Biden campaign hits Trump over guests at upcoming Palm Beach high-dollar fundraiser
Alex Gangitano – April 5, 2024
President Biden’s reelection campaign hit former President Trump on Friday over the guest list for his high-dollar fundraiser in Palm Beach, Fla., this weekend.
Trump is aiming to outraise Biden’s $26 million fundraiser in New York City last week with the event hosted Saturday by hedge fund founder John Paulson. The event is expected to raise $33 million.
In a statement first sent to The Hill, the Biden campaign focused on the expected attendees to hit Trump on his fundraising strategy of looking to billionaires who have targeted programs such as Social Security.
“If you want to know who Donald Trump will fight for in a second term, just look at who he is having over for dinner Saturday night – tax cheats, scammers, racists, and extremists,” Biden campaign senior spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said.
“Make no mistake, Donald Trump will do the bidding of his billionaires buddies instead of what is best for the American people. He’ll take their checks and cut their taxes, and leave hard working Americans behind, shipping their jobs overseas, gutting Social Security and Medicare, ripping away health care protections, and banning abortion,” she added.
The Biden campaign pointed to Paulson, whom Trump has reportedly considered for Treasury Secretary if he wins, and who said during a 2018 New York University panel that Social Security could be switched to “to defined contribution from defined benefit.”
It called out Jeff Yass, a billionaire businessman and major investor in TikTok, as an expected attendee who floated privatizing Social Security accounts in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece in 2019.
Protecting Social Security has been a major talking point for Biden, one that was stepped up after Trump said in a CNBC interview recently that there was “a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.”
Additionally, the campaign pointed to Michael Hodges, founder of a payday lender, as an attendee. He reportedly told other payday lenders in 2019 that contributions to Trump’s 2020 campaign could mean access to the then-administration, according to The Washington Post. It also pointed out that members of the Mercer family are Trump donors and that hedge fund manager Robert Mercer has argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, citing The New Yorker.
The Biden campaign also pointed to John Catsimatidis, who is expected at the dinner. Catsimatidis, a billionaire who ran for New York City mayor in 2013, compared former President Obama’s plans in 2013 to raise taxes on the wealthy to how “Hitler punished the Jews,” according to Newsweek.
The Biden campaign also argued that Trump’s grassroots fundraising, a strong spot for him in previous campaigns, has slowed down. Meanwhile, the Biden campaign told The Hill that it had its best grassroots fundraising month to date in March, breaking its own record for small-dollar donations for a fifth consecutive month.
Many Democrats Are Worried Trump Will Beat Biden. This One Isn’t.
Simon Rosenberg has spent the past two years telling Democrats they need to calm down. His Biden-will-win prediction is his next big test.
By Adam Nagourney – April 3, 2024
Adam has been covering presidential campaigns since Michael Dukakis ran for president in 1988 — the same campaign in which Simon Rosenberg, the subject of this interview, began his long career in presidential politics.
Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist and consultant, is pushing back against the Democratic doom and gloom.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York Times
Simon Rosenberg was right about the congressional elections of 2022. All the conventional wisdom — the polls, the punditry, the fretting by fellow Democrats — revolved around the expectation of a big red wave and a Democratic wipeout.
He disagreed. Democrats would surprise everyone, he said again and again: There would be no red wave. He was correct, of course, as he is quick to remind anyone listening.
These days, Mr. Rosenberg, 60, a Democratic strategist and consultant who dates his first involvement in presidential campaigns to Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential candidate in 1988, is again pushing back against the polls and punditry and the Democratic doom and gloom. This time, he is predicting that President Biden will defeat Donald J. Trump in November.
In a world of Democratic bed-wetters, to reprise the phrase used by David Plouffe, a senior political adviser to Barack Obama, to describe Democratic fretters, Mr. Rosenberg is the voice of — well, whatever the opposite of bed-wetter is these days. He even has a Substack newsletter offering insights and daily reassurance to his worried readers — “Hopium Chronicles,” the name taken from what the pollster Nate Silver suggested he was ingesting back in 2022.
I talked to Mr. Rosenberg about what it feels like to be an outlier in his own party, and why he sleeps so well at night while so many of his fellow Democrats are plotting their moves to Paris after November. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length, and because Mr. Rosenberg — God love him — likes to talk about this subject. A lot.
Good morning, Simon. And, first things first, thank you for doing this.
Any opportunity I have to talk about the good works of Joe Biden and the Democrats — how could I turn that down?
The idea of this interview is that, at a time when there is so much fretting in the Democratic world, you are not — and have never been — a bed-wetter. Can you explain why? This goes back to the midterm congressional elections in 2022, as I recall?
Yes. The argument I made then was threefold. One was that the Republicans did something unusual in 2022. Usually when a party loses elections, they run away from the politics that caused them to lose. And Republicans were running toward it. They were becoming ever more MAGA, even though MAGA had lost in 2018 and 2020.
Second, that Biden was actually a good president, and we’d have a strong case to make. And third, there’s been this huge increase in citizen engagement in the Democratic Party. We’ve been raising crazy amounts of money and have an unprecedented number of volunteers because of the fear of MAGA.
We were stronger and better than was the conventional wisdom. The constant mistake everyone’s been making since the spring of 2022 has been the overestimating of their strength and the underestimating of ours. We went into Election Day with there being this huge belief that the Democrats were going to get killed. I believed those three things were going to allow us to do better than people expected in 2022. And I have that basic view now about 2024.
Mr. Rosenberg said the only thing that worries him about whether President Biden will win re-election is the issue of time. “I think the campaign got a late start, and we have a lot of work to do to win this thing,” he said. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
But this seems like a different time for Democrats, or certainly for Biden.
Here we are almost two years later, and a lot of the same kinds of things are still happening — and Trump is a far weaker candidate in this election than he was in 2016. He’s more dangerous. He’s more extreme. His performance on the stump is far more erratic and disturbing. I’m just giving you my rap here.
How critical to your case — to your rap — is the Supreme Court decision on abortion rights?
I think the election changed a lot with Dobbs, and it hasn’t really changed very much since. There’s one party that just keeps winning all over the country, and every type of election going back now two years — the same basic dynamic, which is, we keep winning, they keep struggling. Why would it be different in November? My view is that it won’t be, because there’s a structural thing happening underneath all of this, which is that Dobbs broke the Republican Party and that a big chunk of the Republican Party has become loosened from MAGA. It’s costing them in elections and costing them a lot of donors — and money.
But poll after poll shows Americans have unfavorable views of Biden and are distressed about the direction of the country. A Wall Street Journal poll released this week found Mr. Biden trailing Mr. Trump in six of seven swing states. That seems like rocket fuel for the worrying class.
I’m not really surprised by anything we’re seeing. But I will tell you that we were told in 2022 that Biden’s low approval rating meant that Democrats were going to get crushed in the elections. And that’s why I think that centering your understanding of this election around Biden’s approval rating or around the public polling is risky business.
