Why I Am Now Deeply Worried for America

By Paul Krugman – February 12, 2024

Paul Krugman
An American flag in murky water.
Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times

Until a few days ago, I was feeling fairly sanguine about America’s prospects. Economically, we’ve had a year of strong growth and plunging inflation — and aside from committed Republicans, who see no good, hear no good and speak no good when a Democrat is president, Americans appear to be recognizing this progress. It has seemed increasingly likely that the nation’s good sense would prevail and democracy would survive.

But watching the frenzy over President Biden’s age, I am, for the first time, profoundly concerned about the nation’s future. It now seems entirely possible that within the next year, American democracy could be irretrievably altered.

And the final blow won’t be the rise of political extremism — that rise certainly created the preconditions for disaster, but it has been part of the landscape for some time now. No, what may turn this menace into catastrophe is the way the hand-wringing over Biden’s age has overshadowed the real stakes in the 2024 election. It reminds me, as it reminds everyone I know, of the 2016 furor over Hillary Clinton’s email server, which was a minor issue that may well have wound up swinging the election to Donald Trump.

As most people know by now, Robert Hur, a special counsel appointed to look into allegations of wrongdoing on Biden’s part, concluded that the president shouldn’t be charged. But his report included an uncalled-for and completely unprofessional swipe at Biden’s mental acuity, apparently based on the president’s difficulty in remembering specific dates — difficulty that, as I wrote on Friday, everyone confronts at whatever age. Hur’s gratuitous treatment of Biden echoed James Comey’s gratuitous treatment of Clinton — Hur and Comey both seemed to want to take political stands when that was not their duty.

Yes, it’s true that Biden is old, and will be even older if he wins re-election and serves out a second term. I wish that Democrats had been able to settle on a consensus successor a year or two ago and that Biden had been able to step aside in that successor’s favor without setting off an intraparty free-for-all. But speculating about whether that could have happened is beside the point now. It didn’t happen, and Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee.

It’s also true that many voters think the president’s age is an issue. But there’s perception and there’s reality: As anyone who has recently spent time with Biden (and I have) can tell you, he is in full possession of his faculties — completely lucid and with excellent grasp of detail. Of course, most voters don’t get to see him up close, and it’s on Biden’s team to address that. And yes, he speaks quietly and a bit slowly, although this is in part because of his lifetime struggle with stuttering. He also, by the way, has a sense of humor, which I think is important.

Most important is that Biden has been a remarkably effective president. Trump spent four years claiming that a major infrastructure initiative was just around the corner, to the point that “It’s infrastructure week!” became a running joke; Biden actually got legislation passed. Trump promised to revive American manufacturing, but didn’t. Biden’s technology and climate policies — the latter passed against heavy odds — have produced a surge in manufacturing investment. His enhancement of Obamacare has brought health insurance coverage to millions.

If you ask me, these achievements say a lot more about Biden’s capacity than his occasional verbal slips.

And what about his opponent, who is only four years younger? Maybe some people are impressed by the fact that Trump talks loud and mean. But what about what he’s actually saying in his speeches? They’re frequently rambling word salads, full of bizarre claims like his assertion on Friday that if he loses in November, “they’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania.”

Not to mention confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi and mistaking E. Jean Carroll for one of his ex-wives.

As I also wrote last week, Trump’s speeches make me remember my father’s awful last year, when he suffered from sundowning — bouts of incoherence and belligerence after dark. And we’re supposed to be worried about Biden’s mental state?

Over the past few days, while the national discussion has been dominated by talk about Biden’s age, Trump declared that he wouldn’t intervene to help “delinquent” NATO members if Russia were to attack them, even suggesting that he might encourage such an attack. He seems to regard NATO as nothing more than a protection racket and after all this time still has no idea how the alliance works. By the way, Lithuania, the NATO member that Trump singled out, has spent a larger percentage of its G.D.P. on aid to Ukraine than any other nation.

