Can someone explain to me what, exactly, Dr. Phil has to do with immigration policy or constitutional law in these United States?
Many outrageous and unsettling things happened in Los Angeles over the weekend. On Friday, multiple immigration raids, in downtown’s Fashion District and outside a Home Depot in Paramount, sparked a not unusual response that led to police involvement, during which many, including union official David Huerta, were arrested.
Ostensibly dissatisfied with the handling of the situation, President Trump, over objections from both L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, made the highly unusual — and potentially illegal — decision to send in the National Guard. Tensions escalated and by Sunday, portions of L.A. freeways were shut down as some protesters and/or outside agitators vandalized downtown stores, defaced buildings, hurled rocks from downtown overpasses onto law enforcement vehicles and set fire to a few Waymo cars. Trump’s border advisor, Tom Homan, threatened to arrest Newsom if citizens of this sanctuary state continued to interfere with immigration raids, and Newsom publicly dared him to do it, adding that California would be suing the Trump administration for making the situation worse by sending in the National Guard. On Monday, Homan appeared to backtrack on his threat while Trump said he would support it.
It was both a little — no one should have been surprised that ICE raids in L.A. would spark protests and these were, relatively speaking, small and nonviolent — and a lot. Sending in the National Guard was an obvious military flex, designed to to bait Angelenos while perhaps distracting Americans from Trump’s far greater troubles.
But nothing said “this is a made-for-TV event brought to you by the same reality-star-led administration that proposed making legal immigration into a television competition” as the presence of Phil McGraw. Who, after being embedded with ICE officials during raids in Chicago earlier this year, spent some of this weekend kicking it with Homan in L.A.’s Homeland Security headquarters.
As first reported by CNN’s Brian Stelter, Dr. Phil was there to get “a first-hand look” at the targeted operations and an “exclusive” interview with Homan for “Dr. Phil Primetime” on MeritTV, part of Merit Street Media, which McGraw owns.
Dr. Phil is, for the record, neither a journalist nor an immigration or domestic policy expert. He isn’t even a psychologist anymore, having let his license to practice (which he never held in California) lapse years ago.
He is instead a television personality and outspoken Trump supporter who was on hand to … I honestly don’t know what. Provide psychological support to Homan as he threatened to arrest elected officials for allowing citizens to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech while using local law enforcement to prevent any violence or destruction of property that might occur? Offer Homan another platform on which he could explain why Trump is breaking his own vow to target only those undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crime?
Or maybe just provide a familiar face to help normalize rounding up people from their workplaces and off the street and sending in the National Guard when this doesn’t appear to be happening smoothly enough.
There is, of course, the chance that McGraw asked Homan some tough questions. In a clip from the interview posted on X, he appears to begin his interview by asking what exactly happened this “busy” weekend in L.A. Homan replies that multiple law enforcement agencies were “looking for at-large criminals” and serving search warrants as part of a larger money laundering investigation, including at one company where “we knew about half of their employees were illegally in the United States” and in “service of those warrants, we arrested 41 illegal aliens.”
Still, after years of claiming to be nonpolitical, McGraw gave the president a full-throated endorsement at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in 2024 while denouncing diversity initiatives. McGraw said the name of his media company pays homage to Americans who made it “on hard work … not on equal outcomes or DEI.”
McGraw’s presence during immigration raids, and his choice as the person who should interview Homan even as things escalated in L.A., would seem downright weird if it weren’t so politically perilous. Merit Street Media is one of a growing number of new news outlets claiming to offer “fresh perspective” on “American values” while hewing almost exclusively to Trump’s MAGA message and offering “safe spaces” to conservatives. Then-presidential candidate Trump told Dr. Phil in August — in reference to those involved in his felony conviction — “revenge can be justified” and that he would win California if Jesus were counting the ballots.
Using McGraw as a platform to explain Trump and Homan’s divisive immigration policy and incendiary decision in L.A. most certainly underlines the criticism that these raids, and the fallout they will inevitably cause particularly in sanctuary states and cities, are being conducted with maximum spectacle awareness. If McGraw isn’t a direct part of the policy, he appears to be a big part of its publicity.
Which is a bit alarming. Over the years, McGraw has been criticized about his treatment of guests (some of whom sued) and staff. In 2020, he issued an apology for comparing the mounting deaths from COVID-19 to the (far smaller) number of deaths due to drowning in swimming pools.
After his fellow Oprah alum, Dr. Mehmet Oz, ran for the Senate last year, McGraw shrugged off the notion that he would ever follow suit, saying he “doesn’t know enough about it.” “When you start talking to me about geopolitics and all the things that go into that — I’m a neophyte, I don’t think I would be competent to do that.”
Nor is there any indication that he is well-versed in immigration or constitutional law. If Trump and Homan honestly wanted a recognizable TV brand to help walk Americans through the legal complications of what happened in L.A. over the weekend, they should have asked Judge Judy.
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already at the briefing room lectern Tuesday when Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a special advisor to President Trump until just last week, launched into a scathing rebuke targeting his signature legislation.