Polling can only tell us where things are today. Those of us who’ve been in the business understand how these things evolve and that polling is very soft this far out. We’re asking polling, in my view, to do too much when we have all this other information and data that’s available to us to augment our understanding. And to me, that additional data suggests that we’re going to have a good election. But we’ve got a long way to go.
Now, on the issue of the nervousness? Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, the media tells us, The New York Times tells us, MSNBC tells us, that we should be looking at this election largely through the prism of current polling. That’s the polling industrial complex asserting itself in a very aggressive way in the daily understanding of our elections. I think those of us who have a more holistic understanding of the health of candidates and parties, we have to keep making our case that there’s a lot of other things we should be looking at.
Is there evidence already that polls that suggest Biden is in trouble are misleading?
Well, the evidence is that Trump has underperformed in these early primary states and underperformed in public polling in every one of these states, except for North Carolina. Second is that we know from polling in these early states that somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the Republican coalition is open to not supporting Trump.
OK, but is there anything that keeps you up at night, that worries you in terms of Biden winning re-election?
I wish we had more time. I think the campaign got a late start, and we have a lot of work to do to win this thing. But we are where we are now, and just have to put our heads down and go to work.
Would you list the backlash against Mr. Biden for Gaza as a problem?
Building and maintaining a winning coalition in a presidential election is always hard, and will be for Biden-Harris in 2024. We are going to have challenges along the way — debates, discussions, even disagreements. But the Democratic Party is very unified right now. There is no one holding back endorsements, or saying they won’t support Biden, as Trump is now facing on the Republican side. Gaza is today a challenge to be managed by Biden, not a threat.
What about third party candidates? What if Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to name the most famous, grabs ballot lines in super-close swing states?
We know from history that we have to take all that very seriously. Democrats understand that we are not just running against Donald Trump this cycle, but we’re running against three other candidates as well, and that we’re going to have to engage them. We’re going to have to treat them like they are serious candidates in this election. And we have to do what we do in politics, which is we have to make them unacceptable to voters.
Is anyone on your side of the house listening to you on all of this? Do you feel like an outlier in your own party — or rather, why are you such an outlier in your own party?
Because polling.
Mr. Rosenberg works at his home in Washington, D.C., with his colleague, Lincoln Cooper. Mr. Rosenberg’s Substack newsletter offers insights and daily reassurance to his worried Democratic readers. Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York Times
But also, Democrats tend to gravitate to the negative right?
Yes. There is that. And also because there’s a sense that, in the Democratic Party, if we stumble in an election, our democracy could go away. The worry that people have is warranted.
But I’m looking at a lot more than just polling.
The other factor, I would argue, is that Democrats still remember what happened in 2016, when Trump beat Hillary Clinton after polls told them to expect an easy Clinton victory.
Yeah. There’s trauma from 2016 about the election. The most important thing I can say, however you put this in, is that it isn’t like Democrats are sitting around in their houses twiddling their thumbs and throwing things at the television.
Does this mean you are not worried about Biden’s age as a factor in this election?
I am. I know Biden’s age is an issue. But I think Biden assuaged a lot of the concerns that people had with a strong performance at the State of the Union. But also you have to write, in my view, you have to be honest and fair-minded: there’s a strong argument that Biden’s age is also an asset for him, that, in a time of an enormous challenge for the country, having the guy who’s the most experienced person to ever be in the Oval Office may have been a blessing for us. I think we can make that case without sounding like, you know, we’re pushing the envelope on truth.
Are there any other Democrats who would be — would have been — stronger against Trump in this election?
I don’t think that’s even worthy of — no, no, I mean, Joe Biden’s the nominee. I mean, it’s not worthy of speculation, right? Look, we just had a primary. People could have challenged him. They didn’t because they didn’t think they could beat him. And the two candidates who did challenge him got crushed.
We are quietly confident. In the grand scope of things, we can handle this; we can win the election. The big thing that people got wrong in 2022 was that they thought the Democratic Party wasn’t going to bring it, that we weren’t hungry and we weren’t energized. And it turned out that we were.
Adam Nagourney is a national political reporter for The Times, covering the 2024 campaign.
Terrified Parents, New Age Health Nuts, MAGA Exiles. Meet the R.F.K. Jr. Faithful.
By Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist – April 4, 2024
Photographs by Michael Schmelling
Chris Inclan, an alcohol and drug counselor from Sonoma, Calif., voted for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein in 2016. In 2020 he backed Andrew Yang in the Democratic primary and cast a ballot for Donald Trump in the general election. Joe Biden, he said, was “so ingrained in the establishment and politics as usual,” while Trump “went against the grain on a lot of issues,” including wars and government regulation. But Inclan, a big bearded 39-year-old with tattoos on his hands, doesn’t want to have to make that choice again, which is why he’s now enthusiastically supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I met Inclan at the Oakland rally where Kennedy introduced his new running mate, the 38-year-old political donor Nicole Shanahan. Held in the auditorium of the Henry J. Kaiser Center for the Arts, it was the first political rally Inclan had ever attended.
“The system is corrupt,” he said of what he called the two-party “duopoly.” “We keep playing the same game. But I think Americans are fed up.” He’d joined Kennedy’s We the People Party, formed to help Kennedy get on the ballot in several states, and has aspirations to run for office himself someday.
Setting up banners at Kennedy’s campaign event in Oakland, Calif., to announce his pick for a running mate.
Inclan’s politics are hard to understand in purely left or right terms. The more relevant dichotomy, for him as for many Kennedy voters, is insider versus outsider, which is why Kennedy’s following sometimes overlaps, in unexpected ways, with the MAGA movement.
Matt Castro, a San Francisco bus driver at the rally, described himself as “extremely left-leaning,” but didn’t vote in the last election and said that, if Kennedy isn’t on the ballot, he’d probably vote for Trump in the next one, because of his opposition to military support for Ukraine. Alex Klett, a 33-year-old Kennedy volunteer from Wisconsin who was handing out American flags, described himself as a right-leaning independent who voted for Trump in 2016 and then, in 2020, wrote in Kanye West.
Another Kennedy volunteer, Jaclyn Aldrich, a striking 43-year-old Black woman who sometimes works as a model, has never cast a presidential ballot, because she hadn’t trusted any of the candidates. “I didn’t even vote for Obama,” she said. Among her fellow volunteers, she said, are some former Bernie Sanders voters, but “it’s mostly Trump people.”
This is a paradox of the Kennedy campaign. Many Democratic and Republican insiders view Kennedy as a danger to Biden’s re-election. Timothy Mellon, the top donor to the Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc., is also the top donor to the Kennedy super PAC American Values 2024, suggesting he thinks Kennedy will help Trump. The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, has recently formed a unit, including veteran Democratic operative Lis Smith, devoted to battling third-party candidates, and Kennedy is getting most of its attention.
But on the ground, I haven’t met many Kennedy-curious voters for whom Biden is a second choice. Instead, Kennedy attracts many of the same sort of alienated political eccentrics who in the past have gravitated to Trump. “They keep saying that he’s pulling from Biden, but most of our people are actually coming from the right,” said Leigh Merinoff, volunteer chair of the finance committee of American Values.