Again, I wish this election weren’t a contest between two elderly men and worry in general about American gerontocracy. But like it or not, this is going to be a race between Biden and Trump — and somehow the lucid, well-informed candidate is getting more heat over his age than his ranting, factually challenged opponent.

As I said, until just the other day I was feeling somewhat optimistic. But now I’m deeply troubled about our nation’s future.

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.

‘Morning Joe’ Shreds Mike Johnson for Border Bill Shutdown Effort: ‘Worshipping at the Feet’ of Trump | Video

The Wrap

Morning Joe’ Shreds Mike Johnson for Border Bill Shutdown Effort: ‘Worshipping at the Feet’ of Trump | Video

Andi Ortiz – February 5, 2024

Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough laid into House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday morning, after Johnson made it clear that he won’t be supporting a bipartisan bill aiming to improve border security. According to the MSNBC host, Johnson is simply “worshipping at the feet of Donald Trump” at this point.

On Sunday, after the text of the bipartisan bill was released — clocking in at 370 pages — Johnson posted on X, still popularly referred to as Twitter, that he’d “seen enough” and that the bill was “even worse than we expected.”

“That’s just a lie. And I’d love to know what bible he’s looking at when he says he lives by the Bible,” Scarborough said disgustedly. “Because it’s bizarre that this guy is worshipping at the feet of Donald Trump. [He] basically does whatever Donald Trump tells him to do, and was, of course, the chief sponsor of the Big Lie in the House of Representatives.”

Indeed, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been vocally against the deal, encouraging Republicans to reject it and making false statements about its contents.

“This is the toughest border bill in a generation,” Scarborough said. “If you’d have read any of that to us a year or two ago, we would all say ‘Oh, yeah, that’s the Republican wishlist.’”

He added, “And now, just because Mike is being told by Donald not to pass this bill … we have a situation where they want to keep the border open, because it’s bad for America, and they believe what’s bad for America is good for Donald Trump.”

You can watch the full discussion from “Morning Joe” in the video above.

Lankford defends border bill amid GOP criticism: ‘Don’t just go off of Facebook’

The Hill

Lankford defends border bill amid GOP criticism: ‘Don’t just go off of Facebook’

Alexander Bolton – February 5, 2024

Lankford defends border bill amid GOP criticism: ‘Don’t just go off of Facebook’

Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), the lead GOP architect of the bipartisan Senate border security deal, pushed back on Republican critics, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for rushing to condemn the legislation.

Lankford during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” also responded to the scathing criticism of the legislation by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who panned the proposal Sunday as the “Border Capitulation Bill” and more bluntly as a “crap-sandwich of a border bill.”

Lankford noted that Lee had previously insisted on giving senators at least three weeks to review the 370-page bill but is expressing opposition after having less than a day to study it.

“He needs three weeks to be able to read it, but he’s already opposed to it. So again, people have to be able to read it and go through it themselves. Don’t just go off of Facebook post somewhere on what the bill says,” Lankford said.

Lankford, who spent four months negotiating the legislation and said it “blew up” his Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holidays, said it’s “unfortunate” that the Speaker has declared the Senate bill is “even worse than expected” and “dead on arrival” in the House.

The Oklahoma senator lamented Johnson’s condemnation of the bill without taking more time to digest reforms such as raising the standard of migrants seeking asylum, eliminating the backlog at immigration courts and granting the president new power to expel migrants and shut down the border.

“Unfortunate that he would step out and be able to see that right away, before, obviously, he has had a chance to be able to read it as well, and to be able to go through it,” he said of Johnson’s declaration that the bill has no chance of passing the House.

Lankford said Republicans need to make a decision about whether they want to enact some meaningful border security reforms into law or to let the border crisis continue unabated and allow an average of 10,000 people to steam into the country each day, many of them unvetted.

“The key aspect of this, again, is are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border’s bad and then intentionally leave it open after the worst month in American history in December?” Lankford argued.

“Now we’ve got to actually determine, are we going to just complain about things? Are we going to actually … change as many things as we can if we have the shot?” he said.

