domestic

Donald Trump’s effort to overcome his deep unpopularity among female voters was dealt a setback Friday as decades-old domestic violence allegations surfaced against Stephen K. Bannon, the controversial new chief executive of his campaign.

In January 1996, according to a police report, Bannon grabbed his wife’s wrist and neck, then smashed a phone when she tried to call 911 from their Santa Monica home. Police photographed “red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck,” the report said.

Years earlier, three or four other arguments also “became physical,” Bannon’s wife, Mary Louise Piccard, told police. The couple divorced soon after the 1996 altercation.

Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and witness intimidation, and the Los Angeles Municipal Court issued a domestic violence protective order against him, according to a statement Santa Monica city officials issued Friday. Bannon pleaded not guilty, records show.

The case was dismissed when Piccard did not show up for trial in August 1996, according to the statement. Politico and the New York Post first reported on the case Thursday.

Details of the case emerged just hours after Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, faulted him for hiring Bannon last week in the latest shake-up of his campaign’s high command.

Clinton portrayed Bannon as a right-wing extremist who promoted racist, “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-women” ideas as chairman of the Breitbart News Network website.

Bannon, 62, took a leave from Breitbart last week to serve as CEO of the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign. The Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries about the police report.

Alexandra Preate, Bannon’s spokeswoman at Breitbart, declined to comment on the specific allegations, apart from noting that the charges were dismissed.

“He has a great relationship with his ex-wife,” she said.

The abuse allegations against Bannon surfaced as Clinton and her allies have been highlighting Trump’s history of making derogatory remarks about women. Clinton led Trump among female voters 58-35% in a Washington Post/ABC News poll at the beginning of August, and 60% of those polled overall said they saw Trump as biased against both women and minorities,

In March, police filed a battery charge against a previous Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, after he yanked and bruised the arm of Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a Trump event in Florida. Prosecutors declined to prosecute the case.

If Trump had vetted Bannon before hiring him, his ex-wife’s accusations should have been disqualifying, said Katie Packer, who was deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and led an effort to block Trump from getting the GOP nomination.

“Given the questions that women already have about how Trump views women and how he has treated women historically, elevating someone like this to such a high position only reinforces the idea that Trump doesn’t respect and value women,” Packer said.

Charlie Black, a Republican strategist who has informally advised the Trump campaign, said the allegations against Bannon fell into a “gray area” because the charges were dropped. But “of course it’s an issue,” he added, “because he’s in a position of CEO of the campaign.”

Piccard, who was Bannon’s second wife, did not respond to a phone message seeking comment.

She and Bannon, a former investment banker, were married in April 1995, three days before their twin daughters were born. Shortly before 9 a.m. on New Year’s Day 1996, police received a 911 call from their home in Santa Monica, but the line went dead. The police report gave this account:

An officer went to the front door and was greeted by Piccard, who appeared “very upset.” She burst into tears and took several minutes to calm down.

Bannon had slept on the living-room couch the night before, and he “got upset” in the morning when Piccard made noise while feeding the twin babies. When Bannon started to leave, she asked for a credit card for groceries, but he refused and went to his car, Piccard told police.

She followed him outside, told him she wanted a divorce and said he should move out. He laughed at her and told him he would never leave, according to Piccard. She said she spat at him when he was sitting in the driver’s seat of his car.

“He pulled her down, as if he was trying to pull [her] into the car, over the door,” the report said. Bannon grabbed her neck, pulling her toward the car again, and she struck him in the face and ran back into the house. She told Bannon she was dialing 911, and he “jumped over her and the twins to grab the phone.”

“Once he got the phone, he threw it across the room,” the report said. “After this, Mr. Bannon left the house.”

Piccard, whose name was blacked out in the police report, “found the phone in several pieces and could not use it.”

“She complained of soreness to her neck,” the officer wrote in the police report. “I saw red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck.”

Court papers in the divorce and child custody proceedings show Bannon was living primarily in Tucson at the time, to work on Biosphere 2, a desert refuge enclosed in a glass dome for research.