Anecdotes aren’t the same thing as data, and people who go to rallies and volunteer for campaigns aren’t necessarily representative of the electorate, which is full of people who are much more disengaged. Nevertheless, there’s a gap between both Democratic and Republican assumptions about Kennedy’s appeal and the character of his real-life movement. He’s much more of a wild card than left-wing third-party candidates like Stein and Cornel West. There’s something distinctly Trumpy in his campaign’s mix of New Age individualism, social media-fueled paranoia and intense, aching nostalgia for the optimistic America of the early 1960s, when Kennedy’s uncle John F. Kennedy was president and his father, Robert F. Kennedy, served as attorney general. It’s not surprising that some otherwise Trump-leaning voters are picking up on it.
Faces at recent Kennedy campaign events in California.
On the surface, Kennedy’s choice of Shanahan, a patent lawyer and former Democrat who has donated to candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Marianne Williamson, might seem as if it would draw more left-leaning voters into the campaign. In introducing Shanahan, an avid surfer who met her ex-husband, the Google founder Sergey Brin, at a yoga festival, Kennedy said, “I wanted a vice president who shared my passion for wholesome, healthy foods, chemical-free, for regenerative agriculture, for good soils,” as well as an athlete who “would help me inspire Americans to heal, to get them back in shape.”
One can imagine voters who frequent farmers markets and follow wellness influencers seeing an idealized version of themselves in her. And while large parts of the New Age and alternative health community moved right during the pandemic in response to lockdowns and vaccine mandates, it’s still a world with plenty of people who think of themselves as progressives.
Indeed, the most interesting thing about Shanahan is the way she dramatizes how Kennedy wins over voters like her. In the week after her debut as a candidate, Shanahan hasn’t made any mainstream media appearances, but she did speak at length on the podcast of Rick Rubin, the music producer and, recently, self-help author, telling the story of her conversion from lifelong Democrat to Kennedy acolyte.
Their conversation is fascinating, demonstrating how frustrations with conventional medicine and the desire for a transcendent order — for a big holistic framework that makes sense of the world’s destabilizing chaos — lead away from technocratic liberalism and toward, well, the unstable political formation that’s coalescing around Kennedy. Listening to it, you can hear a smart and sensitive woman narrating her own journey down the rabbit hole, a portal that took her to a place where she could help swing the 2024 election and thus the course of American history.
Shanahan came to Kennedy the way many desperate parents have. During the pandemic, her 18-month-old daughter was diagnosed, over Zoom, with autism, and she described how none of the interventions offered by experts helped. Another Silicon Valley mom with an autistic child urged her to listen to Kennedy, who has long asserted a false link between vaccines and autism. Though Shanahan was resistant at first — she knew about Kennedy’s reputation as a conspiracy theorist — she tuned into his podcast.
Around the same time, she got deep into the work of Jack Kruse, a neurosurgeon and self-described “biohacker” who emphasizes the importance of sunlight for good health. (Kennedy and Kruse appeared together on Rubin’s podcast last year.) Kruse, said Shanahan, awakened her to the idea that autism could be “related to the way that the brain was responding to some kind of outside influence” — like vaccines — “and how to heal the brain.”
She started her daughter, Echo, on a regimen that included lots of early morning light, swimming in a saltwater pool and music frequencies that send “a signal to brain cells that they can repair.” (“Morning sunlight in particular is like chicken soup for metabolic health,” she told Rubin.) At the same time, she worked to reduce Echo’s exposure to “nonnative light sources,” and cellular and Wi-Fi signals. These interventions, she said, have all helped her daughter. “When it works, maybe we need science to catch up,” she said.
When she met Kennedy last summer, she was impressed by his record of “looking at the environmental exposures and the things that impact human health that are man-created,” she said. Shanahan lamented what she sees as widespread closed-mindedness in the face of the questions she wants to explore. “My daughter has lifted the veil for me,” she said, in an allusion to Aldous Huxley’s work on psychedelics. “If we’re talking about my support for Bobby Kennedy, that is what has brought me to this movement.”
A Kennedy supporter in Oakland.Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy’s running mate.
Shanahan was never all that left-wing; she helped fund the recall campaign against San Francisco’s progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin. Still, her presence on the ticket has alienated some right-leaning Kennedy fans. Shortly after she was announced, one erstwhile Kennedy supporter posted a link to an online “Save R.F.K. Jr. Rally” on Kennedy’s campaign website, demanding the firing of Kennedy’s campaign manager for promoting a “C.I.A., feminist agenda” by bringing Shanahan on board. (It was quickly taken down.) “I think the pick was meant to be more about covering his left flank, and I found that an odd calculation,” Chamath Palihapitiya, a venture capitalist who has co-hosted a fund-raiser for Kennedy, said on the podcast “All-In.”
In fact, the calculation makes perfect sense: Kennedy needs Shanahan’s money. Her divorce settlement from Brin isn’t public, but she reportedly asked for more than $1 billion, about 1 percent of his net worth at the time, and she’s clearly extremely wealthy. Campaign finance law allows both presidential and vice-presidential candidates to pour unlimited funds into their own races, and the process of getting Kennedy on state ballots as a third-party candidate is going to be expensive. Shanahan has shown she’s willing to spend; she gave $4 million to American Values 2024 to fund a Kennedy ad that ran during the Super Bowl.
Introducing Shanahan in Oakland, Kennedy said, with a straight face, that there is “no American more qualified” than she to serve as vice president. But his speech also gestured at the heart of those qualifications. Shanahan, he said, would help him liberate America from the “predatory cabal” that controls the campaign finance system.
It’s doubtful, however, that Shanahan will be able to help Kennedy in ways that go beyond finances, and not just because the influence of vice-presidential candidates tends to be limited, especially with third-party aspirants. (My guess is that few readers remember either Ralph Nader’s or Jill Stein’s running mates.) Shanahan appears to find negative publicity debilitating, an unusual quality in an aspiring politician and one that may limit her visibility.
Before joining the Kennedy ticket, she was probably best known for her divorce from Brin, which, according to The Wall Street Journal, was precipitated by an affair with Elon Musk. (Both she and Musk deny this.) In an essay in People magazine, she described the scrutiny that followed the Journal article as unbearable. “I was thrust into the public eye; the online images and commentary felt more like a zeitgeist than depictions of my lived experiences,” she wrote. Insisting that she’s “not a public person,” she called the Journal article and its aftermath “a disaster for my work life, my reputation and my ability to communicate the things I care most deeply about.”
This week, “Fox & Friends” promoted an appearance by Kennedy and Shanahan, but Kennedy ended up going on alone. In a post on the social media platform X, Shanahan wrote, “While Bobby’s out there spreading our message on TV right now, I’m working behind the scenes to make sure we’re on the ballot in all 50 states.” So rather than add a new note to Kennedy’s message, Shanahan is mostly just using her fortune to amplify what he’s already been saying. And what he’s been saying is often quite reactionary. (The campaign didn’t respond to my requests to interview Kennedy or Shanahan.)
