Editorial: In DeSantis’ Florida, obsession with LGBTQ Floridians keeps hitting new lows
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board – July 18, 2023
Joe Raedle/Orlando Sentinel/TNS
By now, most Floridians get it: The DeSantis administration is obsessed with targeting the LGBTQ community in Florida dishonestly, irrationally and repetitively across multiple venues.
The latest salvos will be fired on Wednesday, when the state Board of Education takes up a group of proposals that would once again drag Florida educators down the path of persecution. Sooner or later, local school boards — who are elected by, and accountable to, the voters of each county — must start pushing back against this ridiculous, ongoing assault.
The policies up for adoption at Wednesday’s meeting could be a good place to start — assuming they pass, which they likely will. “They’re just continuing the fear mongering from session,” says Jon Harris Maurer, public policy director for Equality Florida, describing 2023 legislative changes that fall squarely into the more-of-the-same-homophobic-nonsense category.
An expansion of the rules intended to force students to use bathrooms associated with their gender determination at birth. This is an offshoot of 2023’s ridiculous “potty purity” law (HB 1521) that attempts to keep transgender individuals out of bathrooms that correspond with their identity across multiple venues, including private businesses and government buildings. Lawmakers have consistently ignored the fact that by determining gender through at-birth assignment, the law is all but guaranteed to generate more uneasiness because it forces individuals to use restroom facilities that don’t match with their current appearance or names. Yet lawmakers seem intent on forcing these uncomfortable confrontations, and have combined the bathroom provision with another rule that threatens the licensure status of teachers who violate it. Yet in most polls taken over the past 10 years, fewer than 40% of voters think that bathroom use by transgender people should be so illogically dictated.
A provision that would extend the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” provisions to middle schools. Remember when DeSantis’ then-communications director put extensive effort into convincing Floridians that the prohibition on classroom discussion of gender and sexual protection was to protect very young children from too much sexy talk — which she used as cover for the ugly contention that anyone who lined up against that legislation was a “groomer?” Well, this rips that argument to shreds: Middle-school-aged children are certainly aware that same-sex relationships exist. Yet this rule also threatens teachers with misconduct charges for talking too much about that reality.
A new rule that seems to be aimed at “protecting” students from unexpected exposure to drag queens at any school-sponsored event or activity, because that’s something that apparently happens all the time. (Or not.) The rule is written so broadly and confusingly that it could apply to many situations that most people would describe as harmless, including performances of Shakespeare plays, showing of the Disney film “Mulan” or a review of some religious texts.
Finally, a rule that punishes teachers that talk too much about preferred pronouns, which could make life difficult for English teachers.
We say these measures are likely to pass, because the Board of Education is currently acting as the public-school arm of DeSantis’ political committee. Still, we laud the organization of human-rights groups including Equality Florida, who intend to mobilize for Wednesday’s meeting (scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the Rosen Shingle Creek resort on Universal Boulevard in Orlando).
Their continued vocal opposition provides an ongoing reminder that, no matter how many times DeSantis and his supporters attack, this will never be something that passes without comment — and that it runs counter to the sentiments of the vast majority of the American people, who have long ago adopted a live-and-let-live approach to gender identity and sexual orientation. In an August 2022 Quinnipiac University poll, fewer than one in four Americans still opposed same-sex marriage. Support for civil-rights protections for LGBTQ people are almost as strong.
We hope, however, that local school officials are also paying attention. Unlike DeSantis’ supporters, who largely hold themselves aloof from the sentiments of Florida voters, they have to face their supporters. Even in the most conservative counties, many school board members are starting to express anguish over the pain they’re being forced to inflict. A widespread rebellion against these cruel and illogical policies might bring retaliation, since DeSantis has become increasingly fond of removing anyone from public office who dares to disagree with him.