Piccard won custody of the twins in the divorce. During Bannon’s visit with the babies about nine months after the incident, in September 1996, he spanked one of them, Piccard wrote in child custody court papers. The twins were 17 months old at the time.

“I restrained him and told him that it was not acceptable to hit our daughter (he believes in corporal punishment),” Piccard wrote. Bannon “screamed at me” and “stormed out of the house.”

In March 1997, Piccard wrote that she only wanted to restrict Bannon’s visits with the children to neutral sites because he “has been verbally abusive to me in front of the girls and I do not feel safe meeting him” elsewhere.

[email protected]

Twitter: @finneganLAT

Hillary Clinton is exploring the outer limits of fundraising like no presidential nominee ever has

Donald Trump’s shifting talk on immigration shows his struggle to reach beyond his core supporters

Can Donald Trump really round up and deport 11 million people?

UPDATES:

5:55 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from Santa Monica officials detailing the charges against Bannon.

This article was originally published at 4 p.m.

At a tense political moment in the wake of conservative lightning rod Charlie Kirk’s killing, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum focusing federal law enforcement on disrupting “domestic terrorism.”

The memo appeared to focus on political violence. But during a White House signing Thursday, the president and his top advisors repeatedly hinted at a much broader campaign of suppression against the American left, referencing as problematic both the simple printing of protest signs and the prominent racial justice movement Black Lives Matter.

“We’re looking at the funders of a lot of these groups. You know, when you see the signs and they’re all beautiful signs made professionally, these aren’t your protesters that make the sign in their basement late in the evening because they really believe it. These are anarchists and agitators,” Trump said.

“Whether it be going back to the riots that started with Black Lives Matter and all the way through to the antifa riots, the attacks on ICE officers, the doxxing campaigns and now the political assassinations — these are not lone, isolated events,” said Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. “This is part of an organized campaign of radical left terrorism.”

Neither Trump nor Miller nor the other top administration officials flanking them — including Vice President JD Vance, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel — offered any evidence of such a widespread left-wing terror campaign, or many details about how the memo would be put into action.

Law enforcement officials have said Kirk’s alleged shooter appears to have acted alone, and data on domestic extremism more broadly — including some recently scrubbed from the Justice Department’s website — suggest right-wing extremists represent the larger threat.

Many on the right cheered Trump’s memo — just as many on the left cheered calls by Democrats for a clampdown on right-wing extremism during the Biden administration, particularly in light of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. In that incident, more than 1,500 were criminally charged, many convicted of assaulting police officers and some for sedition, before Trump pardoned them or commuted their sentences.

Many critics of the administration slammed the memo as a “chilling” threat that called to mind some of the most notorious periods of political suppression in the nation’s history — a claim the White House dismissed as wildly off base and steeped in liberal hypocrisy.

That includes the Red Scare and the often less acknowledged Lavender Scare of the Cold War and beyond, they said, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy and other federal officials cast a pall over the nation, its social justice movements and its arts scene by promising to purge from government anyone who professed a belief in certain political ideas — such as communism — or was gay or lesbian or otherwise queer.

Douglas M. Charles, a history professor at Penn State Greater Allegheny and author of “Hoover’s War on Gays: Exposing the FBI’s ‘Sex Deviates’ Program,” said Trump’s memo strongly paralleled past government efforts at political repression — including in its claim that “extremism on migration, race and gender” and “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” are all causing violence in the country.

“What is this, McCarthyism redux?” Charles asked.

Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, said the Trump administration is putting “targets on the backs of organizers” like her.

Abdullah, speaking Friday from Washington, D.C., where she is attending the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference, said Trump’s efforts to cast left-leaning advocacy groups as a threat to democracy was “the definition of gaslighting” because the president “and his entire regime are violent.”

“They are anti-Black. They are anti-people. They are anti-free speech,” Abdullah said. “What we are is indeed an organized body of people who want freedom for our people — and that is a demand for the kind of sustainable peace that only comes with justice.”