Lankford has told reporters that under the bill, once the daily average of migrants encountered at the border reaches 5,000, President Biden will be forced to shut down the border until the Department of Homeland Security regains operational control.

And he has dismissed talk among some GOP lawmakers that passing a bipartisan border deal will protect Biden from attacks over his immigration record.

“I’ve had some Republicans say, ‘Well, this will make Joe Biden whole [on immigration].’ I don’t think anyone is going to see Joe Biden as the border security president. I just don’t think there’s any chance of that. Because what we’ve seen the last three years is an open border like our country’s never experienced. So I don’t think when we pass this bill everybody’s going to suddenly think he’s the savior of the closed border,” Lankford told reporters last week.

Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career

The Hill

Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career

Sarah Fortinsky – February 5, 2024

Former President Trump on Monday railed against the bipartisan border agreement and took aim at Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator, for his role in brokering the deal.

In an interview on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump denied endorsing Lankford’s candidacy in 2022 — despite doing so publicly — and did not rule out endorsing a primary opponent when Lankford is up for reelection in 2028.

“I think this is a very bad bill for his career, especially in Oklahoma,” Trump said about Lankford when asked whether he would back a primary challenge to the senator.

“I won in Oklahoma,” Trump said. “I know those people. They’re great people. They’re not going to be happy about this. Nobody’s going to be happy about this, but the people in Oklahoma are, these are serious MAGA, these are serious people. They are not going to be happy about this, Dan, when they see this. This is crazy. This is lunacy, this bill.”

Senate negotiators unveiled the 370-page national security legislation Sunday evening after months of negotiations. The bill includes funding for Ukraine, Israel and other foreign policy priorities, as well as significant changes aimed at tightening enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The border component includes provisions to raise standards for asylum screening and to process claims faster, ends the practice known as “catch and release” and provides the administration with new emergency authority to close the border to most migrants when crossings reach a set threshold. It also seeks to make it easier for migrants to get work authorization and eliminate the immigration court backlog.

The bill has faced significant pushback from progressives and Trump allies in Congress, and House Republican leaders have said it would be dead on arrival in the lower chamber. Still, the Senate plans to take the first procedural vote on the legislation this week.

Ahead of the bill text’s release, Trump had attacked the prospect of the legislation, branding it as a political victory for Democrats ahead of the 2024 election — a message he repeated in Monday’s interview.

“This is a gift to Democrats, and this, sort of, is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans. That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election, so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history,” Trump said.

Lankford has fiercely defended the bill and said that if Trump returned to the White House, it would give him the tools to manage the border. He also lamented Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) rush to disavow the legislation before even having a chance to read it.

“The key aspect of this, again, is, are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border’s bad and then intentionally leave it open after the worst month in American history in December?” Lankford said in a Monday interview on “Fox & Friends.”

“Now we’ve got to actually determine, are we going to just complain about things? Are we going to actually … change as many things as we can if we have the shot?” he added.

“I’ve had some Republicans say, ‘Well, this will make Joe Biden whole [on immigration].’ I don’t think anyone is going to see Joe Biden as the border security president. I just don’t think there’s any chance of that. Because what we’ve seen the last three years is an open border like our country’s never experienced. So I don’t think when we pass this bill everybody’s going to suddenly think he’s the savior of the closed border,” Lankford told reporters last week.

Trump falsely claims he didn’t endorse border bill co-author James Lankford

NBC News

Trump falsely claims he didn’t endorse border bill co-author James Lankford

Kyla Guilfoil – February 6, 2024

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed in an interview Monday that he did not endorse Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., for re-election in 2022.

“Just to correct the record, I did not endorse Sen. Lankford. I didn’t do it. He ran, and I did not endorse him,” Trump told right-wing radio host Dan Bongino in an interview after the host noted the former president previously endorsed the Oklahoma Republican.

But in a Sept. 27, 2022, statement, Trump gave Lankford his “Complete and Total Endorsement!”