“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”
“Shame on those who voted for it,” he added. “You know you did wrong. You know it.”
It was the latest, sharpest critique of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” making its way through Congress from Musk, who ended his tenure as a special government employee last week despite his efforts to stay on, according to an Axios report.
In a CBS interview aired last week, Musk also called the bill a disappointment. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he said, “but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”
The Trump administration had already been on defense over the future of the bill, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a $3.8-trillion increase to the national debt over 10 years.
House Republicans approved the measure in late May. But multiple Republicans in the Senate, where the party holds a slim majority, have balked at its effects on the deficit, as well as several major proposals in the legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing access to Medicaid coverage.
One GOP senator, Joni Ernst of Iowa, drew national criticism over the weekend after responding to constituent concerns regarding Medicaid cuts at a town hall last week by saying, “well, we are all going to die.” The exchange put threats to Medicaid in the legislation back in the headlines, forcing the White House to put out a press release on Monday with the subject line: “MYTHBUSTER: No, People Will Not ‘Literally Die’ with the One Big Beautiful Bill.”
“The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” Leavitt said at the briefing, asked to respond to Musk’s X post. “It doesn’t change the president’s opinion.”
The bill would also cut clean energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration, which have benefited Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.
Trump has also bucked Musk on other matters in recent days. Despite Musk’s opposition, Trump brokered an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the United States with the backing of Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, a Musk rival.
The president also withdrew Jared Isaacman, reportedly an ally of Musk, as his nominee for NASA administrator. Musk’s rocket ship company, SpaceX, relies heavily on government contracts.
WASHINGTON — President Trump wants his “big, beautiful” bill of tax breaks and spending cuts on his desk to be signed into law by the Fourth of July, and he’s pushing the slow-rolling Senate to make it happen sooner rather than later.
Trump met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the White House early this week and has been dialing senators for one-on-one chats, using both the carrot and stick to nudge, badger and encourage them to act. But it’s still a long road ahead for the 1,000-page-plus package.
“His question to me was, How do you think the bill’s going to go in the Senate?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said about his call with Trump. “Do you think there’s going to be problems?”
It’s a potentially tumultuous three-week sprint for senators preparing to put their own imprint on the massive Republican package that cleared the House late last month by a single vote. The senators have been meeting for weeks behind closed doors, including as they returned to Washington late Monday, to revise the package ahead of what is expected to be a similarly narrow vote in the Senate.
“Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,” Trump posted on social media. He urged them Monday “to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.”
Thune, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, has few votes to spare from the Senate’s slim, 53-seat GOP majority. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home.
“It’d be nice if we could have everybody on board to do it, but, you know, individual members are going to stake out their positions,” Thune said Tuesday.
“But in the end, we have to succeed. Failure’s not an option. We’ve got to get to 51. So we’ll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks.”
At its core, the package seeks to extend the tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term at the White House, and add new ones the president campaigned on, including no taxes on tips and others. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security.
To defray the lost tax revenue to the government and avoid piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Estimates are 8.6 million people would no longer have healthcare and nearly 4 million would lose Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits.
The package also would raise the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s bill “is ugly to its very core.”
Schumer said Tuesday it’s a “lie” that the cuts won’t hurt Americans. “Behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel and draconian truth: tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of Americans,” said the New York senator.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to soon provide an overall analysis of the package’s impacts on the government balance sheets, particular its rising annual deficits. But Republicans are ready to blast those findings from the congressional scorekeeper as flawed.
Trump on Tuesday switched to tougher tactics, deriding the holdout Republican senators to get on board.
The president laid into Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning deficit hawk who has made a career of arguing against government spending. Paul wants the package’s $4-trillion increase to the debt ceiling out of the bill.
“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!).” Trump posted.
The July 4 deadline is not only aspirational for the president, it’s all but mandatory for his Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned Congress that the nation will run out of money to pay its bills if the debt ceiling, now at $36 trillion, is not lifted by mid-July or early August to allow more borrowing. Bessent has also been meeting behind closed doors with senators and GOP leadership.
Thune acknowledged Tuesday that lifting the debt ceiling is not up for debate.
“It’s got to be done,” the South Dakota senator said.
The road ahead is also a test for Thune, who, like Johnson, is a newer leader in Congress and among the many Republicans adjusting their own priorities with Trump’s return to the White House.
While Johnson has warned against massive changes to the package, Thune faces demands from his senators for adjustments.
To make most of the tax cuts permanent — particularly the business tax breaks that are the Senate priorities — senators may shave some of Trump’s proposed new tax breaks on automobile loans or overtime pay, which are policies less prized by some senators.
There are also discussions about altering the $40,000 cap that the House proposed for state and local deductions, known as SALT, which are important to lawmakers in high-tax New York, California and other states, but less so among GOP senators.
“We’re having all those discussions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another key voice in the debate.
Hawley is among a group of senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who have raised concerns about the Medicaid changes that could boot people from health insurance.