But it would be a noble sacrifice. Florida needs more public officials to find the courage to stand up to Florida’s self-designated emperor and say “Governor, for someone so focused on ‘Don’t Say Gay,’ you sure seem to bring it up a lot. Find someone else to execute your politicized cruelty. We’re done.”
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick.
Texas traps pregnant migrants in razor wire, pushes kids back into Rio Grande, state trooper complains
Peter Weber, Senior editor – July 18, 2023
Razor wire at U.S. border in Texas Suzanne Cordeiro / AFP via Getty Images
Rolls of razor wire Texas installed along the U.S. side of the Rio Grande have ensnared several migrants, including a pregnant woman “in obvious pain” while having a miscarriage and a father trying to free his child “stuck on a trap” of razor wire–covered barrels in the water, a Texas state trooper wrote in July 3 email to a superior, the Houston Chronicle reported Monday.
The Dallas Morning News also obtained the email and a corroborating July 4 note from a second Department of Public Safety trooper. Both were identified by name. In recent weeks, as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) “Operation Lone Star” border initiative, Texas has rolled out about 88 miles of razor wire along the Rio Grande and also put buoys in the middle of the river to deter migrants from crossing over from Mexico. This has sparked conflicts with the U.S. Border Patrol, complaints from local businesses, and legal challenges from Mexico.
The trooper, stationed in Eagle Pass, said Operation Lone Star service members have been ordered to push children back into the Rio Grande and told not to give water to asylum seekers even as Texas sweltered in extreme heat.- ADVERTISEMENT -https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-11-1/html/r-sf-flx.html
He recounted seeing National Guard soldiers push a 4-year-old girl trying to cross the razor wire back into the river “due to the orders given to them,” adding that the girl then passed out from exhaustion in temperatures “well over 100 degrees.” The 4-year-old girl, 19-year-old pregnant woman, and others lacerated by the razor wire or injured trying to avoid it in the June 30 incidents were transferred to emergency medical services, the trooper wrote.
On June 25, he added, troopers came across a group of 120 hungry and exhausted people, including small children and nursing babies, resting along the river. The shift officer in command ordered the troopers to “push the people back into the water to go to Mexico,” the trooper recounted, and when the troopers refused and asked for new guidance, they were told to drive off. Other troopers and federal Border Patrol agents then stepped in and provided care to the migrants.
“I truly believe in the mission of Operation Lone Star,” the trooper wrote. “I believe we have stepped over a line into the inhumane.” He specifically said migrants need to be given water, and “the wire and barrels in the river needs to be taken out as this is nothing but a in humane [sic] trap in high water and low visibility.”
DPS spokesman Travis Considine told the Chronicle there is no policy against giving water to migrants and passed along emails from DPS Director Steven McCraw acknowledging seven additional cases in July of migrants needing “elevated medical attention” due to the razor wire. McCraw called for a safety audit and investigation of the trooper’s reports. A spokesman for Abbott said “Texas is deploying every tool and strategy to deter and repel illegal crossings between ports of entry,” criticizing President Biden’s border policies.
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025
The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.
Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman – July 17, 2023
Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.
Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.
Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.
He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.
Mr. Trump and his advisers are openly discussing their plans to reshape the federal government if he wins the election in 2024.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.
“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.
“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.
Equal Rights Amendment: Democrats in Congress are making a fresh push for the nearly century-old amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution.
U.F.O. Records: Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, is pushing legislation to create a commission with broad authority to declassify government documents about U.F.O.s and extraterrestrial matters.
Assailing the F.B.I.: HouseRepublicans bombarded Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, with criticisms during a contentious hearing. Stoked by Donald Trump, Republicans have been trying to undermine the bureau’s legitimacy with the public.
The strategy in talking openly about such “paradigm-shifting ideas” before the election, Mr. Vought said, is to “plant a flag” — both to shift the debate and to later be able to claim a mandate. He said he was delighted to see few of Mr. Trump’s Republican primary rivals defend the norm of Justice Department independence after the former president openly attacked it.