Others, including prominent California Democrats, framed Trump’s memo and other recent administration acts — including Thursday’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over the objections of career prosecutors — as a worrying blueprint for much wider vengeance on Trump’s behalf, which must be resisted.

“Trump is waging a crusade of retribution — abusing the federal government as a weapon of personal revenge,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X. “Today it’s his enemies. Tomorrow it may be you. Speak out. Use your voice.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, left, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi listen to President Trump Thursday in the Oval Office.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta noted that the memo listed various incidents of violence against Republicans while “deliberately ignoring” violence against Democrats, and said that while it is unclear what may come of the order, “the chilling effect is real and cannot be ignored.”

Bonta also sent Bondi a letter Friday expressing his “grave concern” with the Comey indictment and asking her to “reassert the long-standing independence of the U.S. Department of Justice from political interference by declining to continue these politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the Trump administration is twisting Kirk’s tragic killing “into a pretext to weaponize the federal government against opponents Trump says he ‘hates.’”

“In recent days, they’ve branded entire groups — including the Democratic Party itself — as threats, directed [the Justice Department] to go after his perceived enemies, and coerced companies to stifle any criticism of the Administration or its allies. This is pure personal grievance and retribution,” Padilla said. “If this abuse of power is normalized, no dissenting voice will be safe.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said it was “the highest form of hypocrisy for Democrats to falsely claim accountability is ‘political retribution’ when Joe Biden is the one who spent years weaponizing his entire Administration against President Trump and millions of patriotic Americans.”

Jackson accused the Biden administration of censoring average Americans for their posts about COVID-19 on social media and of prosecuting “peaceful pro-life protestors,” among other things, and said the Trump administration “will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.”

A month ago, Miller said, “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization” — a quote raising new concerns in light of Trump’s memo.

On Sept. 16, Bondi said on X that “the radical left” has for too long normalized threats and cheered on political violence, and that she would be ending that by somehow prosecuting them for “hate speech.”

Constitutional scholars — and some prominent conservative pundits — ridiculed Bondi’s claims as contrary to the 1st Amendment.

On Sept. 18, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that unnamed national security officials had told him that the FBI was considering treating transgender suspects as a “subset” of a new threat category known as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists” — a concept LGBTQ+ organizations scrambled to denounce as a threat to everyone’s civil liberties.

“Everyone should be repulsed by the attempts to use the power of the federal government against their neighbors, their friends, and our families,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said Wednesday. “It creates a dangerous precedent that could one day be used against other Americans, progressive or conservative or anywhere in between.”

In recent days, Trump has unabashedly attacked his critics — including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly suspended. On Sept. 20, he demanded on his Truth Social platform that Bondi move to prosecute several of his most prominent political opponents, including Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” wrote Trump, the only felon to ever occupy the White House. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Comey’s indictment — on charges of lying to Congress — was reported shortly after the White House event where Trump signed the memo. Trump declined to discuss Comey at the event, and was vague about who else might be targeted under the memo. But he did say he had heard “a lot of different names,” including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and George Soros, two prominent Democratic donors.

“If they are funding these things, they’re gonna have some problems,” Trump said, without providing any evidence of wrongdoing by either man.

The Open Society Foundations, which have disbursed billions from Soros’ fortune to an array of progressive groups globally, said in response that they “unequivocally condemn terrorism and do not fund terrorism” and that their activities “are peaceful and lawful.” Accusations suggesting otherwise were “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with,” the group said.

John Day, president-elect of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said his organization has not taken a position on Trump’s memo, but had grave concerns about the process by which Comey was indicted — namely, after Trump called for such legal action publicly.

“That, quite frankly, is very disturbing and concerning to us,” Day said. “This is not the way the legal system was designed to work, and it’s not the way it has worked for 250 years, and we are just very concerned that this happened at all,” Day said. “We’re praying that it is an outlier, as opposed to a predictor of what’s to come.”