A potential copay of up to $35 for Medicaid services that was part of the House package, as well as a termination of a provider tax that many states rely on to help fund rural hospitals, have also raised concerns.
“The best way to not be accused of cutting Medicaid is to not cut Medicaid,” Hawley said.
Collins said she is reviewing the details.
There’s also a House provision that would allow the auction of spectrum bandwidth that some senators oppose.
Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.
Guy Molyneux is president of the Next America Foundation, an educational organization founded by Michael Harrington
WASHINGTON — As Republicans gather this week in Houston, we hear much talk of conservatives and conservatism. Is George Bush a true conservative? Will conservatives support the President, or stay home? Is the movement intellectually exhausted? Who will emerge to lead conservatives in 1996?
But these discussions all overlook one significant point: The Republicans are not really a conservative party. Indeed, we might say of American conservatism, as Mohandas K. Gandhi said of Western civilization–”It would be a good idea.”
True conservatism is a philosophy committed to conserving– conserving families, communities and nation in the face of change. Committed to preserving fundamental values, such as accountability, civic duty and the rule of law. And committed to a strong government to realize these ends. What passes for conservatism in America today bears only a passing resemblance to this true conservatism. It worships at the twin altars of free enterprise and weak government–two decidedly unconservative notions.
Real conservatism values security and stability over the unfettered free market. In Germany, for example, it was the conservative Otto von Bismark–not socialists–who developed social insurance and built the world’s first welfare state. Today conservatives throughout the world–but not here–endorse government-provided national health care, because they recognize public needs are not always met by the private sector. And they see a role for government in encouraging national economic development.
A true conservative movement would not ignore the decay of our great cities, or see the disorder of the Los Angeles riots only as a political opportunity. Nor would they pay homage to “free trade” while the nation’s manufacturing base withered. Nor would a conservative President veto pro-family legislation requiring companies to provide leave to new mothers, in deference to business prerogatives.
Traditional conservatives champion community and nation over the individual. They esteem public service, and promote civic obligation. They reject the “invisible hand” argument, that everyone’s pursuit of individual self-interest will magically yield the best public outcome, believing instead in deliberately cultivating virtue. Authentic conservatives do not assail 55 m.p.h. speed limits and seat-belt laws as encroaching totalitarianism.
Finally, a genuine conservatism values the future over the present. It is a movement of elites to be sure, but of elites who feel that their privilege entails special obligations. The old word for this was “stewardship”–the obligation to care for the nation’s human and natural resources, and to look out for future generations’ interests.
Such conservatives would not open up public lands for private commercial exploitation, or undermine environmental regulations for short-term economic growth. They would not cut funding for childrens’ vaccinations, knowing that the cost of treating illness is far greater. And a conservative political party would never preside over a quadrupling of the national debt.
In America, then, what we call conservatism is really classical liberalism: a love of the market, and hatred of government. Adam Smith, after all, was a liberal, not a conservative. As the economist Gunnar Myrdal once noted: “America is conservative . . . but the principles conserved are liberal.”
American conservatives have often celebrated the country’s historically “exceptional” character: the acceptance of capitalism and the absence of any significant socialist movement. Curiously, though, they often miss their half of the story: the absence of a real Tory conservatism. What Louis Hartz called America’s “liberal consensus” excluded both of the great communitarian traditions–ain’t nobody here but us liberals.
True conservatism’s weakness as a political tradition in America is thus an old story. When values confront the market here, the market usually wins. In recent years, though, conservative social values seem to have been eclipsed. Many of today’s conservatives are really libertarians–proponents of a radical individualism that has little in common with conservatism. Consider some very non-conservative messages that conservatives have delivered in the past two weeks.
Conservative GOP leaders called on the President to propose massive new tax cuts as the centerpiece for a possible second term. Fiscal responsibility, apparently, is no longer part of conservative doctrine–if it gets in the way of a nice capital gains tax cut.
The Wall Street Journal assailed Maryland for introducing a new 75-hour community-service requirement for high school students. What about teaching values in school? Or putting nation before self?
When it comes to good conservative values, today’s conservatives talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. Look at Dan Quayle, the elected official who supposedly most speaks to real conservatives. Every day, the vice president is out there talking about traditional values, and slaying liberal dragons like Murphy Brown. His agenda: tax dollars for parochial schools, banning abortion, allowing school prayer. This is the 1980 Moral Majority program. Yet, after 12 years in power, the Republican Party has delivered nothing to social conservatives–the closest thing we have in this country to authentic conservatives. Republicans’ business allies, on the other hand, have reaped tremendous gains in such areas as taxation, regulation and labor relations. There are many social-issue conservatives in the GOP, but when it comes to governing, they are clearly the junior partners.