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”
The agenda being pursued by Mr. Trump and his associates has deep roots in a longstanding effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut the so-called administrative state.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Mr. Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.
Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.
That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.
Some elements of the plans had been floated when Mr. Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Mr. Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.
“It would be chaotic,” said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”
The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decades-long effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.
Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.
The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.
Mr. Trump and his allies have been laying out an expansive vision of power for a potential second term.Credit…Christopher Lee for The New York Times
“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”
Personal power has always been a driving force for Mr. Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Mr. Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mr. Mueller ousted, but was defied.
Early in Mr. Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Mr. Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.
Now, Mr. Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
One idea the people around Mr. Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.
Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)
Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.
Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.
Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Mr. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”
Such an order was drafted in Mr. Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.
The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn in the White House.Credit…John Tully for The New York Times
The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Mr. Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Mr. Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Mr. Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.
Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Mr. Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.
“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Mr. Vought said.
Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Mr. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.
Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.
“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”
Mr. Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.
On his campaign website, Mr. Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.
Mr. Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.
The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.
Mr. Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but President Biden rescinded it. Mr. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.
Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.
“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Mr. Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”
Mr. Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.
“We will demolish the deep state,” Mr. Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”
Jonathan Swan is a political reporter who focuses on campaigns and Congress. As a reporter for Axios, he won an Emmy Award for his 2020 interview of then-President Donald J. Trump, and the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Award for “overall excellence in White House coverage” in 2022. More about Jonathan Swan
Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent. A recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, he previously worked at The Boston Globe and The Miami Herald. His most recent book is “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.” More about Charlie Savage
Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. More about Maggie Haberman
A version of this article appears in print on July 17, 2023, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump and Allies Seeking Vast Increase of His Power.
Russian President Vladimir Putin gives a speech during the Victory Day military parade at Red Square in central Moscow on May 9, 2023.GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images
Russia’s economy has deteriorated since Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Its current-account balance has crashed, the ruble is weakening, and it’s status as an energy superpower has crumbled.
At the same time, Russia’s domestic consumption and production are low.
Russia’s economy is a shadow of what it was 16 months ago.
Before Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and prior to the onset of historic sanctions, Moscow commanded the world’s 11th largest economy and played a key role as a reliable, wide-reaching energy exporter.
Now however, from a weakening currency to tepid trade, all signs point to a sharp deterioration with no end in sight.
“Russia might collapse into multiple pieces, like the Soviet Union, and that might not be a bad thing for the world,” Volodymyr Lugovskyy, an economics professor at Indiana University, told Insider this week. “It’s resembling an empire right now, with a central power. Extreme events are highly possible.”
These five statistics illustrate how war has reshaped the Russian economy for the worse.
During the failed mutiny in June by the Wagner Group, the currency tumbled to a 15-month low against the dollar as panicked citizens swapped for alternative currencies.
Over the last month, the ruble has weakened more than 6.8%, and it’s down more than 35% in the last year.
Current-account balance drops 93%
For the April to June quarter, the country posted a current-account surplus of $5.4 billion, marking a 93% plunge from a record $76.7 billion during the same stretch last year, according to the Russian central bank.
The fading current account surplus shows that Moscow has been unable to secure imports, and that its profits from energy exports are failing to prop up the economy like they did before.
Weakening Russian trade surplus illustrates inability to secure imports, and diminishing profits from windfall energy exports.Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute
“The decline in the surplus of the balance of the external trade in goods in January – June 2023 compared to the comparable period of 2022 was caused by a decrease in both the physical volumes of export deliveries and the deterioration in the price situation for the basic Russian export commodities, energy commodities made the most significant contribution to the decline in the value of exports,” the Bank of Russia said in a statement.
Energy revenue crash
Russia’s Finance Ministry said in June that revenue from oil and gas taxes dropped 36% compared to a year ago, while profits from crude and petroleum products fell 31%.
