. In an email to CBC, Hanna said: “I genuinely believed at the time Ranbaxy made the payments in question that they were permissible. Neither I, nor Costco, would ever knowingly accept a payment that was prohibited.”
Costco was fined the amount it illegally earnt in kickbacks, around $7.25 million according to CBC. Hanna and Varga were ordered to pay $50,000 each in fines and costs. Neither pharmacy executive was fired.
Costco Underwent An Eight-Year Lawsuit With Tiffany
People by Costco jewlery case – Bloomberg/Getty Images
Unlike many other grocery store brands, Costco often stocks an impressive range of jewelry. However, this aspect of the store took a hit when famous jewelry brand Tiffany and Co. launched a lawsuit against Costco on Valentine’s Day 2013. Once again, the lawsuit revolved around Costco’s advertising and labeling choices. In this instance, Costco used the name “Tiffany” to describe a range of diamond rings.
Costco defended this choice by stating that “Tiffany” was being used to describe the ring’s pronged setting and did not indicate any connection with the well-known jewelry brand. Tiffany and Co. begged to differ, alleging that Costco was deliberately misleading customers into believing the rings were made by or in association with the brand. Over 3,000 of the rings were sold.
In 2017, four years after the lawsuit was brought against Costco, a judge ruled that Costco had to pay Tiffany and Co. nearly $20 million in damages and punitive damages, per Reuters. Costco appealed the judgment and won. The two companies settled out of court in 2021, according to CNBC. No details regarding the settlement were released.
Multiple Employees Have Accused Costco Of Discrimination
Rae Ellis smiling – Bloomberg/Getty Images
Costco has a reputation for being a good place to work. Employee pay and benefits are among the highest in the sector, and the company’s employee turnover is very low. That being said, Costco has also been accused of taking various discriminatory actions against employees. The most infamous of these resulted in over 700 women launching a class-action lawsuit against Costco.
The lawsuit, led by plaintiff Rae Ellis, alleged that Costco discriminated against women when it came to filling managerial positions. The lawsuit was initiated in 2004. At this time women made up half of Costco’s entire workforce, yet only 13% of Costco store managers were female. The lawsuit was settled in 2013, according to Public Justice. As part of the deal, Costco committed to changing its promotion procedures. These changes are working; at the end of the 2022 fiscal year 37.5% of Costco managers were female.
Other lawsuits have accused Costco of disability discrimination. One such lawsuit was leveled against the company by Marisa Martinez. Martinez was the Mexico Buyer for Costco and was on a work trip to the country when she witnessed a car being held at gunpoint. Martinez developed anxiety after this event and did not feel able to travel to Mexico. In retaliation, Costco banned her from performing any other work-related travel and threatened to remove her from management if she did not travel to Mexico. In the ensuing court case, Costco was forced to pay Martinez $1.85 million in damages, per McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP.
Costco Was Found To Have Lax Pharmacy Controls
Employee working in Costco pharmacy – Bloomberg/Getty Images
In January 2017, it was announced that Costco would pay $11.75 million as a result of a number of its pharmacies improperly filling prescriptions. Lax controls were reported in multiple Costco pharmacies in locations including Washington, Michigan, and California. Among the alleged actions were the filling of incomplete prescriptions and the filling of prescriptions without valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration numbers.
After the settlement was reached, U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker released a statement. In it she said: “These are not just administrative or paperwork violations — Costco’s failure to have proper controls in place in its pharmacies likely played a role in prescription drugs reaching the black market.”
In an effort to ensure such violations do not occur again, Costco invested in a new pharmacy management system. The chain also adopted an auditing system that involved the use of external auditors.
Many Of Costco’s Steaks Are Mechanically Tenderized
Costco meat – ARTYOORAN/Shutterstock
The process of mechanically tenderizing meat involves tiny holes being punctured into the meat by needle-like blades before packaging and selling. This process helps break down some of the meat’s fibers, making the meat feel more tender when it is eaten.
While there is no disputing that mechanically tenderizing steaks works, the process has drawn some criticism as it increases the risk of foodborne illnesses being transferred by the meat. The United States Department of Agriculture highlights that mechanical tenderizing increases the risk of foodborne illnesses, as any pathogens or bacteria that happen to be located on the meat’s surface will be driven into the center of the meat during the puncturing process. This makes the pathogens harder to kill during cooking, increasing the chances that a contaminated piece of meat makes a customer ill.
One way to mitigate this risk is to cook the steaks more thoroughly, raising their internal temperature to 145 degrees Fahrenheit and holding it there for three minutes, or making sure the internal temperature reaches 160 degrees as Costco recommends. Thankfully, Costco indicates on a steak’s label whether it has been mechanically tenderized, giving customers the knowledge they need to prepare and consume their steaks safely.
Costco’s Gold Ingots Are Not A Great Investment
Gold bought from Costco – goldeagleprice/X, formerly known as Twitter
Costco made headlines throughout 2023 due to the popularity of an unlikely grocery store product: 1-ounce gold bars. Costco repeatedly sold out of the product, with CFO Richard Galanti indicating in a company earnings call that after restocking, the product sold out in a few hours. The ingots do not come cheap; Costco has been selling them at around $2,000, and some customers have likely seen them as a worthwhile investment.
Although gold is known to hold its value in times of uncertainty, those looking to make some money are probably better off looking elsewhere. George Milling-Stanley, chief gold strategist at State Street Global Advisors, explained the reason for this in an interview with Investopedia: “There’s a premium of up to 5% when you go to buy it, and there’s often a discount of up to 5% when you want to sell it […] gold’s really got to go up 10% before you actually break even.”
Despite being known as a discount wholesaler, Costco has not waived the costs associated with gold. The price of the company’s gold ingots has hovered between 5% and 7% above the market value. This ensures that it’s Costco, and not the buyers, that are benefiting from this transaction the most.
The wealth of the world’s five richest men more than doubled since 2020
Tami Luhby – January 14, 2024
Getty Images
The five wealthiest people on Earth have become a whole lot richer in recent years.
Since 2020, these billionaires’ net worth has skyrocketed 114% to a total of $869 billion, after taking inflation into account, according to Oxfam’s annual inequality report, released Sunday. If current trends continue, the world could see its first trillionaire in a decade.
At the same time, nearly 5 billion people globally have become poorer, as they contend with inflation, war and the climate crisis. It would take nearly 230 years to eliminate poverty based on the current trajectory.
The report, which draws on data compiled by Forbes, is timed to coincide with the kickoff of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, an elite gathering of some of the wealthiest people and world leaders.
Though inequality is on the rise, there are some bright spots, said Nabil Ahmed, Oxfam America’s director of economic and racial justice. Workers have been flexing their muscle through strikes and deals that better their compensation and working conditions. Also, some governments have been on their side, pushing policies aimed at strengthening workers’ rights.
“We find ourselves in a new Gilded Age, but workers, regulators and union and community organizers are starting to make cracks in it,” Ahmed said.
Rising fortunes
Elon Musk, who runs several companies, including Tesla and SpaceX, was the big winner in recent years. His wealth soared to $245.5 billion at the end of November, up 737% from March 2020, after accounting for inflation.