These social issues are trotted out every four years, but it’s just a ritual, like hanging Christmas lights on the front porch. The rest of the time, they sit in the Republican basement. For them, it’s simply a matter of electoral opportunism–a way to attract working-class voters whose economic interests drew them to the Democrats. Now Barry M. Goldwater, the grand old man of American conservatism, has called on the party to abandon its anti-abortion commitment. The political calculus has changed, and so must the platform. Individual liberty is the important point now. It would appear that the ban on abortion was only in there to win votes in the first place–if it doesn’t do that, what’s the point?
The future seems to lie with the libertarians. We should expect more Republicans like Gov. Pete Wilson, who prides himself on savaging the social safety net. Personal freedom is the message: free to have an abortion, also free to go hungry.
However, this does not bode well for conservatives’ long-term electoral fortunes. Economic liberalism is a weak political force in countries with conservative and social-democratic alternatives. Historically, lower-class voters have been mobilized by appeals to class solidarity on the one hand, or religion and nationalism on the other. Liberalism is the credo of the upper middle class.
The historical failure of American elites to embrace authentic conservatism is a loss for the nation. Even liberals–in the American sense–should regret this void. In fact, they should be most concerned. Conservatives would resist the relentless privatization of our social and economic life, and help rein in the nation’s free-market excesses. If real conservatives had been in charge in the 1980s, we might have been spared the orgy of speculation, takeover and deregulation that so weakened our economy.
The free market, after all, is a powerful force for change. It creates and destroys communities, sunders families and undermines traditional values. People desire protection from it for sound conservative reasons–they want security and stability. A genuine conservatism would provide a kind of social ballast for a nation constantly buffeted by change.
America is too liberal for its own good. Our brand of conservatism is too American for its own good. Maybe it’s time to let conservatives be conservatives.
WASHINGTON — The widening and increasingly bitter divide between Republicans and Democrats defines American politics, but in recent weeks, it’s the divisions inside each of the two parties that have dominated headlines.
Republicans have denounced 13 of their House colleagues who sided with Democrats earlier this month to pass Biden’s $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill. After conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted their phone numbers on social media, some of the 13 reported getting death threats.
What issues create the deep fissures within the two parties, and which Americans make up the conflicting factions?
Newsletter
Get our L.A. Times Politics newsletter
The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Pew released its latest typology on Tuesday, the eighth in the series. The results are key to understanding why American politics works the way it does.
Parties driven by their extremes
For this latest effort, Pew surveyed 10,221 American adults, asking each of them a series of questions about their political attitudes, values and views of American society. Researchers took the results and put them through what’s called a cluster analysis to define groups that make up U.S. society.
The new typology divides Americans into nine such groups — four on the left, which make up the Democratic coalition, four on the right, making up the Republican coalition, and one in between whose members are largely defined by a lack of interest in politics and public affairs.
Nearly all the Democrats agree on wanting a larger government that provides more services; nearly all the Republicans want the opposite.
And nearly all Democrats believe that race and gender discrimination remain serious problems in American society that require further efforts to resolve. On the Republican side, the belief that little — if anything — remains to be done to achieve equality has become a defining principle.
On other issues, however, the parties have deep internal splits. In each, the most energized group — the people who most regularly turn out to vote, post on social media and contribute to campaigns — stands at the edges.
On the right, that would be an extremely conservative, religiously oriented, nationalistic group which Pew calls the Faith and Flag conservatives. At the other end of the scale stands a socialist-friendly, largely secular group it calls the Progressive Left.
On several major issues, those two groups have views that are “far from the rest of their coalitions,” yet they’re “the most politically engaged groups, and they’re driving the conversation,” said Carroll Doherty, Pew’s director of political research.
The Faith and Flag conservatives, who make up about 10% of American adults and almost 25% of Republicans, have shaped the party’s policies on some social issues such as abortion, but have even more strongly affected its overall approach to politics. A majority (53%) of the group, for example, says that “compromise in politics is really just selling out.”
That has strongly shaped the GOP’s approach to legislation and helps explain the bitter, angry response to the Republicans who voted for Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure compromise.
The group is overwhelmingly white (85%), relatively old (two-thirds are 50 or older) mostly Christian (4 in 10 are white, evangelical Protestants) and heavily rural.
Their mirror image, the Progressive Left, is a significantly smaller group, only about 6% of Americans and 12% of Democrats. Despite their smaller size, however, they have had a strong impact, moving their party to the left, especially on expanding government and combating climate change.
That group is in several ways the opposite of the Faith and Flag conservatives: urban, secular and significantly more college-educated than the rest of the country.
Like the Faith and Flag group, however, the Progressives are mostly white (68%) — the only Democratic faction with a white majority.
The groups have one other trait in common — each has a deep, visceral dislike of the other party.
While those two set the parameters of a lot of American political debate, it’s the other groups in each party’s coalition that explain why the Democratic and Republican approaches to government have diverged so widely.
On the Democratic side, the two biggest blocs, which make up just over half of Democratic voters, fit comfortably into the party establishment.
The Establishment Liberals (think Vice President Kamala Harris or Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg) are a racially diverse, highly educated (one-quarter have post-graduate degrees), fairly affluent group that is optimistic in its outlook, liberal in its politics and strong believers that “compromise is how things get done” in politics.