James Kirchick, author of “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington,” which covers the Lavender Scare and its effects on the LGBTQ+ community in detail, said the “strongest similarity” he sees between then and now is the administration “taking the actions of an individual or a small number of people” — such as Kirk’s shooter — “and extrapolating that onto an entire class of people.”

Kirchick said language on the left labeling the president a dictator isn’t helpful in such a political moment, but that he has found some of the administration’s language more alarming — especially, in light of the new memo, Miller’s suggestion that the Democratic Party is an extremist organization.

“Does that mean the Democratic Party is going to be subject to FBI raids and extremist surveillance?” he asked.

Herbert Hoover (1929–1933)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: -9.3%

President Herbert Hoover had the worst average annual GDP growth rate so far at -9.3%. That’s because in October 1929, during Hoover’s first year of his term, the stock market crashed and led to the Great Depression, the most severe and longest economic recession in modern world history.

Hoover took a laissez-faire (low government intervention) approach in response to the Great Depression and vetoed several bills that would have provided relief to Americans impacted by the recession. He also signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law, which raised the costs of important goods and affected trade. The GDP growth rate fell to -12.9% in 1932, while unemployment soared to 25% in 1933.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 10.1%

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had an average annual GDP growth rate of 10.1% during his four-term presidency, the highest growth rate of any president so far. FDR introduced a series of government programs known as the New Deal to help stimulate the economy during the Great Depression. The New Deal aimed to maintain infrastructure, create jobs, and boost businesses across the country. The New Deal also included programs such as Social Security.

While the New Deal did help the economy recover and helped reduce income inequality in the United States, some economists question its true impact on the economy and even say it may have prolonged the recession by several years. Critiques of the New Deal say that too much government aid may have hindered the economy’s natural way of rebounding after a deep recession. Still, economists consider 1941 as the end of the Great Depression because GDP increased and unemployment dropped. This was also the year when the U.S. entered WWII.

FDR’s social programs also came with major tax increases and national debt. Roosevelt contributed the largest percentage increase to the U.S. national debt between his New Deal initiatives and, more significantly, spending on World War II.

Harry S. Truman (1945–1953)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 1.4%

President Harry Truman had an average annual GDP growth rate of 1.4%. The economy went through two mild recessions during Truman’s term: one in 1945 due to a drop in government spending after the end of WWII and another from 1948 to 1949 as the economy corrected in the wake of a postwar spending boom.

Truman had the difficult job of transitioning the economy from wartime to peacetime without sending it into a recession, and, in large part, did manage to maintain a healthy peacetime economy. Truman also wanted to extend some of the New Deal’s economic programs, such as a higher minimum wage and housing. Still, only a few of his proposals became law due to facing opposition in CongressTruman’s’s Marshall Plan sent $12 billion to help rebuild Western Europe after WWII, boosting the U.S. economy by creating a demand for American goods. The Korean War began durinTruman’s’s term in 1950, leading to $30 billion in government spending that helped boost economic growth under Truman.

Dwight Eisenhower (1953–1961)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.8%

President Dwight D. Eisenhower had an annual GDP growth rate of 2.8%. During his time in office, the economy experienced three recessions, and the Korean War ended in 1953. Eisenhower helped boost economic growth with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which aimed to rebuild the country’s interstate highways. The government spent a total of $119 billion on the project.

The economy contracted into a recession again from 1957 to 1958 when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. However, Eisenhower refused to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, instead opting to maintain a balanced budget.

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.2%

President John F. Kennedy had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.2%. Kennedy and his administration helped end the 1960 recession (the fourth major recession since WWII) by increasing domestic and military spending. Kennedy also raised the minimum wage and increased Social Security benefits. 

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.2%

President Lyndon B. Johnson had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.2%. LBJ was sworn in two hours after Kennedy’s assassination and was re-elected in 1964 after getting 61% of the vote.