“Sometimes we didn’t exactly agree on everything, but we do now,” Trump said in a statement ahead of the midterm elections. “He is a very good man with a fabulous wife and family, loves the great State of Oklahoma, and is working very hard on trying to Save our Country from the disaster that it is in.”

Trump also praised Lankford’s commitment to improving border security.

“James Lankford is Strong on the Border, Tough on Crime, and Very Smart on the Economy,” Trump’s statement said.

Trump’s false claim on Monday about not previously endorsing Lankford came after the Oklahoma senator helped negotiate a bipartisan border security bill in Congress that the former president is trying to quash.

The bill aims to address record-high border crossings with a series of provisions that would include language to tighten an asylum system that has been overwhelmed with migrants. The bill also includes aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

Trump has demanded Republicans reject the legislation, claiming it would be a “gift” to Democrats and Biden.

In his interview Monday, Trump bashed Lankford’s support of the new border bill, adding that it would hurt the senator’s support in his home state.

“This is a very bad bill for his career and especially in Oklahoma,” Trump said. “I know those people. They’re great people. They’re not going to be happy about this.”

Lankford is not up for re-election until 2028. He has served in the Senate since 2015 and previously served in the House from 2011 to 2015.

Trump keeps his flight route open to Putin’s backyard: Trump calls border bill ‘a Death Wish’ for Republican Party: ‘Don’t be STUPID!!!’

The Hill

Trump calls border bill ‘a Death Wish’ for Republican Party: ‘Don’t be STUPID!!!’

Brett Samuels February 5, 2024

Trump calls border bill ‘a Death Wish’ for Republican Party: ‘Don’t be STUPID!!!’

Former President Trump excoriated a bipartisan border security bill put forward by senators, calling it a “Death Wish” for the GOP on Monday, hours after it was released.

“Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done,” Trump wrote on Truth Social of the legislation, which was crafted in part by conservative Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

“This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” Trump continued. “Don’t be STUPID!!! We need a separate Border and Immigration bill. It should not be tied to foreign aid in any way, shape or form!”

Trump’s opposition further complicates the path forward for the legislation, which was already facing pushback from Republicans in the House.

The legislation unveiled Sunday night included $20 billion for border security. It would give the federal government temporary authority to expel migrants when the average number of daily crossings exceeds a set threshold, end “catch and release,” raise standards for asylum screenings and seek to process claims quicker, among other provisions.

The bill also includes national security funding in the form of $60 billion for Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel, aid for Indo-Pacific allies.

Republicans had insisted that any aid for Ukraine be paired with legislation to address the southern border, but Trump’s post Monday indicated any Ukraine funding may be a non-starter.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) slammed the border deal Sunday, writing that it is “even worse than we expected” and declaring it “dead on arrival” in the House.

Democrats have for weeks argued Trump has pushed back against the prospect of any compromise on the border because the former president believes it would be a political win for President Biden. Trump has repeatedly hammered Biden over the flow of migrants at the southern border, and polling has shown voters trust Trump more on immigration and the border.

How two sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump

Asociated Press

How two sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump

Nicholas Riccardi – February 4, 2024

FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden's win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
 Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
 Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)

DENVER (AP) — In the summer of 2020, Gerard Magliocca, like many during the coronavirus pandemic, found himself stuck inside with time on his hands.

A law professor at Indiana University, Magliocca figured he would research the history of two long-neglected sentences in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Dating to the period just after the Civil War, they prohibit those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

On Jan. 6, 2021, after then-President Donald Trump‘s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to block certification of his loss to Joe Biden, Magliocca watched as Republicans such as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney described the attack as an “insurrection.”

That night, Magliocca composed a quick post on a legal blog: “Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote, “might apply to President Trump.”

Just over four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to determine whether it does. On Thursday, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments over whether Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3.

It’s the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case on Section 3, which was used to keep former Confederates from holding government offices after the amendment’s 1868 adoption. It fell into disuse after Congress granted an amnesty to most ex-rebels in 1872.