The Democratic Mainstays (think House Democratic Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina or President Biden) are more likely to define themselves as political moderates and are significantly more likely than other Democrats to say that religion plays a major role in their lives. Roughly 40% of Black Democrats fit into this group.
The Mainstays are more likely than other Democrats to favor increasing funds for police in their neighborhoods and somewhat less likely to favor increased immigration, but are extremely loyal to the Democratic Party.
Together, those two groups give Democrats a strong orientation toward cutting deals, making incremental progress and getting the work of government done.
Virtually the opposite is true of Republicans, whose two largest groups, the Faith and Flag conservatives and what Pew calls the Populist Right, dislike compromise and harbor deep suspicions of American institutions. Together, those groups, which make up nearly half the GOP’s voters, have produced a party that revels in opposition but has often found itself stymied when trying to govern.
The Populists group, the one most closely identified with former President Trump‘s style of politics, has a negative view of huge swaths of American society — big corporations, but also the entertainment industry, tech companies, labor unions, colleges and universities, and K-12 schools.
Nearly 9 in 10 of them believe the U.S. economic system unfairly favors the powerful, and a majority support raising taxes on big companies and the wealthy. Both of those views put them at odds with the rest of the GOP, helping explain why the party struggles to come up with economic proposals beyond opposition to Democratic plans.
The Populist Right also overwhelmingly says that immigrants coming to the U.S. make the country worse off. That puts them in conflict with the party’s smaller but still influential business-oriented establishment.
About half the Populist group say that white people declining as a share of the U.S. population is a bad thing, more than in any other group.
The Republican establishment faction (think Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky or Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah) is what Pew calls the Committed Conservatives, pro-business, generally favorable to immigration and more moderate on racial issues.
A lot of Republican elected officials fall into that group, but unlike the very large establishment blocs on the Democratic side, relatively fewer voters do — 7% of Americans and 15% of the GOP. That creates a pervasive tension between GOP elected officials and many of their constituents.
Unlike the two larger conservative blocs, in which majorities want to see Trump run again, most Republicans in this group would prefer him to take a back seat.
Each of the coalitions also has a group that is alienated from its party.
A significant number in the Ambivalent Right, a younger, socially liberal, largely anti-Trump group within the GOP, voted for Biden in 2020.
On the Democratic side, the mostly young people in the Outsider Left are very liberal, but frustrated with the Democrats and not always motivated to vote. When Democratic political figures talk about the need to boost voter turnout, those are the potential voters many of them picture.
By the way, there’s a long connection between the Los Angeles Times and the political typology project. The first version of the political typology dates back to 1987 and was developed by the long-ago Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press, a research organization founded by the company that owned The Times.
To allow readers to see how they compared to the political types in that era, The Times published the typology quiz as a full-page in print, inviting people to fill it out, mail it in and get a letter back telling them what group they belonged to. Today, you can do it all online.
Where do you fit?
From the hard-right Faith and Flag Conservatives to the socialist-friendly Progressive Left, with seven stops in between, Pew’s political typology describes nine groups into which Americans can be divided. The typology comes along with a quiz that allows you to see which group most closely matches your views on major issues.
The vice president abroad
On a trip this week to France, Harris is introducing herself to the world in personal terms, Noah Bierman wrote. The trip, he said, has given Harris a chance “to reveal herself on the world stage — highlighting her status as the first woman and the first woman of color to serve in such high office — after 10 months of focusing on responding to the COVD-19 pandemic and other crises,” which have taken a political toll.
Part of Harris’ goal in the trip is to further mend relations with France, which were strained when the administration struck a deal with Australia to help build nuclear submarines, which wiped out a major French contract to build boats for the Australian navy. In her speeches, however, Harris has also tried to make the case that the U.S. has moved past the Trump era and once again can be relied upon as an ally, Bierman wrote. That’s met with some skepticism from Europeans, who wonder what will happen in the next election.
Meantime, Mark Barabak looked at how Harris has adopted a much lower public profile of late. As past occupants of the office, including George H.W. Bush and Al Gore have found, the number-two job is an “inherently diminishing one,” he wrote.
Our daily news podcast
If you’re a fan of this newsletter, you’ll love our daily podcast “The Times,” hosted every weekday by columnist Gustavo Arellano, along with reporters from across our newsroom. Go beyond the headlines. Download and listen on our App, subscribe on Apple Podcasts and follow on Spotify.
Their investigation, based on thousands of documents and Transportation Department data, shows that more than 200,000 people have lost their homes nationwide to federal road projects over the last three decades. In many cases, predominantly Black or Latino communities that were torn apart by freeway construction a generation or more ago have been dislocated once more by new projects.
Inflation has seriously damaged several presidencies in the last half century; now, rising prices threaten Biden, Chris Megerian and Erin Logan wrote.