Johnson increased government spending and pushed through tax cuts and the civil rights bill proposed during Kennedy’s term. Johnson’s Great Society program in 1965 created social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and public housing. While the economy grew under LBJ with strong businesses and low unemployment, prices began to rise rapidly, and inflation ticked up. However, Johnson did not raise taxes to curb spending and cool inflation. Johnson also escalated the Vietnam War, which began during his term, but he was unable to end it.

Richard Nixon (1969–1974)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.7%

President Richard Nixon had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.7%. Though Nixon attempted to cool the inflation that began during LBJ’s term without causing a recession, his economic policies caused a period of stagflation that lasted for a decade. This period was a result of double-digit inflation and economic contraction.

Nixon imposed tariffs and wage-price controls, which led to layoffs and slower growth. The value of the dollar also fell during Nixon’s term when he ended the gold standard. The aftermath of Nixon’s economic policies is called the Nixon Shock.

Gerald R. Ford (1974–1977)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.4%

President Gerald R. Ford had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.4%. The economy had contracted and was in a recession from 1974 to 1975 due to stagflation from Nixon’s time. Ford and his administration cut taxes and reduced regulation to stabilize the economy, and ended the recession. However, inflation remained high.

Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.8%

President Jimmy Carter had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.8%. Stagflation continued into Carter’s term, and was made worse by an energy crisis that led to soaring gas prices and shortages. Carter deregulated oil prices to stimulate domestic production and also deregulated the airline and trucking industries. The Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, however, led to economic contraction. Carter also had the highest inflation rate among U.S. presidents to date.

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 3.6%

President Ronald Reagan had an average annual GDP growth rate of 3.6%. The economy went into a recession in 1981 after the Fed raised interest rates to 20% in an effort to cool inflation.

Reagan’s economic policies, later known as Reaganomics, aimed to end the recession through decreased government spending, tax cuts, increased military spending, and reduced social spending. While these policies helped bring inflation down, Reagan added over $1.86 trillion to the national debt and made the budget deficit worse. Critics of Reagan’s economic policies also say he widened the nation’s wealth gap, and that his deregulation of the financial services industry may have contributed to the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989.

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 1.8%

President George H.W. Bush had an average annual GDP growth rate of 1.8%. Bush’s administration had to contend with the fallout of the Savings and Loan Crisis, which unfolded during the 1980s and 1990s and contributed to a recession in 1990–1991. In 1989, Bush agreed to a $100 billion government bailout plan to help banks out of the Savings and Loan Crisis. Bush also raised taxes and cut government spending in an effort to reduce the budget deficit.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 4.0% 

President Bill Clinton had an average annual GDP growth rate of 4%. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, with 22.5 million jobs created in Clinton’s two terms. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which increased growth by getting rid of tariffs between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton also lowered the national debt, creating a budget surplus of $70 billion. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and briefly cut government spending to reform welfare.

George W. Bush (2001–2009)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.4%

President George W. Bush had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.4%. Bush’s two terms came with major events such as the 9/11 attacks (2001), Hurricane Katrina (2005), and the 2008 recession. Bush launched the War on Terror by creating and expanding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the 9/11 attacks. Bush also faced the Great Recession in 2008, which was considered the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Bush’s military spending and significant tax cuts in response to the recession added about $4 trillion to the national debt.

Barack Obama (2009–2017)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.3%

President Barack Obama had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.3%. Obama ended the 2008 recession he inherited with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an $831 billion stimulus package passed by Congress aimed at cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and improving infrastructure and education. However, Obama is the president who added the most to the national debt, in dollar amounts, with his recession relief measures.

Still, Obama bailed out the auto industry in the U.S. and created 11.3 million new jobs during his two terms. Inflation and interest rates also remained low. He also ended the Iraq War and reduced troops in Afghanistan. Obama’s economic policies, now known as Obamanomics, were controversial at the time, and his role in ending the 2008 recession is still debated.

Donald Trump (2017–2020)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.3% 

President Donald Trump had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.3%. While there were no major wars or recessions during Trump’s presidency, he did face the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, his last year in office. Trump increased spending and cut taxes, while the Fed raised interest rates in response to Trump’s expansionary fiscal policies.