Before the attack on the Capitol, even many constitutional lawyers rarely thought about Section 3. It hadn’t been used in court for more than 100 years. Its revival is due to an unlikely combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all rediscovering 111 words in the nation’s foundational legal document that have now become a threat to the former president’s attempt to return to office.

In the days after Jan. 6, thanks to scholars such as Magliocca, Section 3 started its slow emergence from obscurity.

Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024.

The group didn’t hear back from any of them.

“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group’s co-founder.

In January 2022, Free Speech For People filed a complaint in North Carolina to disqualify Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn under Section 3. Cawthorn lost his primary, mooting the case.

That same month, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also known as CREW, decided to test Section 3 in court.

“It wasn’t just Trump we were focused on,” chief counsel Donald Sherman said in an interview. “One thing we’ve been very careful about is we don’t think it’s appropriate to pursue outside or longshot cases.”

On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Couy Griffin, a rural New Mexico county commissioner convicted of illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, removed from his position after CREW filed against him. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Trump announced his campaign for president two months later.

Both Free Speech For People and CREW began scouring state ballot laws, looking for places that allowed the rapid contesting of a candidacy. CREW settled on Colorado.

Sherman and another CREW attorney, Nikhel Sus, contacted Martha Tierney, a veteran election lawyer who also served as general counsel of the state Democratic Party.

Tierney wasn’t acting as the Democratic Party’s lawyer, but CREW wanted to balance its team. Sherman contacted Mario Nicolais, a former Republican election lawyer who had left the party over Trump.

Nicolais’ first interaction with Sherman was a direct message about the case on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter. Nicolais thought it could be from a crank.

“Is this for real or is this from somebody just angry at the president?” Nicolais recalled wondering.

On Sept. 6, 2023 — one year from the disqualification of Griffin — their 105-page complaint was filed in district court in Denver.

Trump hired former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to represent him. The Denver judge who got CREW’s complaint, Sarah Block Wallace, said she was obligated to hold a hearing under state election law.

During the five-day hearing, two officers who defended the Capitol testified, along with a University of California professor who was an expert in right-wing extremism, two Trump aides and several other witnesses. One was Magliocca, who laid out the history of Section 3.

Trump’s attorneys were pessimistic, expecting Wallace, who had a history of donating to Democrats, to rule against them. Trump spokesman Jason Miller addressed reporters outside court, complaining that the plaintiffs had intentionally filed in a liberal jurisdiction in a blue state.

Wallace issued her decision on Nov. 17. She found that Trump had “engaged in insurrection” but ruled that — contrary to Magliocca’s testimony — it wasn’t certain that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant it to apply to the president. Section 3 refers to “elector of President and Vice President,” but not the office itself.

Wallace was hesitant to become the first judge in history to bar a top presidential contender unless the law was crystal clear.

“It was a loss that only a lawyer could love,” Sus recalled.

CREW was just a legal sliver away from victory. It just needed the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold all of Wallace’s ruling besides the technicality of whether the president was covered.

The seven justices of the state’s high court — all appointed by Democrats from a pool chosen by a nonpartisan panel — peppered both sides with pointed questions at oral argument three weeks later.

Neither side left feeling certain of victory.

On Dec. 19, the court announced it would issue its decision that afternoon — ruling 4-3 that Trump was disqualified. The decision was put on hold, pending the outcome of the case that will be argued Thursday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security

The New Voice of Ukraine

House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security

The New Voice of Ukraine – February 5, 2024

Mike Johnson
Mike Johnson

The bill on funding changes in immigration policy, as well as aid to Ukraine and Israel proposed by the Senate, is “even worse than we expected” and “won’t put an end to the border catastrophe,” House speaker Mike Johnson said on X (Twitter) on Feb. 5.

Read also: US Senate to vote on border security and Ukraine aid package early next week

“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created.” the House Speaker said.