At the international climate conference in Glasgow, the U.S., Britain and 17 other countries agreed to reduce emissions from the shipping industry, which is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, Anna Phillips reported. Large container ships use fuel that is dirtier by far than the diesel that powers cars. Ships can also be a major source of air pollution in port cities, including Los Angeles.
As Democrats continue to haggle over the details of their big social spending proposal, Jennifer Haberkorn took a look at one of the plan’s largest elements — a major increase in money for early childhood education. The bill would devote about $390 billion over the next 10 years to providing preschool access to all 3- and 4-year-olds. That would mark the largest expansion of free education since high school was added about 100 years ago.
The latest from California
The state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission has come up with a draft map of new congressional and legislative districts, and it’s already causing heartburn for a number of incumbent lawmakers, Seema Mehta and John Myers reported.
The new maps may strengthen Latino political clout in California overall, but the most heavily Latino district in the state would be eliminated. The 40th District, represented by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, covers parts of East and South L.A. and would be parceled out among neighboring districts, Mehta reported. Roybal-Allard, 80, has raised very little money amid speculation that she has plans to retire next year. The state is losing one congressional district after last year’s census, and the loss was widely expected to come in the Los Angeles area, which has grown more slowly than other parts of the state.
The redrawn boundaries may force some incumbents to run against each other or run in districts that have suddenly become less politically secure. The Central Valley districts of GOP Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare and Democratic Rep. Josh Harder of Turlock would both be significantly altered, according to redistricting analysts in both parties. Reps. MikeGarcia of Santa Clarita, Michelle Steel of Seal Beach and Darrell Issa of Bonsall would all find their districts becoming less secure.
But there’s a good chance the maps will change again after a two-week public comment period, which began with the commission’s approval of the maps on Wednesday night.
The Biden administration will extend a major homelessness initiative that has allowed Los Angeles and other cities to rent hotel rooms as temporary housing for thousands of people. As Ben Oreskes reported, the administration will extend the program through March. It was slated to expire at the end of the year.
In another development related to homelessness, a group looking to oust Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Bonin says it has submitted more than 39,000 signatures on recall petitions. If the signatures hold up to scrutiny, that would qualify the measure for the ballot. Bonin’s opponents have accused him of failing to take seriously the impact of crime that they say is connected to homeless encampments.
For all his faults and hubris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy possesses one unmistakable quality: courage.
That became apparent during a memorable moment more than three years ago when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.
A foreboding, endless column of Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles had breached the border in a pincer pattern.
In the halting face of such an intimidating display of overwhelming force, defeat seemed close by.
Kyiv looked bound to fall. Zelenskyy and company would be arrested or killed as a lethal exclamation point while Russian President Vladimir Putin installed a puppet regime to bow and obey.
The comedian turned unlikely wartime leader did not flinch. He stood his ground – on the sacred soil of Ukraine.
To reassure fretful Ukrainians, Zelenskyy posted a short video on social media featuring himself surrounded by several solemn-looking officials and cabinet ministers.
“The president is here,” he said. “We are all here … defend[ing] our independence.”
I was reminded of that remarkable scene while I read accounts over the past few months from a disparate group of Americans, including artists and academics, departing their beloved homeland in the distressing wake of President Donald Trump’s jarring return to the Oval Office.
Before I continue, I am obliged to make two instructive points.
First, by invoking Zelenskyy’s vow to remain in Ukraine despite the ominous risks, I do not mean to imply that enlightened Americans opting to forgo living and working in the United States, lack courage.
Far from it.
Each of us has confronted or will confront in due course a defining dilemma: to stay or to go.
Answering the prickly question can stir doubt and anxiety. Making a choice, regardless of the direction, is a bold act. It takes resolve to exchange the familiar for the unknown.
Second, I have avoided the word “flee” to describe why some Americans choose to emigrate due to Trump’s egregious modus operandi. “Flee” evokes impulsive panic or self-preservation, rather than thoughtful, deliberate decision-making.
Still, Zelenskyy offers a compelling example of why it is necessary to stay instead of escaping to Canada or Europe when a bully threatens the values and principles that you hold dear – fairness, truth, empathy, tolerance, justice, diversity, and intelligence.
So, enlightened Americans, I urge you to insist like Zelenskyy: We are all here.
Your presence in America to fight for its promise is a duty and responsibility.
Together, you can fashion a formidable, immovable buttress against the wretched aspects of Trumpism – its assault on facts, erosion of democratic norms, embrace of authoritarianism, and corrosive pursuit of division and fear.
This contest cannot be won remotely – far from the epicentre of the urgent battle. It has to be fought face-to-face with an uncompromising adversary and hand-in-hand with other enlightened Americans, thin on the privileges and resources that have enabled your exit.
Trumpism thrives when opposition retreats. Absence creates space for extremism to entrench itself even more deeply and widely into America’s already frayed and discordant fabric. Withdrawal only comforts the Trumpists determined to quash dissent and erase resistance through edicts, threats, and coercion.
Leaving can also be seen as an admission of defeat – a concession that an angry, ruptured country is beyond redemption or salvation.