Trump placed import taxes on products from China, particularly steel and aluminum, to boost sales of American-made products. However, it hurt the sales of American exports instead, as China responded by placing tariffs on products it imported from the U.S. It also increased costs for American consumers. 

The economy went into recession with the onset of the COVID-19 public health crisis in March 2020 as businesses closed down and Americans sheltered in place. The recession was short but severe, and the Trump administration responded by declaring a state of emergency and passing a $2 trillion stimulus package called the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act. The CARES Act provided relief for businesses and individuals through stimulus payments and a pause on student loan payments, among other measures, but it was not enough to pull the economy out of the pandemic-induced recession.

Joe Biden (2021–2025)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 3.2%

President Joe Biden had an annual average GDP growth of 3.2%, with a cumulative real GDP increase of 12.6% over his term, highlighted by a 5.7% growth in 2021. Biden took office in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and signed the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which was a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide economic relief from the pandemic.

While the recession caused by the pandemic was severe, it was short-lived. However, it was followed by record-high inflation, partly due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused soaring gas prices in 2022, supply chain snarls, higher demand for goods, and increased consumer spending from federal stimulus checks. The Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates 11 times in an attempt to cool inflation. In July 2024, inflation cooled to 2.9%, and the Fed signaled a rate cut.

How Does the President Impact GDP?

Since GDP is the most popular way to measure economic growth, it can show us how the economy performed under each U.S. president. The economy’s performance under a president is an important factor that voters consider when evaluating a president’s time in office. Additionally, economic policies are one of the primary issues that presidents address during their campaigns.

Presidents indeed play a role in determining GDP. The president and Congress set fiscal policy to help direct the economy. The executive and legislative branches, for instance, can lower taxes and increase government spending to boost the economy, or do the opposite.

While the president plays an important role in guiding the economy, external factors that can slow down the economy—such as wars, recessions, or public health crises—also significantly impact the economy and can be out of the president’s control. In addition, the Federal Reserve—which is independent of the federal government—sets monetary policy, which influence the economy as well.

The Bottom Line

Looking at GDP growth is one of the most widely used measures of economic growth, as it is considered one of the most accurate economic indicators. Since a president’s economic policies can have a significant impact on GDP, it can be used as a way to examine how the economy did under each U.S. president.

However, it is essential to remember that certain economic events, such as severe recessions, natural disasters, public health crises, and other catastrophic events, can significantly impact the economy and have little to do with who is in office. Still, the way a president, along with the central bank, sets and enacts monetary policy in response to such events also influences the economy.

Marius Borg Hoiby faces up to 10 years in prison after being charged with 32 criminal offences, including rape.

The son of Norway’s crown princess has been charged with raping four women, domestic violence, assault and other crimes following a yearlong police investigation, according to prosecutors.

Marius Borg Hoiby, 28, son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit and stepson of the heir to the throne, Crown Prince Haakon, is expected to stand trial early next year and could face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of the most serious charges, Oslo state attorney Sturla Henriksbo said on Monday.

Hoiby denies the most serious accusations against him but plans to plead guilty to some lesser charges in court when the trial starts, his lawyer Petar Sekulic told the Reuters news agency.

“He does not agree with the claims regarding rape and domestic violence,” Sekulic said of his client.

Hoiby was charged on Monday with 32 criminal offences, including one count of rape with sexual intercourse and three counts of rape without intercourse, some of which he filmed on his telephone, the prosecution said.

Henriksbo estimates the trial could begin in mid-January and take about six weeks.

Hoiby does not have a royal title and is outside the line of royal succession.

“It is up to the courts to hear this case and to reach a decision,” the royal palace said in a statement.

The prosecutor said Hoiby, as a member of the royal family, would not be treated “more lightly or more severely” than anyone else in similar circumstances.

Domestic abuse

Police in November last year held Hoiby in detention for one week as part of the investigation.

In August of last year, Hoiby was named as a suspect of physical assault against a woman with whom he had been in a relationship – the only victim identified by the prosecution, Nora Haukland.