At a Kennedy campaign event in Los Angeles.
The last time I saw Kennedy speak, in June in New Hampshire, he was still a Democrat, running a doomed primary challenge to Biden in a campaign managed by the quirky former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich. Seeking to echo the famous 1963 “Peace” speech in which his presidential uncle called for a halt to the Cold War arms race, Kennedy warned against antagonizing Russia over Ukraine, presenting himself as an antiwar candidate.
Some of his followers still see him that way, but now they must either rationalize or overlook his zealous support for Israel’s war in Gaza. In March, weeks after the Biden administration called for a six-week cease-fire, Kennedy was skeptical of the idea, telling Reuters that previous truces have “been used by Hamas to rearm, to rebuild and then launch another surprise attack.” Though he often rails against censorship, he cheered on the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman’s demand that Harvard do more to crack down on antisemitism, writing, “It’s time to hold college administrations responsible for the epidemic of campus antisemitism by insisting on zero-tolerance policies.”
Kucinich left the campaign in mid-October in ambiguous circumstances, though he’s hinted that disagreements with Kennedy about Gaza had something to do with his departure. (The campaign is now run by Kennedy’s daughter-in-law Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, a former C.I.A. officer.) In November, Sayer Ji, an alternative medicine promoter and key anti-vaccine influencer, withdrew his endorsement of Kennedy over Gaza. Charles Eisenstein, a major intellectual figure in New Age circles, is still advising Kennedy but has been openly critical of his stance on Israel.
While there are still some progressive figures in Kennedy’s orbit, his campaign has an increasingly right-wing vibe. Border security has become a central part of his pitch. Since January, his communications director has been Del Bigtree, a leading anti-vaccine activist who doubts that climate change is caused by human activity and who spoke at the MAGA Freedom Rally near the Capitol on Jan. 6. “I wish I could tell you that this pandemic really is dangerous,” Bigtree said then. “I wish I could believe that voting machines work and that people care. You’ve been sold a lie!”
The conservative talk radio host Randy Economy, one of the leaders of the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, is Kennedy’s senior adviser for ballot access. An opening speaker at the Oakland event was Angela Stanton-King, a Black conservative QAnon promoter who served time for her role in a car-theft ring and was pardoned by Donald Trump.
An attendee at a Kennedy event carried a book of L. Ron Hubbard essays.Yvette Corkrean, the Republican nominee for a California Senate seat, attended the Oakland event.
Some strains of New Age wellness culture — with its distrust of mainstream expertise, moralistic view of health and weakness for quackery — have long intersected with right-wing politics. (Alex Jones, after all, made much of his fortune shilling health supplements.) The connection between alternative medicine and conservatism grew significantly stronger during the pandemic, as the center of gravity in the anti-vaccine movement moved rightward and longtime right-wingers grew increasingly mistrustful of Big Pharma and, with it, Big Food.
“The globalists want you to be fat, sick, depressed and isolated — the better to control you and to milk you for as much economic value as they can before they kill you,” a pseudonymous far-right figure who goes by Raw Egg Nationalist said on the 2022 Tucker Carlson special “The End of Men.”
Kennedy’s conservationism can sound a lot like that of Raw Egg Nationalist. His commitment to the environment is tempered by paranoia about federal government power that makes him suspicious of regulation. Climate change “is being used as a pretext for clamping down totalitarian controls, the same way the Covid crisis was, and it’s the same people,” he said in a campaign video featuring Jordan Peterson, the anti-woke psychologist and author. Dismissing the efficacy of a “war on carbon,” Kennedy said he’d approach energy issues using “free markets and not top-down control.”
Because of his hostility to the state, Kennedy’s environmentalism often manifests as a belief in the redemptive power of healthy living and closeness to nature, which Shanahan shares. This ethos helps explain Shanahan’s much-publicized criticism of I.V.F. “I believe I.V.F. is sold irresponsibly, and my own experience with natural childbirth has led me to understand that the fertility industry is deeply flawed,” she wrote in People. She’s interested in low-cost, organic alternatives. “I’m not sure that there has been a really thorough mitochondrial respiration study on the effects of two hours of morning sunlight on reproductive health,” she said on a panel last year. “I would love to fund something like that.” Hearing this, I couldn’t help thinking of Carlson’s promotion, on his “End of Men” special, of testicle tanning to raise testosterone levels.
Of course, even though the Kennedy camp has a lot in common with the esoteric new right, Kennedy could still siphon Democratic votes from Biden. A lot of undecided voters don’t follow politics closely, and some who are unhappy about their major-party choices may find themselves drawn to Kennedy’s mythic last name and green-seeming, anti-establishment pitch.
“Anything that splits up the anti-Trump coalition hurts Biden,” said Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump conservative pollster who regularly asks about Kennedy in focus groups. As she sees it, the largest group of persuadable voters in 2024 are the so-called double haters, those who disapprove of both Trump and Biden. “My experience over the years in the focus groups is that when Trump is top of mind for people, people who dislike both him and Biden end up disliking Trump more,” said Longwell. Kennedy, she fears, could give people who might otherwise reluctantly vote for Biden an off-ramp from making a dispiriting decision.
No one knows how the race will ultimately shake out.
Some polls back up this analysis. A recent Quinnipiac survey shows Kennedy getting 13 percent of the vote; he has support from 9 percent of Democrats, 8 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of independents. The poll shows Biden leading Trump by three points in a head-to-head matchup but Trump ahead by one point when third-party candidates are included. Though both numbers are within the poll’s margin of error, they suggest that Trump could benefit if the election isn’t seen as a binary choice.
Other polls, however, show Kennedy pulling more voters from Trump, and the truth is no one knows how the election will ultimately shake out. “The public polling, if you dig into it, can be really head-swiveling,” said Smith. “It’s very hard to gauge the impact, but it does seem like he pulls from both, and right now — emphasis on ‘right now’ — slightly more from Biden.”
Kennedy certainly has no qualms about spoiling the election for Trump. On CNN on Monday, he argued that Biden poses a “much worse” threat to democracy than Trump because of the Biden administration’s attempts to get social media companies to remove vaccine misinformation, much of it spread by Kennedy.
“President Biden is the first candidate in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, to censor his opponent,” he said. The primary threat to democracy, he added, “is not somebody who questions election returns,” noting that he believed the 2004 election was stolen from John Kerry. “So I don’t think people who say that the election is stolen — we shouldn’t make pariahs of those people,” he said.
This interview was clarifying about Kennedy’s intentions. But precisely because he evidently views Trump, not Biden, as the lesser of two evils, he may prove most attractive to voters who also view the election that way. That, however, would depend on people grasping what he stands for. So it might not be a disaster for Democrats if Shanahan can help Kennedy be more widely heard.
“If anyone is listening who never considered an independent ticket, I want to extend the same invitation to you that my friend did to me last year,” said Shanahan in her Oakland speech. “Please, listen to Bobby Kennedy in his own words.” It’s sage advice.
Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights, and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment.