“As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes,” he added, saying if this bill reaches the House of Representatives, it will be dead on arrival.

Blocking aid to Ukraine: What is known

On Dec. 6, the bill funding aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan for approximately $106 billion failed procedural voting in the US Senate due to Republican demands for stricter immigration policies. They sought to strengthen the border with Mexico and only consider it in connection with aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Read also: Biden calls on House Republicans to back Senate compromise on border security & Ukraine aid

On Jan. 19, Johnson revealed that he often discusses border reinforcement with former US President Donald Trump, including conversations on the eve of Biden’s meeting dedicated to the border and aid to Ukraine.

On Jan. 25, the Financial Times reported that Republicans, influenced by Trump, who demands the party reject a compromise on immigration, are succumbing.

On Jan. 31, in his first official address as Speaker, Johnson stated that the Senate agreement under discussion is not sufficient to prevent migrants from Mexico entering the US. He had previously hinted that he would not unblock aid to Ukraine, calling the Senate agreement “absolutely dead.”

On Feb. 5, the US Senate unveiled a $118 billion package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion in aid to Israel, nearly $5 billion to allies in the Asia-Pacific region, $20 billion for strengthening immigration policy, and humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Read also: Immigration agreement in U.S. Congress could pave way for resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine

US President Joe Biden urged the House to promptly pass the bill.

“We have now reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal, which includes the toughest and fairest package of border reforms in the last decade. I strongly support it,” said Biden.

New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible

Ukrayinska Pravda

New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible

Ukrainska Pravda – February 4, 2024

US Flag. Photo: Getty Images
US Flag. Photo: Getty Images

US President Joe Biden has urged senators to vote for a bipartisan national security agreement presented by the Senate, which provides US$60 billion in aid to Ukraine, as soon as possible.

Source: US Senate website; Biden’s statement

Details: The US$118 billion package comprises a policy of protecting US borders and providing assistance to Ukraine and Israel.

In particular, US$60.1 billion is earmarked to help Ukraine and more than US$14 billion to support Israel.

The bill also includes funding for humanitarian aid for operations in the Red Sea and Taiwan.

Biden said he “strongly” supports the bipartisan agreement unveiled on Sunday (4 February).

Quote from Biden: “Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it…

The bipartisan national security agreement would also address two other important priorities. It allows the United States to continue our vital work, together with partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine’s freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.

As I have said before, if we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself to just Ukraine and the costs for America will rise.

This agreement also provides Israel what they need to protect their people and defend itself against Hamas terrorists. And it will provide life-saving humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people…

I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”

Previously: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Saturday, 3 February, that the following week, the House will vote on a bill that will ensure Israel obtains US$17.6 billion of aid faster, without, however, making it conditional on also passing aid for Ukraine.

The US President Joe Biden’s administration has stressed that it does not support the bill to help Israel without aid to Ukraine, calling it a “cynical political manoeuvre” by Republicans.

Background:

  • During a press conference on 30 January, Mike Johnson denied that his position on the border security agreement with Mexico, which Republicans have linked to additional funding for Ukraine, was intended to help Donald Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.
  • Johnson previously said in a letter that the Senate bill on the border and aid to Ukraine, as well as other countries, will not be approved in the House of Representatives if reports of its terms are true.
  • Republican Representatives are demanding that the White House take decisive action to curb illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border.
  • Disagreement over what measures should be taken has meant that a supplemental funding package that includes US$61 billion for Ukraine has been stalled in Congress.
  • In early January, the White House said that the US has no money for further military aid for Ukraine until a new package by the US Congress is adopted.

US Senate unveils $118 billion bill on border security, aid for Ukraine, Israel

Reuters

US Senate unveils $118 billion bill on border security, aid for Ukraine, Israel

Richard Cowan and Costas Pitas – February 4, 2024

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate on Sunday unveiled a $118 billion bipartisan border security bill that would also provide aid to Ukraine and Israel, but it promptly slammed into opposition from the House of Representatives.