Dynamic governance is not self-sustaining; it requires citizens to keep up the struggle, particularly when it is trying. By forsaking the arena, some enlightened Americans forfeit their ability to shape the present and the future.
In contrast, standing with and by enlightened Americans remaining behind, confirms that America belongs to all its people, not just the cartoonish characters shouting the loudest or demanding the most attention.
Trump welcomes the idea of disheartened Americans building new lives in new places because he is president. It is, I suspect, a point of pride since it suggests his vindictive agenda is working.
For Trump, the exodus of “liberal elites” or “out-of-touch” entertainers is proof that the old establishment, never subscribers to his jejune notion of America’s “greatness”, is being replaced by “authentic” patriots.
This response is, of course, symptomatic of Trump’s broader political strategy – drawing a Berlin-Wall-like line between “real” Americans – his supporters – and everyone else.
By celebrating the phenomenon of Americans parting in protest, he promotes the insidious attitude that protest is not an essential ingredient of a mature, confident nation, but a form of disloyalty.
Trump is not interested in unity or persuasion. As such, he frames his presidency as a litmus test of fidelity. If you don’t worship him, you’re encouraged to join the despondent diaspora – and, in his jaundiced view, good riddance.
Despite their arguments and reservations about resettling to avoid the depressing capitulation of major law firms, universities, and corporate media, Americans face an uncomfortable truth: walking out won’t help drive change.
Scholars and intellectuals with the mettle and means to challenge obstinate power should rejoin the fight where it counts: in classrooms, on airwaves, in town halls.
Declarations from abroad, however poignant, are not substitutes for showing up, time and again, in person to remind America that kindness, resiliency, and decency matter.
Trumpism thrives on spectacle, and few understand the potency of spectacle better than celebrities.
Many bidding America adieu did so defiantly, wielding a righteous pulpit from foreign shores. Even so, symbolism without substance is hollow.
Returning means tackling – head-on – the mess, the contradictions, the tarnished ideals of a battered nation still worth the imagination and effort.
Public figures ought to leverage their popular platforms not just to condemn, but to galvanise, to convey resistance not as elitist scorn but as shared obligation. That would impress more than a pointed opinion column in the New York Times or a thread of disparaging tweets ever could.
Zelenskyy knows that hard work is always done on the ground. This is where returnees can make a tangible difference – not as saviours parachuting in, but instead as allies to like-minded collaborators who do that hard work without notice or applause.
Trumpism may be ascendant, but it is not invincible. What it fears most is solidarity that bridges class, race, and background – solidarity that declares that America is not Donald Trump’s to disfigure or define.
The bruised and disillusioned exiles can reclaim their rightful place in that grave fray – if they come home.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
May 24 (UPI) — A record number of Americans applied to become British citizens during the first three months of this year after Donald Trump re-took office as president, according to official data.
The last time American applications for British citizenship spiked was in 2020 during Trump’s first presidential term early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
This comes as the British government is toughening requirements for legal migrants and extending the wait for newcomers to claim citizenship.
Britain’s Home Office on Thursday reported 6,618 U.S. citizens applied for British citizenship over the past 12 months through March, the highest annual figure since records began in 2004. That includes 1,931 applications between January and March — the highest number for any quarter on record.
There also is a record number of Americans seeking to live and work indefinitely in the country as a necessary precursor to citizenship. Of the 5,521 settlement applications granted last year, most were for people eligible because of their spouses, parents and other family links. And a substantial portion had originally arrived in Britain on temporary visas for “skilled workers” and want to remain.
For the year through March, there were 238,690 applications worldwide, an increase of 238,690 for the same period last year.
Some people might qualify “more swiftly” for permanent settlement in Britain depending on the “contribution” they made, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said in Parliament on May 12.
Since Trump was elected president again, immigration lawyers told The New York Times they had received an increased number of inquiries from people in the United States about possibly relocating to Britain.
“People who were already here may have been thinking, ‘I want the option of dual citizenship in the event that I don’t want to go back to the U.S,'” Muhunthan Paramesvaran, a senior immigration lawyer at Wilsons Solicitors in London, said.
There also have been increased applications from non-U.S. citizens living there seeking to go to Britain.
“We’ve seen increases in inquiries and applications not just for U.S. nationals, but for U.S. residents of other nationalities who are currently in the U.S. but looking at plans to settle in the U.K.,” Zeena Luchowa, a partner at Laura Devine Immigration, a law firm that specializes in American migration to Britain, said. “The queries we’re seeing are not necessarily about British citizenship – it’s more about seeking to relocate.”
This comes as British authorities under a Labor government are trying to reduce immigration. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Britain has to take “back control of our borders” and warned uncontrolled immigration could result in “becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”
British figures show net migration dropped by almost half in 2024 to 431,000 compared with 2023.
The British government had extended the qualification period from five years to 10 before they could apply for settlement.
On May 5, European Union nations announced they would spend $566 million from 2025 to 2027 to attract foreign researchers after the Trump administration cut funding to universities in the United States. Britain left EU in 2020.