“Things just got very real”: Legal experts say Jack Smith appeal threat “puts Cannon on notice”
Igor Derysh – April 3, 2024
Jack Smith Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team on Tuesday pushed back against an order the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Smith and Trump’s lawyers submitted proposed jury instructions in response to an unusual order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon based on competing interpretations of the Presidential Records Act. The PRA requires a president to turn over his documents to the National Archives upon leaving office but Trump has claimed it gives him the right to deem government records as personal property.
Smith’s team in a filing said the jury instructions were based “fundamentally flawed legal premise” and asked the Trump-appointed judge to rule before a trial so he can appeal if the court rules against him because any jury instructions that include the PRA would “distort the trial.”
“The PRA’s distinction between personal and presidential records has no bearing on whether a former President’s possession of documents containing national defense information is authorized under the Espionage Act, and the PRA should play no role in the jury instructions,” Smith said in the filing. “Indeed, based on the current record, the PRA should not play any role at trial at all.”
“Things just got very real in the classified documents prosecution,” tweeted New York University Law Prof. Ryan Goodman, citing Smith’s threat to appeal in response to “Cannon’s outlandish jury instructions.”
Smith “just threw down the gauntlet” by threatening to immediately appeal if Cannon rules against him to “avoid a miscarriage of justice at trial,” wrote former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
“To make this crystal clear, if trial begins and Judge Cannon makes a ruling that is legally erroneous *in the middle of the trial*, resulting in a not guilty verdict, prosecutors *cannot* appeal the verdict,” he explained. “That’s why Jack Smith wants a ruling before trial, so he can appeal.”
National security attorney Bradley Moss said the Smith filing “puts Cannon on notice that he has had enough.”
“The PRA angle is a question of law, not fact, and if she believes Trump’s PRA defense she should grant his motion and let Smith take this to the 11th circuit already,” he wrote.
Trump’s team also submitted proposed jury instructions that read like a “’Choose Your Own Adventure’ that always leads you to ‘Not guilty,’” tweeted Politico’s Kyle Cheney.
Trump’s team said that Cannon’s instructions are consistent with the former president’s position that the “prosecution is based on official acts” he took as president rather than the illegal retention of materials.
“You heard evidence during the trial that President Trump exercised that authority, at times verbally and at times without using formal procedures, while he was President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the hypothetical jury instructions. “I instruct you that those declassification decisions are examples of valid and legally appropriate uses of President Trump’s declassification authority while he was President of the United States.”
Trump’s team essentially used the jury instructions to “reassert supposed bases for dismissal,” explained former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman.
“Cannon is definitely in a pickle, but has nobody to blame but herself for it,” he wrote.
“The Mar-a-Lago case remains the steepest legal challenge Trump faces,” Mariotti tweeted. “Absolutely devastating evidence that is almost impossible for Trump to overcome. That’s why he is trying to delay and is making absurd arguments about the Presidential Records Act.”
Federal judge condemns ‘normalization’ of January 6 while sentencing defiant rioter
Marshall Cohen, CNN – April 3, 2024
Jay Mallin/Zuma/Alamy/File
A federal judge on Wednesday blasted a convicted January 6 rioter for downplaying the US Capitol attack and using the kind of revisionist rhetoric that former President Donald Trump often uses on the campaign trial.
“This cannot become normal… We cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 US Capitol riot,” US District Judge Royce Lamberth said while sentencing Taylor James Johnatakis to more than seven years in prison.
The judge warned of a “vicious cycle … that could imperil our institutions” if Americans, upset with future election results, resort to the “vigilantism, lawlessness and anarchy” that occurred on January 6, 2021.
He did not reference Trump by name while sentencing Johnatakis, but the comparisons were clear. After Johnatakis’ conviction in November, he has mirrored Trump’s rhetoric in interviews about the insurrection, saying “everything about January 6 is just overblown,” and referring to the jail in Washington, DC, as a “gulag.”
Trump has used what “January 6 hostages” front and center in his campaign. He has pledged to pardon some of the people facing charges for their role in the insurrection. And he has played a song at political rallies that features the voices of January 6 inmates singing the national anthem.
The judge declared Wednesday that “the January 6 riot was not civil disobedience,” but instead was a “corrosive” and “selfish, not patriotic” affront to the nation, where Americans were “battling (their) own representative government.” He invoked the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau as examples of historic American figures who pursued “peaceful” but powerful acts of civil disobedience.
“There can be no room in our country for this sort of political violence,” Lamberth said.
Johnatakis briefly spoke during the hearing, only to say “I repent for my sins,” and to ask several questions common among so-called Sovereign Citizen conspiracy theorists who don’t recognize the authority of the federal government.
Lamberth, a senior judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, dismissed these inquiries as “gobbledygook.”
Johnatakis was found guilty in November by a federal jury of seven crimes, including assaulting a police officer and obstructing the congressional proceedings. He has been in the DC jail since his conviction.
According to evidence presented at trial, Johnatakis attended Trump’s rally on January 6 and then threatened to “break down doors” while marching toward the Capitol. Once outside the building, he incited fellow Trump supporters in the massive mob by spewing fiery rhetoric over a megaphone – and later led the charge to breach the police line by using a metal barricade to overpower the officers.
He has been defiant about his actions, saying in a recent interview that “we did nothing” on January 6, and writing about the “injustice” that he and other Capitol riot defendants are facing behind bars.
Prosecutors said he deserved a longer prison term because of his “continued lack of remorse.”
Man who used megaphone to lead attack on police during Capitol riot gets over 7 years in prison
Michael Kunzelman – April 3, 2024
This image from police body-worn camera video, contained and annotated in the Justice Department’s government’s sentencing memorandum supporting the sentencing of Taylor James Johnatakis, shows Johnatakis at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Johnatakis, of Washington state, who used a megaphone to orchestrate a mob’s attack on police officers guarding the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced on Wednesday to more than seven years in prison. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said videos captured Johnatakis playing a leadership role during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. (Department of Justice via AP)Rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Taylor James Johnatakis of Washington state, who used a megaphone to orchestrate a mob’s attack on police officers guarding the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced on Wednesday to more than seven years in prison. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said videos captured Johnatakis playing a leadership role during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Washington state man who used a megaphone to orchestrate a mob’s attack on police officers guarding the U.S. Capitol was sentenced on Wednesday to more than seven years in prison.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said videos captured Taylor James Johnatakis playing a leadership role during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. Johnatakis led other rioters on a charge against a police line, “barked commands” over his megaphone and shouted step-by-step directions for overpowering officers, the judge said.
“In any angry mob, there are leaders and there are followers. Mr. Johnatakis was a leader. He knew what he was doing that day,” the judge said before sentencing him to seven years and three months behind bars.
Johnatakis, who represented himself with an attorney on standby, has repeatedly expressed rhetoric that appears to be inspired by the anti-government “ sovereign citizen ” movement. He asked the judge questions at his sentencing, including, “Does the record reflect that I repent in my sins?”
Lamberth, who referred to some of Johnatakis’ words as “gobbledygook,” said, “I’m not answering questions here.”