Bernard Arnault, chairman of French luxury goods giant LVMH, and his family had a net worth of $191.3 billion, up 111%.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos had a fortune of $167.4 billion, up 24%; while Oracle founder Larry Ellison’s wealth totaled $145.5 billion, up 107%.
Rounding out the list of top five wealthiest people was Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, whose net worth rose 48% to $119.2 billion.
Overall, billionaires have seen their wealth grow by $3.3 trillion, or 34%, since 2020, with their fortunes expanding three times faster than the rate of inflation, according to Oxfam.
US billionaires, many of whom derive their wealth from the equity in the companies they lead, are $1.6 trillion richer.
Corporate power
In this year’s report, Oxfam argues that businesses are raking in big profits, which are helping fuel the fortunes of the wealthy. Seven out of 10 of the world’s largest public companies have either a billionaire CEO or a billionaire as its principal shareholder.
What’s more, the top 1% holds 43% of the world’s financial assets, according to Oxfam, drawing on data from Wealth X. In the United States, this group owns 32%; in Asia, it’s 50%. In the Middle East, the top 1% holds 48% of the financial wealth, while in Europe, it’s 47%.
Some 148 of the world’s largest corporations made nearly $1.8 trillion in profits in the 12 months leading up to June 2023, Oxfam said. That’s 52.5% higher than their average was between 2018 to 2021. Oxfam calls out the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies and the financial industry for reaping higher profits in the last year or two than their average in prior years.
“We ignore at our peril the role of monopoly power in redistributing wealth to the top,” Ahmed said.
Oxfam is calling on governments to step in.
“Public power can rein in runaway corporate power and inequality — shaping the market to be fairer and free from billionaire control,” Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International’s interim executive director, said in a statement. “Governments must intervene to break up monopolies, empower workers, tax these massive corporate profits and, crucially, invest in a new era of public goods and services.”
‘This to Him Is the Grand Finale’: Donald Trump’s 50-Year Mission to Discredit the Justice System
The former president is in unparalleled legal peril, but he has mastered the ability to grind down the legal system to his advantage. It’s already changing our democracy.
By Michael Kruse – January 12, 2023
Michael Kruse, senior staff writer at POLITICO and POLITICO Magazine.
POLITICO illustration by Emily Scherer/Photos by Getty Images, iStock
NEW YORK — What happened in Room 300 of the New York County Courthouse in lower Manhattan in November had never happened. Not in the preceding almost two and a half centuries of the history of the United States. Donald Trump was on the witness stand. It was not unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence just because it was a former president, although that was totally true. It was unprecedented because the power dynamic of the courtroom had been upended — the defendant was not on defense, the most vulnerable person in the room was the most dominant person in the room, and the people nominally in charge could do little about it.
It was unprecedented, too, because over the course of four or so hours Trump savaged the judge, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the case and the trial — savaged the system itself. He called the attorney general “a political hack.” He called the judge “very hostile.” He called the trial “crazy” and the court “a fraud” and the case “a disgrace.” He told the prosecutor he should be “ashamed” of himself. The judge all but pleaded repeatedly with Trump’s attorneys to “control” him. “If you can’t,” the judge said, “I will.” But he didn’t, because he couldn’t, and audible from the city’s streets were the steady sounds of sirens and that felt absolutely apt.
“Are you done?” the prosecutor said.
“Done,” Trump said.
He was nowhere close to done. Trump’s testimony if anything was but a taste. (In fact, he said many of the same things in the same courtroom on Thursday.) This country has never seen and therefore is utterly unprepared for what it’s about to endure in the wrenching weeks and months ahead — active challenges based on post-Civil War constitutional amendments to bar insurrectionists from the ballot; existentially important questions about presidential immunity almost certainly to be decided by a U.S. Supreme Court the citizenry has seldom trusted less; and a candidate running for the White House while facing four separate criminal indictments alleging 91 felonies, among them, of course, charges that he tried to overturn an election he lost and overthrow the democracy he swore to defend. And while many found Trump’s conduct in court in New York shocking, it is in fact for Trump not shocking at all. For Trump, it is less an aberration than an extension, an escalation — a culmination. Trump has never been in precisely this position, and the level of the threat that he faces is inarguably new, but it’s just as true, too, that nobody has been preparing for this as long as he has himself.
Former President Donald Trump, flanked by his attorneys, waits to take the witness stand at New York Supreme Court on Nov. 6, 2023, in New York City. | Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP
Trump and his allies say he is the victim of the weaponization of the justice system, but the reality is exactly the opposite. For literally more than 50 years, according to thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of interviews with lawyers and legal experts, people who have worked for Trump, against Trump or both, and many of the myriad litigants who’ve been caught in the crossfire, Trump has taught himself how to use and abuse the legal system for his own advantage and aims. Many might view the legal system as a place to try to avoid, or as perhaps a necessary evil, or maybe even as a noble arbiter of equality and fairness. Not Trump. He spent most of his adult life molding it into an arena in which he could stake claims and hunt leverage. It has not been for him a place of last resort so much as a place of constant quarrel. Conflict in courts is not for him the cost of doing business — it is how he does business. Throughout his vast record of (mostly civil) lawsuits, whether on offense, defense or frequently a mix of the two, Trump has become a sort of layman’s master in the law and lawfare.
“He doesn’t see the legal system as a means of obtaining justice for all,” Jim Zirin, the author of Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits, told me. He sees it rather as a “tool,” said Ian Bassin, a former White House lawyer in the administration of Barack Obama and the current executive director of Protect Democracy, “in his quest to command attention and ultimately power.” But it’s not merely any tool. It’s his most potent tactic and fundamental to any and all successes he’s had. “There’s probably no single person in America,” said Eric Swalwell, the Democratic member of Congress from California and a former prosecutor and Trump impeachment manager, “who is more, I would say, knowledgeable and experienced in our legal system — as both a plaintiff and as a defendant — than Donald Trump.”
Many have been confounded by the legal system’s inability to constrain Trump, by his ability to escape at least thus far any legal accounting for behavior that even some leaders of his own party excoriated — and why that reckoning might never come. To understand this requires seeing Trump in a new mode — not as a businessman-turned-celebrity-turned-politician, or as a nationalist populist demagogue, or as the epochal leader of a right-wing movement, but rather as a legal combatant. “This is not a political rally — this is a courtroom,” the judge admonished him at one point in November in New York. It was only in the most technical sense correct. Just as he had upended the norms inside the New York courtroom, Trump has altered the very way we view the justice system as a whole. This is not something he began to do once he won elected office. It has been a lifelong project.
Starting in 1973, when the federal government sued him and his father for racist rental practices in the apartments they owned, Trump learned from the notorious Roy Cohn, then searched for another Roy Cohn — then finally became his own Roy Cohn. He’s exploited as loopholes the legal system’s bedrock tenets, eyeing its very integrity as simultaneously its intrinsic vulnerability — the near sacrosanct honoring of the rights of the defendant, the deliberation that due process demands, the constant constitutional balancing act that relies on shared good faith as much as fixed, written rules. He has routinely turned what’s obviously peril into what’s effectively fuel, taking long rosters of losses and willing them into something like wins — if not in a court of law, then in that of public opinion. It has worked, and it continues to work. Trump, after all, was at one of his weakest points politically until the first of his four arraignments last spring. Ever since, his legal jeopardy and his political viability have done little but go up, together. Deny, delay and attack, always play the victim, never stop undermining the system: Trump has taken the Cohn playbook to reaches not even Cohn could have foreseen — fusing his legal efforts with his business interests, lawyers as important to him as loan officers, and now he’s done the same with politics. He’s not fighting the system, it seems sometimes, so much as he’s using it. He’s fundraising off of it. He’s consolidating support because of it. He’s far and away the most likely Republican nominee, polls consistently show. He’s the odds-on favorite to be the president again.