Before the war, Russia was responsible for almost 40% of the European Union’s natural gas imports, and a quarter of the bloc’s crude oil.
Those numbers have gone to almost zero since then, and even though Putin has turned to China and India as alternative buyers, Moscow has had to sell energy at steep discounts.
Russia’s energy exports now go mostly to China and India.Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute
Russian car sales have tumbled
Before the invasion of Ukraine, roughly 100,000 vehicles were sold every single month across Russia, according to Yale research data shared with Insider.
Those sales have collapsed to about a quarter of that level, driven not only by soaring prices and sinking consumer sentiment, but also due to a lack of supply.
Russia has seen a total collapse in car sales over the last year and a half.Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute
Brain drain and emigration
Millions of Russians have emigrated since the start of the war in Ukraine, according to Yale data, with Uzbekistan alone taking in more than 400,000 fleeing citizens.
The flight of capital and talent out of Russia is illustrated in the surge of money transfers to neighboring countries that aren’t normally seen as financial hubs, according to Yale, such as Armenia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.
“While there is no concrete measure of how much capital flight has taken place, proxy measures, such as the explosion of non-resident deposits in UAE bank accounts, suggests that Russians of means are taking their productive capital out of Russia at a dramatic clip,” Yale researcher Jeffrey Sonnenfeld said.
The country’s economic woes have multiplied since its invasion of Ukraine early last year. The conflict has triggered a wave of sanctions from the Western world. Some have even blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for inflicting so much pain on the nation, with Yale researchers saying he’s “cannibalizing” Russia’s economy in his urge to conquer Ukraine.
“The lion’s share of the economy is controlled by the state, the energy and financial sectors, and Putin is taking from the seed capital of those businesses to use as a cookie jar for his war chest,” researchers Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian said.
Russians are buying fewer cars
Russia’s car industry is one part of the economy that’s being squeezed.
Insider’s Phil Rosen reported that car sales in Moscow have tanked by nearly 75% since the Ukraine war broke out. The decline has been fueled by a mix of three factors: soaring prices, decreasing supply, and deteriorating consumer sentiment.
“Russians are just buying less cars, period,” Tian said. “That speaks to the weakness of the consumer in Russia. This is as close to a proxy to deteriorating consumer sentiment as there is, and the story it tells is profoundly distressing. Russians just aren’t spending money.”
At the same time, the number of Russians buying foreign-branded cars – typically viewed as luxury purchases – has neared a standstill. Instead, consumers are buying locally sourced cars, many of which are riddled with mechanical issues.
Moscow’s central bank posted a 93% year-on-year drop in its current-account surplus for the April-June quarter. it fell from a record $76.7 billion to $5.4 billion.
The rough financials show how badly Western sanctions are biting the country, particularly its key energy sector where its oil-and-gas exports have taken a huge hit after price caps and bans were imposed.
Energy export revenue
Moscow garners a big chunk of its revenue from sales of oil and gas products, but Western penalties have eroded that income stream.
In June, Russia’s Finance Ministry said that revenue from oil-and-gas taxes fell 36% compared to a year ago to about 571 billion rubles, and that profits from crude and petroleum products tumbled 31% to 426 billion rubles.
Ruble in freefall
Adding to Russia’s troubles is a tumbling ruble. The country’s currency slumped to a 15-month low of 94.48 against the dollar earlier in July, triggered by capital flight, shrinking tax revenues, and declining central-bank reserves.
“The ruble doesn’t have anywhere to go but down,” Konstantin Sonin, a University of Chicago economist, said in a tweet.
Concerns about the currency’s volatility have prompted a wave of domestic withdrawals from the country’s central bank, amounting to over $1 billion. The bank run was mainly fueled by the recent Wagner revolt.
Russia’s weakening currency has forced the country to take desperate measures. Recently, Russia’s foreign minister urged Southeast Asian countries to dump the dollar and use local currencies to conduct trade.