Prosecutors recommended a nine-year prison sentence for Johnatakis, a self-employed installer of septic systems.
“Johnatakis was not just any rioter; he led, organized, and encouraged the assault of officers at the U.S. Capitol on January 6,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.
A jury convicted him of felony charges after a trial last year in Washington, D.C.
Johnatakis, 40, of Kingston, Washington, had a megaphone strapped to his back when he marched to the Capitol from then-President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House on Jan. 6.
“It’s over,” he shouted at the crowd of Trump supporters. “Michael Pence has voted against the president. We are down to the nuclear option.”
Johnatakis was one of the first rioters to chase a group of police officers who were retreating up stairs outside the Capitol. He shouted and gestured for other rioters to “pack it in” and prepare to attack.
Johnatakis shouted “Go!” before he and other rioters shoved a metal barricade into a line of police officers. He also grabbed an officer’s arm.
“The crime is complete,” Johnatakis posted on social media several hours after he left the Capitol.
He was arrested in February 2021. He has been jailed since November 2023, when jurors convicted him of seven counts, including obstruction of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress that certified Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. The jury also convicted him of assault and civil disorder charges.
Justice Department prosecutor Courtney Howard said Johnatakis hasn’t expressed any sincere remorse or accepted responsibility for his crimes on Jan. 6.
“He’s going so far as to portray himself as a persecuted victim,” she said.
Lamberth said he received over 20 letters from Johnatakis, his relatives and friends. Some of his supporters don’t seem to know the full extent of Johnatakis’ crimes on Jan. 6, the judge added. He said he would order the clerk of court’s office to send all them copies of his prepared remarks during the sentencing hearing.
“There can be no room in our country for this sort of political violence,” Lamberth said.
Last April, Lamberth ordered a psychologist to examine Johnatakis and determine if he was mentally competent to stand trial. The judge ultimately ruled that Johnatakis could understand the proceedings and assist in his defense.
Approximately 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 800 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds getting terms of imprisonment ranging from several days to 22 years.
Several Trump supporters involved in Jan. 6 are running for office this year
Diana Paulsen, Monica Dunn, Kelly Davis and Abigail Russ April 3, 2024
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump has promised to pardon many of his supporters convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol if he’s elected in November.
Further down the ballot in the 2024 elections, several convicted rioters and others who were involved in the lead-up to the Capitol attack are running for local and national office themselves.
This fall will also see a candidate who was on the other side of the clash on Jan. 6, 2021. Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who faced down a crowd of rioters, is running to replace retiring Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland. The primary in that race is on May 14.
NBC News has identified seven candidates who are running for elected office this year who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6 or attended the Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded it, plus three more who ran but have already lost in primaries. Only one candidate — Derrick Evans of West Virginia — returned NBC News’ request for comment for this story.
Kimberly Dragoo, Missouri
Kimberly Dragoo before entering the Capitol through a window. (U.S. District Court)
Kimberly Dragoo, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, is running for a seat on the St. Joseph Board of Education in Missouri.
Dragoo participated in the riot with her husband, Steven, who photographed the couple throughout the day, including when she went through a broken window into the Capitol, according to court documents. She is one of 10 candidates running for three open seats for a board that oversees 10,000 students and 1,500 staff members, per the district’s website. The election will occur on April 2.
Michele Morrow, North Carolina
Michele Morrow won the Republican primary for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Education and will face democrat Mo Green in November.
Morrow has said publicly that she attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 but that she did not enter the Capitol building. Morrow spoke to a local news station about her experience shortly after Jan. 6, saying that she “was up there” and “around the Capitol” and tried to discourage others from committing violence. She said she was “telling everyone we cannot expect our lawmakers to uphold the law if we’re going to break the law.” She has not been charged in connection with Jan. 6.
Morrow has recently gained national prominence for past social media posts in which she called for violence against prominent Democrats, including calls for the execution of President Joe Biden and then-President Barack Obama, which were first reported by CNN. In a video posted on X, she responded to the reporting of her posts saying they were “old comments taken out of context, made in jest, or never made in the first place.” She accused the media of reporting on the statements to “hide the radicalism of the Democrat platform.”
If elected, Morrow would oversee the nearly 3,000 public schools in North Carolina, attended by 1.4 million children. Morrow has no elected experience, has said that she homeschools her children and has described public schooling as “indoctrination” in social media posts.
Jason Riddle, New Hampshire
Jason Riddle holds a bottle of wine inside the Capitol. (via NBC Boston)
Jason Riddle pleaded guilty to entering the Capitol and theft of government property and was sentenced to 90 days in prison. Now, he is running for Congress in New Hampshire’s Second District. He admitted to chugging a bottle of wine inside the building and provided a photo of himself holding the bottle to media outlets, per government filings.
This is his second run for Congress. He also ran in 2022, but his candidacy was complicated by the fact that he was incarcerated at the time. He also initially expressed confusion about what office he was running for. In an interview with NBC Boston, Riddle said that he planned to challenge Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster but he “thought Ann was a state representative.” When told that she was a member of Congress, he replied: “Oh, well, I guess I have to run for that then.”
In a survey about his policy positions for the website Ballotpedia, Riddle described himself as a “recently released January 6th political prisoner” and lists Jesus as his only endorsement. The filing deadline for New Hampshire is in June and he is one of several Republicans seeking to run in the GOP primary, which is set for Sept. 10.
Anthony Kern, Arizona
Anthony Kern Anthony Kern argues in support of a provision in the Arizona budget package that strips cash from Maricopa County Sheriff’s office in Phoenix (Bob Christie / AP file)
Anthony Kern is a current member of the Arizona Senate who signed a document falsely “certifying” the Arizona election for Trump as a fake elector. Kern attended the “Stop the Steal” rally and was outside the Capitol while rioters entered it; multiple news outlets identified him in video of the day posted online. Kern tweeted on Jan. 6 that he was in Washington for “D-Day,” using the hashtag #StopTheSteal. He later condemned the violence. He has not been charged in relation to the attack and there is no evidence that he entered the Capitol.
Kern is running for Congress in Arizona’s 8th District, where he faces several opponents in the race to replace retiring Republican Debbie Lesko. His opponents include Blake Masters, the Republican candidate for Senate in Arizona in 2022, and Abe Hamadeh, the Republican candidate for Arizona Attorney General in 2022. (Hamadeh has filed three legal challenges to his loss in the election, all of which are still pending.)
The district, which covers the northwest Phoenix suburbs, is considered solidly Republican, with Trump having won it in 2020 by 13 points.
Jacob Chansley, Arizona
Jacob Chansley at the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. (Brent Stirton / Getty Images)
Jacob Chansley, better known as the “QAnon Shaman,” has indicated that he’s running for the same seat as Kern, but as a libertarian.
Chansley was sentenced to 41 months in prison for felony obstruction of a proceeding. He is notorious for his unusual attire, having worn a furry horned headdress on Jan. 6.
He filed a statement of interest to run for Congress in November. Chansley does not appear to have a campaign website, has not filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and is not listed as a candidate on the Arizona Libertarian Party’s website. He, like the other candidates, did not respond to NBC News’ request for comment.