As Trump was on the witness stand on Nov. 6, Judge Arthur Engoron (bottom) all but pleaded repeatedly with Trump’s attorneys to “control” him. “If you can’t,” the judge said, “I will.” | Spencer Platt/Getty Images; Pool photo by Brendan McDermid
“He has attacked the judicial system, our system of justice and the rule of law his entire life,” said J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appellate judge and one of the founders of the recently formed Society for the Rule of Law. “And this to him,” Luttig told me, “is the grand finale.”
The 2024 presidential election, in the estimation of Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel during the investigation of President Bill Clinton and an assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Homeland Security in the administration of George W. Bush, isn’t a referendum on Joe Biden. It isn’t even a referendum, he said, on Donald Trump. “This election,” he told me, “is a referendum on the rule of law.”
More unnerving, though, than even that is an idea that has coursed through my conversations over these past several months: That referendum might already be over. Democracy’s on the ballot, many have taken to saying — Biden just said it last week — but democracy, and democratic institutions, as political scientist Brian Klaas put it to me, “can’t function properly if only part of the country believes in them.” And it’s possible that some critical portion of the population does not, or will not, no matter what happens between now and next November, believe in the verdicts or other outcomes rendered by those institutions. What if Trump is convicted? What if he’s not? What if he’s not convicted and then gets elected? What if he is and wins anyway? More disquieting than what might be on the ballot, it turns out, is actually what might not.
“Our democracy rests on a foundation of trust — trust in elections, trust in institutions,” Bassin said. “And you know what scares me the most about Trump? It’s not the sledgehammer he’s taken to the structure of our national house,” he told me. “It’s the termites he’s unleashed into the foundation.”
Trump (left) stands with his father, Fred Trump, in Brooklyn in 1973. That year, the federal government sued Trump and his father for racist rental practices in the apartments they owned. | Barton Silverman/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
‘Attack, attack, attack — no matter what the merits are’
The United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc., filed by the Department of Justice on October 15, 1973, put a 27-year-old Donald Trump for the first time on the front page of the New York Times. He also used it to introduce himself to a man who was already an infamous rogue — Cohn becoming because of this case Trump’s most indispensable mentor.
Cohn, “clearly one of God’s most imperfect vessels” but “one of the most extraordinary, demonized, and misunderstood figures of 20th-century American politics,” Steve Bannon wrote in the 2023 Skyhorse Publishing reprint of Nicholas von Hoffman’s biography, “is more relevant today than when the book was originally published in 1988.” Bannon’s not wrong. And that’s because of Trump and what Trump has become. Pre-Trump, though, and before Cohn was disbarred and died in 1986 from complications from AIDS, Cohn was in post-World War II America a particular sort of poisonous force — the top attorney and aide to red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s who then in the ’60s and ’70s turned his ill repute into a career as “ a legal executioner” for celebrities, executives and mob bosses. He didn’t pay his bills. He didn’t pay his taxes. He was shameless and remorseless and “ famous among lawyers for winning cases by delays, evasions and lies.” He was indicted four times, for bribery and conspiracy, for extortion and blackmail, for stock-swindling and obstruction of justice and filing false reports — and never once convicted. He was, to the people who knew him and watched him with some combination of wonder and disgust, “a bully,” “a scoundrel” and “as politically incorrect as they come.” Trump was transfixed.
Top: People sit outside Trump Village, a two-building apartment complex, in Brooklyn in 1973. Bottom: Donald and Fred Trump visit a tenant in one of their Brooklyn apartment buildings in Brooklyn in 1973. | Barton Silverman/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
And the federal race case was Trump’s first tutorial. “He went to court,” as Trump would put it, “and I went with him.” Cohn said the Department of Justice had “no facts to support the charges” that were “barebones” and “without foundation.” Cohn accused the feds of going after the Trumps’ organization because it was “one of the largest in the field.” He accused them of a “smear” that caused “damage” that was “never going to be completely undone.” Cohn filed a countersuit for a stunning $100 million that a judge tossed out as “frivolous” but not before it generated headlines and attention for a young Trump spoiling for a publicized fight. He accused a young female prosecutor of staging a “Gestapo-like investigation” with “undercover agents” wiretapping Trump offices and “marching around” like “storm troopers banging on the doors” — all charges the judge was forced to take the time to dismiss. And Cohn delayed, and delayed and delayed, frustrating for years a series of government attorneys who in court briefs repeatedly bemoaned Cohn’s “noncompliance” and “dilatory tactics” and “blithe disregard.” The director of the Open Housing Center of the New York Urban League worried that Cohn on behalf of Trump was, in spite of the evidence, actually “winning.”
Trump, with Roy Cohn beside him, speaks during a news conference where they announced a lawsuit against the National Football League in 1984. | Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
They weren’t. At least not officially. Because the DOJ got Trump and his father to sign a consent decree promising they would comply with the Fair Housing Act and create preferential vacancies and pay for ads for those vacancies and hire and promote minorities and self-report their progress. The agency called the agreement “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” But Trump? He called it a win. He had been allowed to sign the decree without copping to guilt, and if that wasn’t quite a triumph, it also wasn’t in any real way a defeat. “Did Trump get nailed? No,” Cohn’s cousin, David Lloyd Marcus, told me. “He basically got out of it.” Trump had siphoned from Cohn lasting lessons. “He learned that the evidence can be irrelevant,” Zirin told me. He learned that “the law doesn’t matter, the government’s mission doesn’t matter,” Marcus told me. He learned “that you could use the law to sort of bend circumstances to your will,” former Trump attorney Ty Cobb told me. “Attack, attack, attack — no matter what the merits are — fuck the merits — attack, attack, attack,” longtime New York attorney Marty London told me. “That was Roy Cohn’s methodology that was adopted by Donald Trump.”
More than anything, though, Cohn had shown Trump not simply how to turn a loss into a win but how to turn a case on its head — how, in other words, to take the United States v. Trump and make it Trump versus the United States.
The Trump Parc East building, which was formerly known as 100 Central Park South, is seen in New York City in 2016. | Frank Franklin II/AP
‘Suddenly you are being sued. It gives you a headache’
If the ’70s were a training ground, the ’80s were a proving ground. And if Cohn was a weapon —“a weapon for me,” as Trump told the writer Ken Auletta — so, too, was the law and the legal system itself. Lawsuits were as central as public relations or loans from banks to the building of Trump’s business and the burnishing of his brand. And he came to understand during the decade of the ’80s that he didn’t have to play defense. He could just start on offense.
Trump bought the 15-story apartment building at the prime location of 100 Central Park South in 1981. He wanted to turn it into a fancier condominium. He just needed the mostly rent-controlled tenants to get out, and he quickly began legal proceedings to try to make that happen, filing with the city applications for permits for eviction and demolition. He sued one tenant for not paying his rent even though he had. He also got the company he had hired to run the building to cut back on services, like security, hot water and heat. At one point he made a plainly disingenuous offer to the city to house free of charge some of the area’s homeless in the building’s few vacant units. “I just want to help with the homeless problem,” he told the Times. He put tin on the windows of the empty apartments to make the whole building look shabby. One of the tenants told the Times, it felt like they were “living under a state of siege.”