Donald Trump’s nightmare golf shank caught on camera, and it’s embarrassing
Alia Shoaib – July 16, 2023
Former President Donald Trump.AP Photo/Seth Wenig
Donald Trump hit a terrible shot during a round of golf, shanking the ball way right of the green.
The former president’s poor shot was caught on camera at Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles.
Trump has embraced reports he has a 2.8 handicap, but observers say he is not as good as he claims.
Former President Donald Trump was caught on video hitting a terrible golf shot, shanking the ball way right of his intended target.
In the video posted on Twitter, the person filming can be heard saying: “Trump’s shooting right now. Let’s see if he can hit the green.”
Despite being a few feet from the putting green, Trump takes his swing and sends the ball flying away from the hole and into the rough.
“Oh, he shanked it,” the commentator said in the video, filmed at the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles, and started laughing.
The former president is known to be an avid golfer, owning several golf courses and often devoting his spare time to the sport.
He has also embraced reports listing him as the greatest golfer of any US president with a handicap of 2.8, per The Independent. The average golf handicap for men in 2022 was 14.1, per the United States Golf Association.
Rick Reilly, a sportswriter, also cast doubt on the figure, writing in a book about Trump’s golfing: “If Trump is a 2.8, Queen Elizabeth is a pole vaulter.”
Others who have played with Trump agree that he may not be quite as good as some have made out.
Former pro golfer Brad Faxon said Trump was “a legit 10,” and former LPGA golfer Annika Sörenstam guessed he was “a 9 or 10,” per Golf Digest.
Former President Donald Trump at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on July 28, 2022.Jonathan Ferrey/LIV Golf via Getty Images
“Trump doesn’t just cheat at golf,” Reilly wrote in his book about Trump’s golf.
“He throws it, boots it, and moves it. He lies about his lies. He fudges and foozles and fluffs. At Winged Foot, where Trump is a member, the caddies got so used to seeing him kick his ball back onto the fairway they came up with a nickname for him: ‘Pele.'”
Early this year, Trump claimed victory against “many fine golfers” in the Trump International Golf Club’s Senior Championship, despite reportedly missing one tournament day.
According to The Daily Mail, Trump’s competitors were surprised when they showed up to the course on Sunday only to find that the former president had claimed a five-stroke lead. According to the report, Trump claimed that an earlier round would count for his score in lieu of him having missed the start of the tournament.
Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional
July 15, 2023
FILE – Firearms are displayed at a gun shop in Salem, Ore., Feb. 19, 2021. A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure, one of the toughest in the nation, is constitutional. Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun. The Oregon measure’s fate has been carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June. (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)More
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure – one of the toughest in the nation – is constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety,” Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
The decision comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun.
The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them at home or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote. “The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.”
The latest ruling in U.S. District Court is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Oregon measure’s fate has been carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.
Americans are widely pessimistic about democracy in the United States, an AP-NORC poll finds
Nicholas Riccardi and Linley Saunders – July 14, 2023
Protester David Barrows carries a sign during a rally to press Congress to pass voting rights protections and the “Build Back Better Act,” Monday, Dec. 13, 2021, in Washington. A new poll finds that only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults give high ratings to the way democracy is working in the United States or how well it represents the interests of most Americans. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) In this Jan. 26, 2020, file photo, people cheer as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa. A new poll finds that only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults give high ratings to the way democracy is working in the United States or how well it represents the interests of most Americans. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)A Republican supporter holds a “Save America” sign at a rally for former President Donald Trump at the Minden Tahoe Airport in Minden, Nev., Saturday, Oct. 8, 2022. A new poll finds that only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults give high ratings to the way democracy is working in the United States or how well it represents the interests of most Americans.(AP Photo/José Luis Villegas, Pool, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults give high ratings to the way democracy is working in the United States or how well it represents the interests of most Americans, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Majorities of adults say U.S. laws and policies do a poor job of representing what most Americans want on issues ranging from the economy and government spending to gun policy, immigration and abortion. The poll shows 53% say Congress is doing a bad job of upholding democratic values, compared with just 16% who say it’s doing a good job.