“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement,” President Joe Biden said, also praising the migration measures in the bill, which took months to negotiate.

However, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson declared it “dead on arrival” if it reaches his chamber.

“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the president has created,” he said in a statement on X, formerly called Twitter.

The Democratic and Republican Senate backers of the wide-ranging U.S. border security and foreign military aid bill pledged to push ahead, despite opposition by Donald Trump as well.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would take steps to hold an initial vote on the bill on Wednesday.

If the bill were to become law, it would mark the most significant changes in U.S. immigration and border security in decades.

Some progressive Democrats are angry the measure does nothing to provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people who have lived in the U.S. for many years, including “Dreamer” immigrants who were brought in as children.

Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema told reporters the legislation would secure the U.S. southern border, including by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to temporarily “shut down” the frontier to most migrants if there are an average of more than 5,000 crossing attempts per day over seven days.

Republican Senator James Lankford, one of the negotiators on the bill, said that the border likely would remain closed for at least three weeks as the numbers of arriving immigrants drop significantly.

In addition to $20.23 billion for border security, the bill included $60.06 billion to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, $2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command and the conflict in the Red Sea, and $4.83 billion to support U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific facing aggression from China, according to figures from Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate’s Appropriation Committee.

An additional $10 billion would provide humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones including in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank, although the bill includes a provision barring its funds from going to the U.N. agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. The Biden administration and other nations have paused funding to the agency over allegations that some of its staff were involved in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel.

“The priorities in this bill are too important to ignore and too vital to allow politics to get in the way,” Schumer said in a statement. “The United States and our allies are facing multiple, complex and, in places, coordinated challenges from adversaries who seek to disrupt democracy and expand authoritarian influence around the globe.”

The key overseas security provisions of the bill largely match what Biden requested from Congress in October, when he asked for additional funds for aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

That request has been stalled by House Republicans’ insistence that it be tied to a shift in immigration policy.

With House Republicans divided over how to address the huge number of immigrant arrivals and whether to provide Ukraine with any more aid, Johnson on Saturday said he plans to hold a vote this week on a new bill providing $17.6 billion in military assistance to Israel. That measure has no new funding for Ukraine or for U.S. border security.

Meantime, Lankford said he would engage with Johnson in hopes of more House support for the Senate bill.

Schumer said the agreement would provide more frontline personnel and asylum officers and provide “faster and fair” immigration decisions. Lankford told reporters it would fund as many as 50,000 immigrant detention beds, up from the current 34,000.

The bill’s proponents said it would end the controversial “catch-and-release” practice that critics said contribute to high numbers of illegal immigrants arriving at the southern border. It would do so by speeding up the adjudication of asylum cases instead of quickly releasing apprehended migrants and allowing them to stay in the United States for years while they await hearings.

Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, has supported the negotiations, saying Republicans would not get a better deal under a Republican White House.

“The Senate must carefully consider the opportunity in front of us and prepare to act,” McConnell said in a statement.

Schumer said in a news conference that he had never worked so closely with long-term Senate colleague McConnell as on the bill.

“At many occasions we thought the negotiations had fallen apart,” Schumer said.

RIGHT-WING OPPOSITION

Nonetheless, right-wing Republicans are skeptical of the new Senate bill.

“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients — a magnet for more illegal immigration,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said on X.

Other congressional Republicans have said Biden can enact many of the changes they want to immigration policy through executive action, though they had previously called for legislative action.

Immigration is the second largest concern for Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Wednesday, and is a top issue for Republicans specifically. The U.S. Border Patrol arrested about 2 million migrants at the border in fiscal year 2023.

Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Biden in the November election, has campaigned heavily on opposition to immigration. House Republicans are also pushing ahead with an effort to impeach Biden’s top border official, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Costas Pitas; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Makini Brice; Writing by Simon Lewis; Editing by Scott Malone, Rosalba O’Brien, Lisa Shumaker and Himani Sarkar and Miral Fahmy)