Under Trump’s direction, there will be a “gold card” at a cost of $5 million, as an extension of the EB-5 program that extends green cards to foreign investors and their families.
The current program grants green cards to immigrants who make a minimum investment of at least $1.050 million or $800,000 in economically distressed areas.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Wednesday: “I expect there will be a website up called ‘Trump card dot gov’ in about a week. The details of that will come soon after, but people can start to register.”
On May 21, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stunned the world by announcing that his government had officially granted refugee status to 48 million African Americans. The decision, made through an executive order titled “Addressing the Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government”, was unveiled at a news conference held in the tranquil gardens of the Union Buildings in Pretoria.
Poised and deliberate, Ramaphosa framed the announcement as a necessary and humane response to what he called “the absolute mayhem” engulfing the United States. Flanked by Maya Johnson, president of the African American Civil Liberties Association, and her deputy Patrick Miller, Ramaphosa declared that South Africa could no longer ignore the plight of a people “systematically impoverished, criminalised, and decimated by successive US governments”.
Citing a dramatic deterioration in civil liberties under President Donald Trump’s second term, Ramaphosa specifically pointed to the administration’s barrage of executive orders dismantling affirmative action, gutting DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and permitting federal contractors to discriminate freely. These measures, he said, are calculated to “strip African Americans of dignity, rights, and livelihood – and to make America white again”.
“This is not policy,” Ramaphosa said, “this is persecution.”
President Trump’s 2024 campaign was unabashed in its calls to “defend the homeland” from what it framed as internal threats – a barely veiled dog whistle for the reassertion of white political dominance. True to his word, Trump has unleashed what critics are calling a rollback not just of civil rights, but of civilisation itself.
Ramaphosa noted that under the guise of restoring law and order, the federal government has instituted what amounts to an authoritarian crackdown on Black political dissent. Since Trump’s inauguration in January, he said, hundreds of African American activists have been detained by security forces – often on dubious charges – and interrogated under inhumane conditions.
While Ramaphosa focused on systemic oppression, Johnson sounded the alarm on what she bluntly described as “genocide”.
“Black Americans are being hunted,” she told reporters. “Night after night, day after day, African Americans across the country are being attacked by white Americans. These criminals claim they are ‘reclaiming’ America. Police departments, far from intervening, are actively supporting these mobs – providing logistical aid, shielding them from prosecution, and joining in the carnage.”
The African American Civil Liberties Association estimates that in the past six weeks alone, thousands of African Americans have been threatened, assaulted, disappeared, or killed, she said.
The crisis has not gone unnoticed by the remainder of the continent. Last week, the African Union convened an emergency summit to address the deteriorating situation in the US. In a rare unified statement, AU leaders condemned the US government’s actions and tasked President Ramaphosa with raising the issue before the United Nations.
Their mandate? Repatriate African Americans and offer refuge.
Ramaphosa confirmed that the first charter flights carrying refugees will arrive on African soil on May 25 – Africa Day.
“As the sun sets on this dark chapter of American history,” Ramaphosa said, “a new dawn is rising over Africa. We will not remain passive while a genocide unfolds in the United States.”
***
Of course, none of this has happened.
There was no statement on “Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government” from South Africa. There was no news conference where an African leader highlighted the plight of his African brothers and sisters in the United States and offered them options.
There will be no refuge flights from Detroit to Pretoria.
Instead, after the US cut off aid to South Africa, repeated false accusations that a “white genocide” is taking place there and began welcoming Afrikaners as refugees, a pragmatic Ramaphosa paid a respectful visit to the White House on May 21.
During his visit, watched closely by the world media, he did not even mention the millions of African Americans facing discrimination, police violence and abuse under a president who is clearly determined to “Make America White Again” – let alone offer them refuge in Africa. Even when Trump insisted, without any basis in reality, that a genocide is being perpetrated against white people in his country, Ramaphosa did not bring up Washington’s long list of – very real, systemic, and seemingly accelerating – crimes against Black Americans.
He tried to remain polite and diplomatic, focusing not on the racist hostility of the American administration but on the important ties between the two nations.
Perhaps, in the real world, it is too much to ask an African leader to risk diplomatic fallout by defending Black lives abroad.
Perhaps it is easier to shake hands with a man who calls imaginary white suffering a “genocide” rather than to call out a real one unfolding on his watch.
In another world, Ramaphosa stood tall in Pretoria and told Trump`: “We will not accept your lies about our country – and we will not stay silent as you brutalise our kin in yours.”
In this one, he stood quietly in Washington – and did.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.
The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.
There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.
Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.
“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.
Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”
But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.
Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.
Round-the-clock work ahead
As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.
The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.
Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.
“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”
House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.
The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.
It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.
As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.
The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.
For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.
But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.
“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.
Battle over Medicaid, food aid
Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.
All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.
The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.
Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.
Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.
At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.
On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.
While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.
A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.
To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.
There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.
Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