The findings illustrate widespread political alienation as a polarized country limps out of the pandemic and into a recovery haunted by inflation and fears of a recession. In interviews, respondents worried less about the machinery of democracy — voting laws and the tabulation of ballots — and more about the outputs.
Overall, about half the country — 49% — say democracy is not working well in the United States, compared with 10% who say it’s working very or extremely well and 40% only somewhat well. About half also say each of the political parties is doing a bad job of upholding democracy, including 47% who say that about Democrats and even more — 56% — about Republicans.
“I don’t think either of them is doing a good job just because of the state of the economy — inflation is killing us,” said Michael Brown, a 45-year-old worker’s compensation adjuster and father of two in Bristol, Connecticut. “Right now I’m making as much as I ever have, and I’m struggling as much as I ever have.”
A self-described moderate Republican, Brown has seen the United States falling short of its democratic promise ever since learning in high school that the Electoral College allows someone to become president while not winning the majority of national votes. But he’s especially disappointed with Congress now, seeing its obsessions as not reflective of the people’s will.
“They’re fighting over something, and it has nothing to do with the economy,” Brown said, singling out the GOP-controlled House’s investigation of President Joe Biden’s son.
“Hunter Biden — what does that have to do with us?” he asked.
The poll shows 53% of Americans say views of “people like you” are not represented well by the government, with 35% saying they’re represented somewhat well and 12% very or extremely well. About 6 in 10 Republicans and independents feel like the government is not representing people like them well, compared with about 4 in 10 Democrats.
Karalyn Kiessling, a researcher at the University of Michigan who participated in the poll, sees troubling signs all around her. A Democrat, she recently moved to a conservative area outside the liberal campus hub of Ann Arbor, and worried that conspiracy theorists who believe former President Donald Trump’s lies that he won the 2020 election would show up as poll watchers. Her Republican family members no longer identify with the party and are limiting their political engagement.
Kiessling researches the intersection of public health and politics and sees many other ways to participate in a democracy in addition to voting — from being active in a political party to speaking at a local government meeting. But she fears increased partisan nastiness is scaring people away from these crucial outlets.
“I think people are less willing to get involved because it’s become more contentious,” Kiessling, 29, said.
That leads to alienation at the national level, she said — something she certainly feels when she sees what comes out of Washington. “When you have a base that’s a minority of what general Americans think, but they’re the loudest voices in the room, that’s who politicians listen to,” Kiessling said.
Polarization has transformed some states into single-party dominions, further alienating people like Mark Short, a Republican who lives in Dana Point, California.
“In California, I kind of feel that I throw my vote away every time, and this is just what you get,” said Short, 63, a retired businessman.
The poll shows that the vast majority of Americans — 71% — think what most Americans want should be highly important when laws and policies are made, but only 48% think that’s actually true in practice.
And views are even more negative when it comes to specific issues: About two-thirds of adults say policies on immigration, government spending, abortion policy and gun policy are not representative of most Americans’ views, and nearly that many say the same about the economy as well as gender identity and LGBTQ+ issues. More than half also say policies poorly reflect what Americans want on health care and the environment.
Joseph Derito, an 81-year-old retired baker in Elmyra, New York, sees immigration policy as not representing the views of most Americans. “The government today is all for the people who have nothing — a lot of them are capable of working but get help,” said Derito, a white political independent who leans Republican and voted for Trump. “They just want to give these people everything.”
Sandra Wyatt, a 68-year-old retired data collection worker and Democrat in Cincinnati, blames Trump for what she sees as an erosion in democracy. “When he got in there, it was like, man, you’re trying to take us back to the day, before all the rights and privileges everybody fought for,” said Wyatt, who is Black, adding that she’s voted previously for Republicans as well.