So the tenants pooled money to hire attorneys to sue back. And judges sided with the tenants, not him, and so did state and city agencies, ruling that Trump had initiated “spurious” and “unwarranted litigation” that added up to “an unrelenting, systematic and illegal campaign” to “force tenants from their housing accommodations at the earliest possible time.” By 1985, Trump had built Trump Tower, opened two casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and been on the cover of GQ. But Central Park South? This, as New York magazine put it on its cover, was “A Different Kind of Donald Trump Story” — “a fugue of failure, a farce of fumbling and bumbling.” The tenants had had it. “This merchant, this gambler, this Atlantic City man-whore,” one of them told a reporter for a British magazine. “He wants to be Jesus. He wants to be Hitler. He wants to be the most powerful thing in the world.”
Stymied, Trump in December of that year filed, of all things, a $105 million racketeering suit — in effect accusing the tenants’ attorneys and state and city agencies of conspiring against him in a criminal enterprise. He shared the details with the New York Post before he even filed the papers in court.
Trump, shown above in 1986, wanted to turn 100 Central Park South into a fancier condominium after buying it in 1981. He just needed the mostly rent-controlled tenants to get out. | Mario Suriani/AP; Bettmann Archive via Getty Images
“He had a temper tantrum,” Rick Fischbein, one of the attorneys for the tenants, told me recently. “He sued the firm. He brought a RICO action,” said David Rozenholc, another one of the attorneys for the tenants, “to try to get leverage.” It was “frivolous” and “absurd,” Rozenholc told me. But still: “You are an attorney representing a client, and suddenly you are being sued. It gives you a headache, it gives you a problem, it gives you an issue — you have to deal with it, you have to hire a lawyer …”
That lawyer was Marty London. “We attacked the claim on the merits, and quickly,” London told me. And time was of the essence, he explained, in large part because the firm’s bank account had been frozen because of the size of Trump’s claim. Any undue delay would accrue to the benefit of Trump and to the detriment of the defendants — and the judges seemed to understand. “It took a month to get it dismissed,” London recalled, and the appeal was similarly fast-tracked. “Further pleading would merely waste the time and resources of the litigants as well as divert scarce judicial resources,” an appellate judge concluded, denying Trump’s motion to replead “with prejudice.”
“Trump saw that the way to beat these people, these tenants, it was not on the merits, because there were no merits,” London told me. “So what you do is attack the lawyer,” he said. “You make the lawyer so afraid of Trump that he quits. That’s what he tried to do.”
But the lawyers did not quit. London even got a judge to order Trump to pay Fischbein’s firm $700,000 in fees, including London’s costs in the RICO case. Fischbein hung on the wall of his office a framed copy of Trump’s check along with a blue-T-shirt with a boast: “ I was sued by Donald Trump for $105 million.”
“He lost,” Fischbein told me last month.
Eventually, though, Trump turned 100 Central Park South into a condo called Trump Parc East. “His public position now,” Wayne Barrett would write in his book about Trump published in 1992, “was that the tenant battle had delayed his project just long enough for him to benefit from the boom in the market. So he announced that he had made money from the protracted conflict.” The upshot in The Art of the Deal: “All’s well that ends well.” A legal loss, Trump reasoned, didn’t have to be a loss overall.
A portrait of Donald Trump hangs inside Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., in 1995. | Ron Galella via Getty Images
‘He uses the legal system to tire people out’
Trump was in deep financial distress in the early ’90s. The arc of his life could have been irrevocably altered — and that of the nation, it turns out — had he been truly brought low by his debts, and had a passel of people with power made different decisions. That image he sought to convey, that brand he wanted to burnish — money maestro, billionaire business boss — in this window of time might have been tarnished forever. “Survive ‘til ’95,” Trump liked to say. He did it with family money. He did it through bankruptcy. He did it by turning his casinos into public money — a lifeline that was “the general public” in “middle America” trusting Trump and buying literal stock called DJT. He did it by turning Mar-a-Lago into a private club — and a lawsuit into a golf course. And he did that by opening up a whole new legal front in Florida — in Palm Beach.
“He sued the county,” former county commissioner Karen Marcus told me, “over airport noise.”
It was June of ’95. This had been a Trump pet peeve for years — almost ever since he had bought Mar-a-Lago 10 years before. But now he actually filed a suit for $75 million in damages because one of the flight paths for Palm Beach International Airport took low-flying planes directly over Mar-a-Lago. “Mar-a-Lago can no longer be enjoyed for its original purposes of relaxation, entertaining and everyday living,” the suit said. The next week, county commissioners sued him back, hiring a law firm for $190 an hour. “I think it’s ridiculous Mr. Trump has taken on the taxpayers of Palm Beach County,” commission chairman Ken Foster said at the time, “thinking his pockets are deeper than ours.” It’s exactly what he was thinking.
Top: A plane flies over Mar-a-Lago in 1999. Bottom: (Left to right) Businessman Alfons Schmitt, Trump, and golf course architect Jim Fazio at the Trump International Golf Club groundbreaking ceremony in Palm Beach in 1997. | Art Seitz/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images; Davidoff Studios/Getty Images
“I first met Trump in the late ’80s,” former Palm Beach town councilman and mayor Jack McDonald told me. “And for all those years,” he said, “the strategy’s been quite clear.”
“He uses the legal system,” said Alan (no relation to Karen) Marcus, a Trump publicist at the time, “to tire people out.”
“He thinks the lawsuit will be easier for him to bear than his opponent,” a person in Palm Beach familiar with Trump who requested anonymity to speak candidly told me recently. “He doesn’t think he’s going to win necessarily,” this person continued. “He thinks that he’ll spend more money than the other side will, including municipalities, even Palm Beach, and that all of those expenses are much more wearing on government officials than they are on Donald Trump.”
And he was right.
By November ’95, the county’s attorneys told the county commission the Trump airport suit was going to cost the county perhaps more than $1 million. By April of ’96, the county’s attorneys and Trump’s attorneys were talking about a settlement. By September, it was official: Trump agreed to drop the suit. In return he got the right to lease at $438,000 a year — for at least 30 years, and up to 75 — 214 acres of untouched scrub land by the very same airport so he could build the golf course that is now Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. To boot, the county promised to keep the planes from flying directly over Mar-a-Lago.
Trump’s attorney called it “a win-win.” Plenty of people in Palm Beach had feelings that were decidedly more mixed. “I realize you’re settling a lawsuit, but you’re giving up the use of that land for 75 years,” former county commissioner Bill Medlen told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel at the time. Said the Palm Beach Post’s editorial board: “Rather than getting him out of their hair, they have gotten themselves into a 30-year lease with the litigious Mr. Trump.”