Derrick Evans, West Virginia
Derrick Evans at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Department of Justice)
Evans, who had been sworn into office just weeks before the Jan. 6 attack, livestreamed his activities that day on Facebook, including him yelling, “Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!”
When reached for comment this week about how his connection to the riot was affecting his candidacy, Evans said in a statement that he believes there was an effort to steal the 2020 election from Trump.
Katrina Pierson, Texas
Katrina Pierson listens during the Conservative Political Action Conference (Dylan Hollingsworth / Bloomberg via Getty Images file)
Pierson is headed to a runoff in her bid for Texas’ 33rd state House District. Pierson, a former Trump spokesperson, helped organize the rally at the Ellipse and served as a liaison between organizers and the White House, including sharing Trump’s plan to call on his supporters to march to the Capitol, according to the House Jan. 6 Committee’s report. There is no evidence that Pierson went near the Capitol or into the building and she has not been charged with any crimes.
Pierson faces incumbent state Rep. Justin Holland, also a Republican, in a May 28 runoff. She was endorsed in the race by Gov. Greg Abbot and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is targeting state House members who voted to impeach him, including Holland.
Candidates who lost
Several candidates involved in Jan. 6 have already lost their bids for office this cycle.
Ryan Zink, who was convicted of a felony and two misdemeanors for his role in the riot, lost his primary challenge to Rep. Jodey Arrington in Texas’ 19th Congressional District. He filmed himself breaching the Capitol in footage cited by prosecutors, saying, “We’re storming the Capitol! You can’t stop us!” He received about 3% of the vote.
Bianca Gracia lost her bid to represent Texas’ 128th state House District. According to the Jan. 6 committee report, Gracia helped organize a pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 5 and had close ties to the extremist Proud Boys group, even meeting with leaders of that group and of the Oath Keepers on the night before the riot. Gracia gave testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee but largely invoked her Fifth Amendment rights in declining to answer questions. She has not been charged with any crimes and does not appear to have been at or near the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Gracia was endorsed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton but that wasn’t enough to help her defeat ultra-conservative Texas house member Briscoe Cain, who assisted the Trump legal team in its election results challenges in 2020.
1.7 million Texas households are set to lose monthly internet subsidy
Pooja Salhotra – April 2, 2024
A colonia, unincorporated neighborhoods that lack basic services such as street lights, proper drainage, paved roads or waste management, is seen near Edinburg on March 25, 2020. Credit: Verónica G. Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune
The $30 per month Daisy Solis has saved off of her internet bill for the past two years stretched a long way.
Those dollars covered new shoes for her three, growing children, dinners out at the Chick-fil-A that popped up in her town of Peñitas in South Texas, and part of a higher-than-usual electricity bill.
Now, Solis worries she might have to sacrifice on her internet speed because a federal subsidy that has helped her pay for her internet plan is set to expire at the end of April.
The Affordable Connectivity Program provides a $30 monthly subsidy to help low-income households pay for internet service, and up to $75 per month for households on tribal lands. The $14.2 billion program was part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and has helped 23 million households in the U.S — including 1.7 million in Texas — save money on their internet bills. The program’s funding is slated to dwindle at the end of April, though, potentially cutting millions off from the internet. In May, limited remaining funding in the program will allow eligible households to receive a partial discount; there won’t be any benefits after May.
“It has really helped me in that I don’t have to stress out about the bill,” said Solis, 27. “Even though it’s $30, $30 goes a long way.”
The program’s termination will disproportionately impact South Texas, where counties along the Texas-Mexico border had higher than average rates of participation. Overall, 1 in 7 Texans used the program. But in some border counties, including Hidalgo County, about half of its residents used the subsidy, according to data from the Federal Communications Commission.
“Some people have told me they might not get internet if [the subsidy] goes away,” said Marco Lopez, a community organizer at La Unión del Pueblo Entero, a nonprofit organization that supports low-income neighborhoods in the Valley. “I don’t know what to tell them because it’s not just cutting off their internet; it’s cutting off their opportunities for jobs, for school, for telehealth.”
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a bill that would extend funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program through the end of 2024. But the bill has not moved and faces considerable pushback from Republican lawmakers who claim the Biden administration has spent “recklessly.”
In a December letter to the chair of the FCC, a group of lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, disputed that the broadband program was necessary. The lawmakers said that most households using the subsidy already had broadband subscriptions. But that’s likely untrue. According to an FCC survey, 47% of respondents reported having either zero connectivity or relying on mobile service before enrolling in the federal program.
On Tuesday, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel sent a letter to Congress urging them to fund the program until the end of the year. She said the funding has been particularly critical for vulnerable populations, including veterans, seniors, and students.
“We know that nearly half of ACP households are led by someone over the age of 50,” she wrote. “The ACP and the broadband service it supports is ‘need to have’ for many seniors, who depend on the program for managing their health and maintaining access to their medical teams.”
The program’s termination comes as the state and federal government pump historic sums of money to expand broadband infrastructure and close the so-called digital divide. Texas is poised to receive more than $3.3 billion federal dollars to help connect the roughly 7 million Texans who lack access to affordable internet. The state will bolster those funds with an additional $1.5 billion that voters approved in November.
Some advocates worry that terminating the Affordable Connectivity Program at this juncture could jeopardize the success of future broadband investments.
“If we build the infrastructure but then all these people lose internet access, we are going to be taking one step forward and two steps back,” said Kelty Garbee, executive director of Texas Rural Funders, a nonprofit focused on rural philanthropy. “It is important to take a long view.”
Rural areas lag behind their urban counterparts when it comes to broadband access. The combination of low population density and remoteness make such areas unattractive to internet service providers, who are hesitant to invest in expensive infrastructure without a guaranteed pool of customers. Garbee worries that ending the government subsidies could shrink the rural customer base and make those areas even less attractive to internet companies.
Jordana Barton-Garcia, who focuses on broadband investments for nonprofit organization Connect Humanity, said that while the termination of ACP will be a significant loss for high poverty areas, the program is a “Band-Aid” solution. She said the subsidy doesn’t address the root of the problem: that the economics of broadband do not work in rural, low-income areas.
“Instead of being ruled by profit-maximizing major corporations, we need other models to serve low and moderate income communities,” she said. “We need to be able to serve without maximizing profits and instead serve for the public good.”
Some communities have found innovative ways to provide broadband to their rural constituents at a low cost. The city of Pharr in Hidalgo County, for example, created a municipal internet service program that offers plans for as low as $25 per month, the price residents in the border community said they could afford. Barton-Garcia said Pharr won’t be affected by the termination of government subsidies because the city has already secured its own funding. Pharr used grant money, a municipal bond as well as American Rescue Plan dollars to create a municipally-run internet service.
Large internet providers such as Comcast said they will continue to support low-income customers with an affordable plan. Comcast offers eligible customers a plan called internet essentials for $9.95 and a slightly higher-speed plan for $29.95.