She sees those bad dynamics as lingering after Trump’s presidency. “We always knew there was racism but now they’re emboldened enough to go around and shoot people because of the color of their skin,” Wyatt said.
Stanley Hobbs, a retired autoworker in Detroit and a Democrat, blames “a few Republicans” for what he sees as democracy’s erosion in the U.S. He sees those GOP politicians as beholden to a cabal of big businesses and points to issues like abortion as examples of how the laws no longer represent the views of the majority of Americans.
He’s trying to stay optimistic.
“It seems like this always happens in the U.S. and we always prevail,” Hobbs said, recalling how American politicians sympathetic to Nazi Germany gained prominence before World War II. “I just hope we prevail this time.”
Riccardi reported from Denver.
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The poll of 1,220 adults was conducted June 22-26 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
This is what happens when attorneys go along with Kari Lake’s election delusions
Laurie Roberts, Arizona Republic – July 14, 2023
Mark Finchem, Republican candidate for Arizona secretary of state and Kari Lake, Arizona gubernatorial candidate.
A federal judge on Friday ordered the attorneys for Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to pay Maricopa County $122,200 — money the county’s taxpayers spent to fend off a “frivolous” lawsuit brought before last year’s election.
Turns out judges don’t much like to see the court system used as a campaign prop.
Attorneys should take note of this.
Lawsuit was simply a campaign stunt
You may recall that Lake and Finchem — with financial backing from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell — filed suit in April 2022 while they were running for governor and secretary of state.
Their lawsuit asked a judge to bar the machine tabulation of votes in the 2022 election and require that paper ballots be used instead. They claimed that Arizona vote-counting machines produced inaccurate results and that there were no paper ballots to verify the machine count.
Never mind, apparently, the fact that they had no evidence to back up their claims.
Or that Arizona not only already uses paper ballots but state law requires a hand count of a random sample of those ballots, to verify the machine count is accurate.
But then, their lawsuit wasn’t a serious attempt to remedy a real problem. It was yet another campaign stunt, employed to make baseless claims about supposedly stolen elections.
A judge called Lake and Finchem on it
To his credit, U.S. District Court John J. Tuchi called them on it.
Last August, he threw out their lawsuit, noting that the pair provided no evidence that machine counting produces inaccurate results and no proof that a hand count of ballots would be more accurate.
“In sum,” Tuchi wrote, “Plaintiffs lacked an adequate factual or legal basis to support the wide ranging constitutional claims they raised or the extraordinary relief they requested. Plaintiffs filled the gaps between their factual assertions, claimed injuries, and requested relief with false, misleading, and speculative allegations.”
Lawyers, take note: You better have evidence
And on Friday, he socked attorneys Kurt Olsen, Andrew Parker and Alan Dershowitz with the county’s $122K bill, though Dershowitz is liable for just 10% of the tab.
Dershowitz, one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional law experts, tried to wiggle out of any responsibility by minimizing his involvement, but the judge wasn’t having it.
“Attorneys must be reminded that their duties are not qualified in the way he suggests and that courts are entitled to rely on their signatures as certifications their filings are well-founded,” Tuchi wrote.
Turns out judges don’t like it when attorneys throw in with their clients to bring false, misleading and speculative allegations.
Now, they’re on notice that there’s a price to be paid for doing that.
House Republicans push through defense bill limiting abortion access and halting diversity efforts
Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking – July 14, 2023
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed a sweeping defense bill Friday that provides an expected 5.2% pay raise for service members but strays from traditional military policy with Republicans add-ons blocking abortion coverage, diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and transgender care that deeply divided the chamber.
Democrats voted against the package, which had sailed out of the House Armed Services Committee on an almost unanimous vote weeks ago before being loaded with the GOP priorities during a heated late-night floor debate this week.