Indeed, for the litigious Mr. Trump, a Palm Beach coda came a decade later. In 2006, he put up in front of Mar-a-Lago an American flag that was so big it was against town code — 15 by 25 feet of the Stars and Stripes mounted atop an 80-foot pole. It was bait. The town took it. The fine was $1,250 a day. Trump sued — for $25 million — arguing his giant flag was constitutionally protected speech. “No American should have to get a permit to fly the flag,” he crowed in interviews. Eventually, of course, Trump and the town settled — he made the flag a little smaller, the town waived the fines — but for Trump it was another legal draw that was in all other ways nothing but a win.
A large 15-by-25-foot American flag flies over Mar-a-Lago in October 2006. | Alyssa Schukar/The Palm Beach Post via AP
“It was a success for him in terms of how he was viewed across America,” McDonald, who was the mayor of at the time, told me. “Because that all of a sudden,” said McDonald, who was once a member of Mar-a-Lago but not anymore and told me he’s never voted for Trump, “made him this great American patriot.”
“I think he learned right on this little island a lot of the techniques that he used to become president,” said Laurence Leamer, the author of a book about Trump, Mar-a-Lago and Palm Beach. “Trump came down here just not giving a damn, pushing and pushing, pushing the town, pushing the law.”
According to Tim O’Brien, who came out with a book about Trump in 2005 and and was sued because of it, Trump sued him because of the brand — “to create it, maintain it, and cast it forever in amber.” | Peter Kramer/Getty Images
‘The Rosetta Stone of Donald Trump’s hallucinations’
By the time of the Palm Beach flag flap, any ’90s taint was gone, the overwhelming initial success of “The Apprentice” having reintroduced Trump to much of the country not as a hokey, aging emblem of the high-flying, go-go ’80s but as a still preeminent and ubiquitous tycoon — as a billionaire. The brand was somehow intact, and now again on the rise, and it needed to be protected at all costs.
So he sued Tim O’Brien.
“This book,” O’Brien told the Palm Beach Post when TrumpNation came out in the fall of 2005, “is about how a cartoon character became one of the most famous businessmen in America.”
Plenty of things in the book were unflattering. O’Brien quoted Trump, for instance, saying he had been “bored” when Marla Maples was walking down the aisle at the second of his three weddings. He pegged the Trump Organization as “a teeny operation.” And Trump told the author some things that stood out then and stand out even more now. “If you don’t win, you can’t get away with it,” Trump said. “And I win, I win, I always win …” He also said he considered crying a sign of “weakness” and as an example brought up mob boss John Gotti — the “Teflon Don.” Gotti, Trump told O’Brien, “went through years of trials. He sat with a stone face. He said: ‘Fuck you.’”
None of that, though, is why Trump sued O’Brien. He sued O’Brien essentially because of two sentences that cut straight to the core of the brand.
“Three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances, people who had worked closely with him for years,” O’Brien wrote, “told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. By anyone’s standards this still qualified Donald as comfortably wealthy, but none of these people thought he was remotely close to being a billionaire.”
Tim O’Brien, shown above in 2017. After O’Brien’s book came out, Trump in the press described him as “a third-rate writer,” a “loser” and “a whack job.” | Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images
Donald J. Trump v. Timothy L. O’Brien was in some sense a direct extension of Trump versus the other Trumps — Jules and Eddie Trump — from the suit back in the ’80s.
Those Trumps’ use of their own name, Roy Cohn wrote in court papers in December of 1984, “can only be viewed as a poorly veiled attempt at trading on the good will, reputation and financial credibility of” his client. Their use of the corporate name of the Trump Group, Cohn concluded, was therefore “untenable.” It was a bold claim not least because Jules and Eddie Trump, South African emigrants, were big businessmen themselves — by some measures bigger, in fact, than Donald Trump. One of the main reasons Donald Trump even knew of Jules and Eddie Trump, after all, was that the other Trumps had just bid to buy a drugstore chain for $360 million. The other Trumps’ attorneys’ response was basically bafflement at the notion of “barring the defendants from using their family name.” The legal back-and-forth nonetheless went on for five years.
The other Trumps’ attorneys during their deposition of Trump in not so many words tried to make the case that Trump was a serial legal scourge. They peppered him with questions about the number of times he’d been deposed.
“I really don’t know,” he said. It “unfortunately” was “a part of doing business.” Trump grew testy the longer this line of query lasted. He called their questions “ridiculous.” He complained they were “trying to harass me.”
The other Trumps’ attorneys astutely went back to the beginning. They brought up the DOJ’s case from 1973. Trump bristled. “We acknowledged no wrongdoing,” he said before quickly attacking the inference of racism that hung in the air. “Your clients come from South Africa,” he said, “so don’t tell me about it.”
It was a split decision in the end. A judge concluded that “the name ‘Trump’ is well-recognized in the New York real estate development community, but the court does not think this is the same as being ‘unique.’” Trump did, however, successfully petition the Patent and Trademark Office, which ruled the other Trumps could keep using the name the Trump Group but could not keep the Trump Group trademark. The other Trumps had spent $250,000 in legal fees, because they could, but still: “It was very costly,” Jules Trump would tell the Miami Herald, “and a huge waste of time.” Not for Donald Trump. In his mind, the name was the brand, and the brand belonged to him.
Trump sued fellow New York businessmen Eddie (left) and Jules Trump in the 1980s because they had the same last name.The legal back-and-forth nonetheless went on for five years. | Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images; Monica Schipper/Getty Images
Now, though, in 2005, here was O’Brien’s book. “The thrust of the book,” the suit stated, “is that Trump is an unskilled and dissembling businessman” — his attorneys saying Trump was worth at least $2.7 billion, seeking $5 billion in damages and calling the book “defamatory,” “malicious” and “egregiously false.” Trump went on the offensive in the press as well, describing O’Brien as “a third-rate writer,” a “loser” and “a whack job.”
A judge at first ruled that O’Brien had to reveal his sources, those three people “with direct knowledge” of Trump’s finances — but O’Brien’s lawyers won a series of appeals based on the broad protections for reporters provided by the nation’s libel laws. “The libel laws are very bad,” Trump told the New York Post in 2009. Those laws in essence said O’Brien had to have demonstrated “actual malice” and a “reckless disregard” for the truth in reporting what he did, and an appeals court finally in 2011 reaffirmed “no triable issue as to the existence of actual malice.”
“That case never had a chance of success,” Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer of a lawyer at the time, told me. “His hope was that he could intimidate O’Brien,” he said. It was also, Cohen added, a threat of sorts meant for other reporters — “a warning shot,” he said.
But that’s not really why Trump sued O’Brien, O’Brien told me when I told him what Cohen had said. It was all about the brand, O’Brien said, just as it’s always been — “to create it, maintain it, and cast it forever in amber.”
“And his deposition was an eternal embarrassment,” O’Brien added. “That deposition is the Rosetta Stone of Donald Trump’s hallucinations, about how he runs his business, how much money he has, how he values things, and who he is in this world.”
“Have you ever lied in public statements about your properties?” Trump was asked.
“When you’re making a public statement, you want to put the most positive — you want to say it the most positive way possible,” he said.
“I’m no different from a politician running for office.”