For smaller providers in rural Texas, though, a low-cost plan is not financially feasible without government support. Charlie Cano, CEO of ETex Telephone Cooperative, said his lowest cost option is $62 per month.
“Anything lower than that is going to jeopardize our business model,” Cano said. “I’m nervous about what we are going to do about that low-cost option.”
In order to qualify as a grantee for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program — the main broadband program created by the bipartisan infrastructure law — providers must offer a low-cost option to low-income customers. Providers like Cano worry this requirement may make it difficult for companies like his to win federal grant dollars.
Disclosure: Comcast has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Biden administration points finger at Republicans for internet bill hikes
Brian Fung, CNN – April 2, 2024
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Tens of millions of Americans could see skyrocketing internet bills this spring or may be abruptly kicked off their plans — and it will be congressional Republicans who are to blame, the Biden administration said Tuesday.
The accusation reflects a last-ditch pressure campaign to save a federal program that has helped connect more than 23 million US households to the internet, many for the first time. Without it, those households will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more per year to stay online.
By the end of the month, funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will run out, jeopardizing the monthly discounts on internet service benefiting an estimated 59 million low-income people, including veterans, students and older Americans.
Many ACP subscribers would be forced to choose between paying for groceries and paying for internet service if the program is shut down, CNN has previously reported.
Although popular with users from across the ideological spectrum, the ACP’s future is in doubt as legislation to extend the program has stalled. Now, as the Federal Communications Commission has begun winding it down, the Biden administration is ramping up pressure on the GOP for standing in the way of a critical lifeline for accessing health care, jobs and education.
“President [Joe] Biden has been calling on Congress to pass legislation that would extend the benefit through 2024. And we know Democratic members and senators have joined him in that effort,” a senior administration official told reporters. “But unfortunately, Republicans in Congress have failed to act.”
Biden has called on Congress to approve $6 billion to continue the ACP. A bill introduced in January by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate would authorize $7 billion. That legislation has 216 co-sponsors in the House, including 21 Republicans, and three in the Senate, including two Republicans.
But policy experts have said it is unlikely Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson will let the bill onto the House floor as GOP leaders have decried government spending, despite the program being used in virtually every congressional district nationwide.
“It is clear the program would be extended if the speaker would allow a vote,” said Blair Levin, an analyst at the market research firm New Street Research. “So far, he has not said anything about it, but it appears he will not allow the House to vote on the legislation. He has not, to my knowledge, said anything substantive about the legislation or the program.”
Levin added that support by Republican Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also suggest the bill would pass the Senate, making the House “the biggest obstacle.”
Spokespeople for Johnson and for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The result is a stalemate that, if left unresolved, will lead to the collapse of the ACP by early May.
Administration officials declined to say whether Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris have personally discussed the ACP with congressional Republicans. But the officials told reporters there is currently no Plan B if Congress fails to extend the program.
“There are really no good options in a world in which Congress leaves us without any funding,” said another senior administration official. “There are certainly no easy answers for us to move forward if this program ends. So we want to work as hard as possible to make sure we avoid that possibility.”
Some lawmakers had hoped that money for the ACP could have been included in the recent bipartisan spending deal intended to keep the government open, but those hopes were ultimately left unfulfilled.
On Tuesday, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel sent a letter to Congress outlining the impact that the ACP’s disruption would cause.
“The end of the ACP will have broad impact,” Rosenworcel wrote. “But it is worth noting that they will have special impact on certain vulnerable populations, including senior citizens. We know that nearly half of ACP households are led by someone over the age of 50.”
More than 4 million military households are signed up for the ACP, Rosenworcel added, while 3.4 million households within the ACP program reported using school lunch or breakfast programs, indicating that many program subscribers are parents of children whose ability to do homework assignments may be interrupted by the loss of the ACP. To qualify for the ACP, users are required to meet certain income limits or be a participant in one of a number of other federal aid programs, such as the National School Lunch Program.
Rosenworcel called on Sen. Maria Cantwell and the panel she chairs, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to quickly advance legislation to extend the ACP. But the bill’s future remains foggy.
Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts: Letter from the Editor
Chris Quinn, Editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer – March 30, 2024
Some readers complain that we have different standards involving Donald Trump and Joe Biden. (AP Photo, File)AP
A more-than-occasional arrival in the email these days is a question expressed two ways, one with dripping condescension and the other with courtesy:
Why don’t our opinion platforms treat Donald Trump and other politicians exactly the same way. Some phrase it differently, asking why we demean the former president’s supporters in describing his behavior as monstrous,insurrectionist and authoritarian. I feel for those who write. They believe in Trump and want their local news source to recognize what they see in him.
The angry writers denounce me for ignoring what they call the Biden family crime syndicate and criminality far beyond that of Trump. They quote news sources of no credibility as proof the mainstream media ignores evidence that Biden, not Trump, is the criminal dictator.
The courteous writers don’t go down that road. They politely ask how we can discount the passions and beliefs of the many people who believe in Trump.
This is a tough column to write, because I don’t want to demean or insult those who write me in good faith. I’ve started it a half dozen times since November but turned to other topics each time because this needle hard to thread. No matter how I present it, I’ll offend some thoughtful, decent people.
The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.
The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.
This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.
The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it.
As for those who equate Trump and Joe Biden, that’s false equivalency. Biden has done nothing remotely close to the egregious, anti-American acts of Trump. We can debate the success and mindset of our current president, as we have about most presidents in our lifetimes, but Biden was never a threat to our democracy. Trump is. He is unique among all American presidents for his efforts to keep power at any cost.
Personally, I find it hard to understand how Americans who take pride in our system of government support Trump. All those soldiers who died in World War II were fighting against the kind of regime Trump wants to create on our soil. How do they not see it?
The March 25 edition of the New Yorker magazine offers some insight. It includes a detailed review of a new book about Adolf Hitler, focused on the year 1932. It’s called “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power” and is by historian Timothy W. Ryback. It explains how German leaders – including some in the media — thought they could use Hitler as a means to get power for themselves and were willing to look past his obvious deficiencies to get where they wanted. In tolerating and using Hitler as a means to an end, they helped create the monstrous dictator responsible for millions of deaths.
How are those German leaders different from people in Congress saying the election was stolen or that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection aimed at destroying our government? They know the truth, but they deny it. They see Trump as a means to an end – power for themselves and their “team” – even if it means repeatedly telling lies.
Sadly, many believe the lies. They trust people in authority, without questioning the obvious discrepancies or relying on their own eyes. These are the people who take offense to the truths we tell about Trump. No one in our newsroom gets up in the morning wanting to make a segment of readers feel bad. No one seeks to demean anyone. We understand what a privilege it is to be welcomed into the lives of the millions of people who visit our platforms each month for news, sports and entertainment. But our duty is to the truth.
Our nation does seem to be slipping down the same slide that Germany did in the 1930s. Maybe the collapse of government in the hands of a madman is inevitable, given how the media landscape has been corrupted by partisans, as it was in 1930s Germany.
I hope not.
In our newsroom, we’ll do our part. Much as it offends some who read us, we will continue to tell the truth about Trump.