The final vote was 219-210, with four Democrats siding with the GOP and four Republicans opposed. The bill, as written, is expected to go nowhere in the Democratic-majority Senate.
Efforts to halt U.S. funding for Ukraine in its war against Russia were turned back, but Republicans added provisions to stem the Defense Department’s diversity initiatives and to restrict access to abortions. The abortion issue has been championed by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who is singularly stalling Senate confirmation of military officers, including the new commandant of the Marine Corps.
“We are continuing to block the Biden administration’s ‘woke’ agenda,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.
Turning the must-pass defense bill into a partisan battleground shows how deeply the nation’s military has been unexpectedly swept up in disputes over race, equity and women’s health care that are now driving the Republican Party’s priorities in America’s widening national divide.
During one particularly tense moment in the debate, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke of how difficult it was to look across the aisle as Republicans chip away at gains for women, Black people and others in the military.
“You are setting us back,” she said about an amendment from Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., that would prevent the Defense Department from requiring participation in race-based training for hiring, promotions or retention.
Crane argued that Russia and China do not mandate diversity measures in their military operations and neither should the United States. “We don’t want our military to be a social experiment,” he said. “We want the best of the best.”
When Crane used the pejorative phrase “colored people” for Black military personnel, Beatty asked for his words to be stricken from the record.
Friday’s voted capped a tumultuous week for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as conservatives essentially drove the agenda, forcing their colleagues to consider their ideas for the annual bill that has been approved by Congress unfailingly since World War II.
“I think he’s doing great because we are moving through — it was like over 1,500 amendments — and we’re moving through them,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. She told reporters she changed her mind to support the bill after McCarthy offered her a seat on the committee that will be negotiating the final version with the Senate.
Democrats, in a joint leadership statement, said they were voting against the bill because Republicans “turned what should be a meaningful investment in our men and women in uniform into an extreme and reckless legislative joyride.”
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have chosen to hijack the historically bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to continue attacking reproductive freedom and jamming their right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people,” said the statement from Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California.
The defense bill authorizes $874.2 billion in the coming year for the defense spending, keeping with President Joe Biden’s budget request. The funding itself is to be allocated later, when Congress handles the appropriation bills, as is the normal process.
The package sets policy across the Defense Department, as well as in aspects of the Energy Department, and this year focuses particularly on the U.S. stance toward China, Russia and other national security fronts.
Republican opposition to U.S. support for the war in Ukraine drew a number of amendments, including one to block the use of cluster munitions that Biden just sent to help Ukraine battle Russia. It was a controversial move because the weapons, which can leave behind unexploded munitions endangering civilians, are banned by many other countries.
Most of those efforts to stop U.S. support for Ukraine failed. Proposals to roll back the Pentagon’s diversity and inclusion measures and block some medical care for transgender personnel were approved.
GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas, who served as a White House physician, pushed forward the abortion measure that would prohibit the defense secretary from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.
Jackson and other Republicans praised Tuberville for his stand against the Pentagon’s abortion policy, which was thrust into prominence as states started banning the procedure after the Supreme Court decision last summer overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade law.
“Now he’s got support, he’s got back up here in the House,” Jackson said.
But it’s not at all certain that the House position will stand as the legislation moves to the Senate, which is preparing its own version of the bill. Senate Democrats have the majority but will need to work with Republicans on a bipartisan measure to ensure enough support for passage in their chamber.
McCarthy lauded the House for gutting “radical programs” that he said distract from the military’s purpose.
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee, led by Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, dropped their support due to the social policy amendments.
Smith, who is white, tried to explain to Crane and other colleagues why the Pentagon’s diversity initiatives were important in America, drawing on his own experience as a businessman trying to reach outside his own circle of contacts to be able to hire and gain deeper understanding of other people.
Smith lamented that the bill that the committee passed overwhelmingly “no longer exists. What was once an example of compromise and functioning government has become an ode to bigotry and ignorance.”
Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