Trump signs copies of his audio business course — produced by Trump University — called “How to Build a Fortune”, in 2006 in New York City. | Louis Lanzano/AP
‘The Roy Cohn stuff is still really ingrained in him’
Trump University, Donald Trump had announced in 2005, was going to be “Ivy League-quality” with “world-class faculty” ready to “teach you better than the best business school.” What it ended up being, according to “students” and staff, was “a joke” and “a lie.” So some of them sued him. Customers filed class-action suits starting in 2010. And then the attorney general of New York filed a sweeping $40-million civil suit in 2013, charging that thousands of people paid up to $35,000 for what in the main was a sham, leaving them with scant lessons of any value but mired in mountains of debt and regret. “Trump University,” Eric Schneiderman said, “with Donald Trump’s knowledge and participation, relied on Trump’s name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand.”
Trump was on defense again — reminiscent in this respect of the DOJ case from a full 40 years before. And even without Cohn in his corner, of course, Trump went to work in time-tested ways. “The Roy Cohn stuff is still really ingrained in him,” said Ty Cobb, the former Trump attorney. “I have thoughts about Roy Cohn,” longtime politically connected New York P.R. man George Arzt said, “almost every time I see Donald Trump.”
Trump’s new Cohn?
It wasn’t Michael Cohen, and it wasn’t anybody else, said Lawrence Douglas, an Amherst College professor who’s written extensively about Trump and the law.
“It’s Donald Trump.”
The big difference, though, was that Trump now was much more squarely playing politics, too. He had talked about running for president in the late ’80s. He had launched a brief third-party bid in 2000. But by this point he was considering more seriously a run for the White House. He spent a lot of 2011 stoking the racist “birtherism” lie that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya and therefore was not a legitimate commander in chief. He thought hard about running in 2012, and though he didn’t, his endorsement meant something in the GOP. And he had his eye on 2016 — and the damning, mounting legal problems stemming from his for-profit “school” were a problem.
“No one, no matter how rich or famous they are, has a right to scam hardworking New Yorkers. Anyone who does should expect to be held accountable,” Schneiderman told the New York Daily News. Trump is “going to have to face justice,” he said on CNBC. “And he doesn’t like doing that.”
What Trump University ended up being, according to “students” and staff, was “a joke” and “a lie.” | Gregory Bull/AP
Trump attacked Schneiderman personally, calling him “a lightweight” and “a sleazebag” and countersuing for (a familiar) $100 million. He hit him legally, calling the suit “incompetent.” And he attacked Schneiderman politically — the suit, he said, was “thug politics.”
Trump had made to Schneiderman in 2010 a $12,500 donation. “He was very unhappy because he wanted me to do much more than that,” Trump said on Fox News. “He wanted me to introduce him to a lot of my friends, my big business friends. I didn’t have time for it. He came up to my office. And, in fact, I actually gave him a contribution before he was elected. I think he was down in the polls. But it was never enough for him.”
“By the way,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” on ABC, “he meets with President Obama on Thursday evening in Syracuse. He meets with him. On Saturday at 1 o’clock, he files a suit. So I’m gonna ask you …”
“So you’re saying President Obama is behind this?”
He didn’t answer. He just repeated himself. “He’s been looking into this thing for two years. He brings a lawsuit on Saturday afternoon, right after he meets with President Obama …”
Two and a half years later, obviously, Trump was at the very center of American politics, and the Trump University suits were not only still active but getting closer and closer to going to trial. And Trump was railing away not on TV talk shows but at packed rallies as the would-be Republican nominee. At a rally in Arkansas in late February of 2016, he attacked one of the class-action plaintiffs, mispronouncing her name and calling her a “horrible witness.” He attacked the attorney general for “doing a terrible job.” And he attacked one of the judges, whom he called “very hostile,” referring, too, to his Hispanic heritage in a plain, race-baiting dig.
Copies of “How To Build Wealth,” a series of nine audio business courses created by Trump University, lie on display at a Barnes & Noble store in New York City in 2005. | Scott Gries/Getty Images
“But I believe I can turn it around,” Trump told the crowd, “just to show you how dishonest these people are.” And the crowd cheered. And then Trump won on Super Tuesday, and then the party’s nomination, and then the November election. And then the president-elect settled with the attorney general and the class-action plaintiffs, agreeing to pay an aggregate $25 million.
That Trump would win the White House on a populist platform while preying on poor people — it’s a paradox that confounds his critics. “He has these people that are drawn to him because of his charisma and this image that he projects, and then the people that loved him the most, he actually hurt the most,” Tristan Snell, the lead prosecutor in the attorney general’s case, told me. “That’s the thing that people don’t get about this — still to this day — and it’s been replicated with the people who support him politically now.”
Snell has a book due out later this month. It’s called Taking Down Trump.
“There is still understandably a great deal of mixed feeling, of cautious optimism and bitter pessimism, on the question of whether justice will one day come for Donald Trump — or whether justice in America still exists all. It is perhaps the most important question,” Snell writes. “The answer to that question may well determine much of our collective fate.
“If the greatest malefactors are, in effect, untouchable, beyond the reach of the law, subject to a different set of rules — or no rules at all,” he continues, “then we will likely slip into a spiral from which we may never recover.”
A vendor moves his cart, which includes a flag that reads “THE RULES HAVE CHANGED,” outside a Trump rally on Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa | Charlie Neibergall/AP
‘He’s pushing the system to the breaking point’
“Waterloo,” said Donald Trump.
“We cover all corners of your great state. You know that,” he said at the start of his rally late last month in this small city in eastern Iowa. “And they said, ‘What about Waterloo?’ I said, ‘We gotta get to Waterloo.’”
In spite of the potentially inauspicious name of the site of this event, Iowa, it seems, will not be Trump’s end. He enters Monday as maybe the biggest Republican favorite in the history of the state’s caucuses. At Trump’s rallies these days the most notable addition to the standard red MAGA hats and the vulgar Biden signs and the “Macho Man” soundtrack are the mug-shot shirts — with Trump’s glowering face on the front coupled with his message of “NEVER SURRENDER.”
At this particular convention center, I met a 55-year-old “semi-retired” independent contractor from Evansville, Indiana, who was attending his 86th Trump rally. “I’ll still vote for him if he’s in a prison cell,” Mike Boatman told me. “They can bring the Oval Office desk right inside of the prison cell.” I met a 27-year-old Muslim from the suburbs of Chicago who is training to be a police officer and was wearing a red hat. He asked that I not name him because his immigrant father detests Trump and didn’t know he was here. “My faith in the justice system, because of the indictments,” he said, “is at an all-time low.” I met a couple from nearby Charles City. Trust the justice system? “Why the fuck would I?” said Jeannie Waddingham, 53. But Trump? “I do,” she said.
“This is the lawfare by the Democrats to take him out, and people see that as unjust,” said Mike Davis of the Trump-supporting Article III Project. “No way” Trump would be looking like the runaway nominee, Davis told me, if not for the indictments.
And that’s because people don’t trust the system. They trust Trump. And that’s because Trump’s told them to — for 50 years. He started doing this in the ’70s, teaming with Cohn and accusing the government of “Gestapo-like” tactics and “smears.” He kept doing it in the ’80s, always playing the victim of Central Park South, claiming people were out to get him and using the courts to do it. “Trump,” Trump told the Times, “is not going to be harassed.” He did it in Palm Beach, and he did it when he sued O’Brien, and he did it with Trump U., and he only escalated the efforts once he came down the escalator in Trump Tower in 2015 and especially after he lost to Biden in 2020. He sends to supporters email after email every day asking for money for his campaign by attacking “Crooked Joe” and “the Radical Democrats” and “villainous forces” and “crooks” and “thugs” and “fools” and “their phony charges” and “this vicious witch hunt” and their “SHAM TRIALS.” Nothing is on the level, and the institutions can’t be trusted, and the system can’t be trusted, he has insidiously hammered home, and so he is free, he suggests, to go after the people he says have gone after him. It is, as George Conway said at the opening gathering of the Society for the Rule of Law in early November in Washington, “an infectious disease that is affecting the entire body politic.”
“He has made himself the arbiter of fairness,” Hank Sheinkopf, the longtime New York Democratic strategist who has watched Trump work for decades, told me, “for those who feel that they have been unfairly put upon.”
“He is wearing our institutions down to their nubs,” lawyer and legal analyst Danielle McLauglin told me, “and the judicial system, the system of justice, I think, is particularly vulnerable to him.”
“He’s pushing the system to the breaking point,” Ian Bassin told me.
“He’s poisoned the well,” Brian Klaas told me.
“It’s of surpassing importance what happens,” Judge Luttig told me, “but that still doesn’t change the fact that he’s already laid waste to our democracy and to our elections and to the rule of law.”
At Trump’s December rally in Waterloo, the most notable addition to the standard merch were the mug-shot shirts — with Trump’s glowering face on the front coupled with his message of “NEVER SURRENDER.” | Scott Olson/Getty Images
“That’s really the greatest danger he poses to our democracy,” Zirin told me. “Not that there would be a Muslim ban, not that he would give tremendous tax breaks to the rich who support him, not any of the Republican plans that he associated with, and not even that he would disengage us from foreign alliances,” he said. “The greatest danger is his undermining of the rule of law.
“Trump,” as Swalwell put it to me, “is a legal terrorist.”
“We’re about to go through a great trial in this country. … We’re going to be testing the proposition that the rule of law applies to everyone and no one’s above the law,” California congressman and Senate candidate Adam Schiff told me. “It will be particularly wrenching because Trump will continue to make the false claim that he’s being politically persecuted,” said Schiff, a former federal prosecutor and an impeachment manager in Trump’s first impeachment, “and it will also give Trump the continuing opportunity to tear down the system.”
And now here in Waterloo I heard Trump say immigrants “coming from all over the world” were “destroying the blood of our country.” I heard him say he will “begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” I heard him say “slum areas will be demolished.” I heard him say he “will rout the ‘fake news’ media.” I heard him say he’d never even read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I heard him call the 2020 election “rigged.” I heard him call Biden “truly the worst, most incompetent and most corrupt president in the history of our country.” I heard him call Biden “crooked” — 12 times. I heard him say, “They say, ‘I’m a threat to democracy.’ No, Joe Biden is a threat to democracy.” I heard him call the FBI “the Biden FBI” and the Department of Justice “the department of injustice.” I heard him say he “will direct a completely overhauled DOJ to investigate every radical, out-of-control prosecutor.” I heard him call special counsel Jack Smith “deranged.” I heard him call the documents case a “hoax.” I heard him say he “can’t get a fair trial in Washington.” I heard him say “Biden and the far-left lunatics” were “willing to violate the U.S. constitution.” I heard him say they were “weaponizing law enforcement.” I heard him call the indictments against him “a great badge of honor.” And I heard him say he had good news. “The good news is people get it. That’s why my poll numbers are so high,” he said. “I think we’d be winning by a lot, but now we’re winning by numbers that nobody can believe.” I heard the crowd roar. “This is the single biggest election in the history of our country,” Trump said. “This is going to determine whether or not we even have a country.”
And when the rally was over, I watched the people walk out into the cold, dark night, past the mug-shot merch, past the bumper stickers saying RIGGED, past the flags saying THE RULES HAVE CHANGED.
Arizona slashed taxes for the rich, and now the rest of us are paying for it
Dave Wells – January 12, 2024
Tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed mightily to the budget shortfall that Arizona is now facing.
The state budget will take center stage as the Arizona Legislature begins its session.
Fiscal year 2024 is more than $800 million in deficit, and the fiscal 2025 deficit, based on a base budget that excludes $2.3 billion from the FY24 budget, is projected to be slightly worse, creating a total shortfall for both years of $1.71 billion.
While legislative leaders like House Speaker Ben Toma dismiss the issue as a mere “cash flow problem,” the reality is in 2021, the Arizona Legislature and Gov. Doug Ducey eliminated progressive income taxes, delivering a massive boon to the wealthy.
Progressive income taxes place higher marginal rates on those who are most able to afford it. The wealthy were the prime beneficiaries when the top income tax rate of 4.5% was reduced to a flat rate of 2.5% for all taxpayers.
Tax cuts for the rich slashed revenue
The Grand Canyon Institute has referred to the tax rate change as pizzas vs. Porsches.
Most Arizonans do not realize their income tax payments even changed because the difference was so little, but the wealthiest Arizonans saw tax savings in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Grand Canyon Institute estimates that 70% of the value of reduced tax payments went to the wealthiest 5% of income tax filers who earn $200,000 or more. The net cost of their reduced tax payments is $1.3 billion in fiscal 2024 and will be $1.4 billion in fiscal 2025.
That math is pretty simple for the state’s fiscal 2025 budget. If Arizona recovered the $1.4 billion in tax revenues, the projected deficit is replaced with sufficient revenue to address critical state needs.
The so-called “cash flow problem” is based on a premise that the state will continue to minimally or not fund strategic areas.
And that makes statements like Senate President Warren Petersen saying, “we are going to shrink government a little bit, and that’s not a bad thing” particularly imprudent.
Now, we can’t afford things like this
It’s not like the state was already sufficiently funding key areas. Consider this sample of areas that are likely to be left out of next year’s budget, thanks to the deficit:
K-12 education. The fiscal 2024 budget included a supplemental $300 million for K-12 education, an inadequate amount given the strain on public schools with one in six positions vacant at the start of the academic year. That supplemental appropriation is not included in the baseline fiscal 2025 budget.
Housing. Even though metro Phoenix rents have leveled off, after rising 80% from 2016 to 2021, evictions jumped 23% in the metro Phoenix area from 2022 to 2023. The expiration of federal emergency rental assistance has contributed to household financial problems. The state could help to fill the gap while pushing to increase the supply of housing by fulfilling the Department of Housing’s fiscal 2025 budget requests for $50 million for the housing trust and $40 million for unsheltered services. Other needs include funding for summer daytime shelters, which were previously covered by federal COVID-19 dollars that have also expired. These expenses are not in the baseline budget.
Dental care. Arizona currently only offers an emergency dental benefit for adults on Medicaid (AHCCCS), which means if you can’t get a cavity filled, you can have the tooth pulled if it abscesses. Many people with severe dental pain go to the emergency room at a cost of more than $2,000 per visit to the state, even though they receive only palliative care. For a modest investment, the state could provide basic preventative services to improve dental health and reduce the use of the emergency room. This may cost as little as $10 million, since the federal government covers most of the cost. This policy change is not in the baseline budget.
Universities. Arizona’s public universities are asking for funding for teachers academies to address our teacher shortage and provide Arizona Promise scholarships for lower income students to be able to afford college and improve the state’s overall college attendance rate. These investments would be at least $50 million. These expenses are also not in the baseline budget.
Real leadership at the Legislature would involve restoring progressive income taxes, so the state can make critical investments that enhance the stability and success of all Arizona families and children.
Dave Wells holds a Ph.D. in political economy and public policy and is research director of the Grand Canyon Institute.
Greg Abbott Laments That Texas Can’t Shoot Migrants Because Murder Is Illegal
Nikki McCann Ramirez – January 11, 2024
Texas Governor Greg Abbott lamented that Texas can’t shoot migrants trying to cross the border illegally because “the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”
On Jan. 5, Abbott appeared on the radio show of former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch. During a discussion of Texas’ efforts to curb the illegal entry of migrants through the southern border, Loesch asked “what can be done, like right up to the line, where maybe they would come and say, ‘Governor you’re breaking the law we’re going to arrest you,’” in terms of border enforcement.
Abbott responded that his administration is “deploying every tool and strategy that we possibly can,” to stem the flow of immigration, including building a border wall, placing barriers in the Rio Grande, and passing legislation making illegal border crossings a state crime.
“The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border because of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” Abbott added. The governor’s comments were resurfaced on Thursday by Heartland Signal.
Earlier this month, the Biden administration sued Texas over a law signed by Abbott that would grant local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants and allow judges to order deportations. The administration argues that the law goes against constitutional mandates granting the federal government authority over border enforcement.
Shooting unarmed civilians attempting to cross the border would absolutely constitute murder. It would also violate a myriad of state, federal, and international laws protecting migrants and asylum seekers.
That potential retaliation from the Biden administration is the only thing Abbott referenced as a reason not to shoot migrants signals how extreme the Republican position on immigration has become. In 2019 The New York Times reported that former President Donald Trump privately suggested in a meeting that border patrol be allowed to shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. As reported by Rolling Stone in June, former Trump immigration adviser Stephen Miller once reportedly suggested the use of predator drones to blow up migrant boats.
Trump has also floated granting himself widespread executive powers if reelected in November to completely reshape the American immigration landscape. The former president and his allies prepared to conduct mass deportations and construct a network of detainment camps to facilitate their rounding up of undocumented people. It’s safe to say that if Trump wins the White House in 2024, the already thin barriers preventing more extreme brutality against migrants may crumble very quickly.
Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
By Adam Liptak, Reporting from Washington – January 10, 2023
A lawyer for the former president said he would be immune from prosecution for the murder of a political rival while in office unless he was first impeached and convicted in Congress.
Former President Donald J. Trump has long sought expansive immunity. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
Eight years ago, just before the Iowa caucuses, Donald J. Trump crowed about his invulnerability.
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he said. “It’s, like, incredible.”
On Tuesday, at a federal appeals court argument held the week before this year’s caucuses, a lawyer for Mr. Trump said that the Constitution basically states the same thing.
It took a few questions from Judge Florence Y. Pan to pin down the lawyer, D. John Sauer. But in the end he made the jaw-dropping claim that former presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution even for murders they ordered while in office.
“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would only be permitted if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.
A member of Congress might be reluctant, in any event, to vote against a president prepared to order the military to murder his opponents.
Mr. Sauer’s answer instantly entered the annals of candid concessions that helped doom an argument. It was reminiscent of a government lawyer’s statement, at the first argument in the Citizens United campaign finance case, in 2009, that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said at the time. When the case was reargued, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now a member of the Supreme Court, modified the government’s position but lost anyway, by a 5-to-4 vote.
Mr. Sauer’s statement also called to mind a more direct echo, from a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.
At that time, Judge Denny Chin pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.
“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”
“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy, who died last year. “That is correct.”
This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”
Mr. Trump’s general strategy is not new. He has long sought expansive immunity, and he has frequently invoked impeachment as the primary remedy for presidential misconduct.
But Mr. Sauer’s reading on Tuesday of what lawyers call the impeachment judgment clause did not impress legal scholars.
The provision says: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
It is plain that “the party convicted” in the Senate can still face criminal prosecution. But Mr. Sauer argued that the clause implied two other things: that conviction in the Senate is always required before a criminal prosecution and that acquittal in the Senate bars such prosecution.
Abner S. Greene, a law professor at Fordham University, said that “the impeachment arguments are sure losers — both that the president may be criminally prosecuted only if impeached and convicted, and that the president may not be criminally prosecuted if impeached and not convicted.”
Mr. Trump was acquitted at his second impeachment trial when only 57 senators voted against him, 10 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to convict.
There are reasons to question whether that acquittal bars criminal prosecution. First, Mr. Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection, a claim notably absent from the federal indictment in the election-interference case.
Second, many senators voted to acquit Mr. Trump at the impeachment trial at least in part because he was no longer in office and so, they said, was not subject to the Senate’s jurisdiction.
Third, Mr. Trump’s own lawyers argued at the impeachment trial that the proper response to their client’s conduct was criminal prosecution.
Given Mr. Sauer’s answer on assassination and the gaps in his argument grounded in the impeachment judgment clause, Mr. Trump is likely to lose before the three-judge panel. But he has achieved a significant interim victory. Proceedings in the trial court have been suspended during the appeal and the scheduled start of the trial, on March 4, may slip.
Should Mr. Trump lose before the three-judge panel, he may ask the full appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to rehear the case. It is unlikely to agree to do so, but ruling on the request could take time.
After that, Mr. Trump would very likely ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Last month, the justices turned down an unusual request from Jack Smith, the special counsel, to leapfrog the appeals court and consider the matter immediately.
But that is no reason to think the Supreme Court will not want to have the last word on a question as consequential as the scope of presidential immunity. Even if the court moves very quickly — as it so far has on the separate question of whether Mr. Trump is eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment — it could take several weeks to render a decision.
Time, in other words, is Mr. Trump’s friend. If he can defer the case beyond the election in November and win at the polls, he could try to pardon himself or instruct the Justice Department to drop the case against him. Such moves, in turn, could bring the matter full circle — by prompting calls for a third impeachment.
Takeaways From Trump’s Indictment in the 2020 Election Inquiry
Four charges for the former president. Former President Donald Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. Here are some key takeaways:
The indictment portrayed an attack on American democracy. Smith framed his case against Trump as one that cuts to a key function of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. By underscoring this theme, Smith cast his effort as an effort not just to hold Trump accountable but also to defend the very core of democracy.
Trump was placed at the center of the conspiracy charges. Smith put Trump at the heart of three conspiracies that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to obstruct Congress’s role in ratifying the Electoral College outcome. The special counsel argued that Trump knew that his claims about a stolen election were false, a point that, if proved, could be important to convincing a jury to convict him.
Trump didn’t do it alone. The indictment lists six co-conspirators without naming or indicting them. Based on the descriptions provided, they match the profiles of Trump lawyers and advisers who were willing to argue increasingly outlandish conspiracy and legal theories to keep him in power. It’s unclear whether these co-conspirators will be indicted.
Trump’s political power remains strong. Trump may be on trial in 2024 in three or four separate criminal cases, but so far the indictments appear not to have affected his standing with Republican voters. By a large margin, he remains his party’s front-runner in the presidential primaries.
A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations
Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help.
Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each.
What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.
Receive a Weekly Update: Sign up for the Trump on Trial newsletter to get the latest news and analysis on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.