“The violence consisted, among other things, of him repeatedly hitting her in the face, including with a clenched fist, choking her, kicking her and grabbing her hard,” the prosecutor said.

Hoiby, in a statement to the media at the time, admitted to causing bodily harm to the woman while he was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol and of damaging her apartment. He had stated then that he regretted his actions.

According to media reports, he spent time with gang members, Hells Angels bikers and members of Oslo’s Albanian mafia. In 2023, police contacted him to discuss his hangouts with “notorious criminals”.

It emerged last year that Hoiby had already been arrested in 2017 for using cocaine at a music festival.

100m champion Sha’Carri Richardson addresses domestic violence arrest and apologizes to boyfriend Christian Coleman.

Sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson has addressed her recent domestic violence arrest in a video on social media and issued an apology to her boyfriend Christian Coleman.

Richardson posted a video on her Instagram account Monday night in which she said she put herself in a “compromised situation”. She issued a written apology to Coleman on Tuesday morning.

“I love him & to him I can’t apologize enough,” the reigning 100-meter world champion wrote in all capital letters on Instagram, adding that her apology “should be just as loud” as her “actions”.

“To Christian I love you & I am so sorry,” she wrote.

Richardson was arrested on July 27 on a fourth-degree domestic violence offence for allegedly assaulting Coleman at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. She was booked into South Correctional Entity in Des Moines, Washington, for more than 18 hours.

Her arrest was days before she ran the 100 metres at the US championships in Eugene, Oregon.

In the video, Richardson said she’s practising “self-reflection” and refuses “to run away but face everything that comes to me head on”.

According to the police report, an officer at the airport was notified by a Transportation Security Administration supervisor of a disturbance between Richardson and her boyfriend, Coleman, the 2019 world 100-metre champion.

The officer reviewed camera footage and observed Richardson reach out with her left arm and grab Coleman’s backpack and yank it away. Richardson then appeared to get in Coleman’s way, with Coleman trying to step around her. Coleman was shoved into a wall.

Later in the report, it said Richardson appeared to throw an item at Coleman, with the TSA indicating it may have been headphones.

The officer said in the report: “I was told Coleman did not want to participate any further in the investigation and declined to be a victim.”

A message was left with Coleman from The Associated Press.

Richardson wrote that Coleman “came into my life & gave me more than a relationship but a greater understanding of unconditional love from what I’ve experienced in my past”.

She won the 100 at the 2023 world championships in Budapest and finished with the silver at the Paris Games last summer. She also helped the 4×100 relay team to an Olympic gold.

She didn’t compete during the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, following a positive marijuana test at the US Olympic trials.

Prime Minister Mark Carney also introduced a fund to invest in domestic steel projects.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that Canada will introduce a tariff rate quota on countries it has free trade agreements with, excluding the United States, in order to protect its domestic steel industry.

Carney announced the new measures on Wednesday.

The plan includes a 50 percent tariff that will apply to imports from relevant countries that surpass the 2024 volumes, though Canada will honour existing arrangements with its United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade partners, Carney said.

Canada will implement additional tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports from all countries containing steel melted and poured in China before the end of July.

Carney is responding to complaints from the domestic industry, which had said that other countries are diverting steel to Canada and making the domestic industry uncompetitive due to US tariffs. The Canadian steel industry had asked the government to introduce tougher anti-dumping measures to protect the domestic industry.

US President Donald Trump increased import duties on steel and aluminium to 50 percent from 25 percent earlier this month. Canada is the top seller of steel to the US.

Carney also said domestic steel companies would be prioritised in government procurement, and he introduced a fund of one billion Canadian dollars ($730m) to help steel companies advance projects in industries such as defence.

“These measures will ensure Canadian steel producers are more competitive by protecting them against trade diversion resulting from a fast-changing global environment for steel,” Carney said on Wednesday.

For countries without free trade agreements with Canada, the government lowered the tariff-free quota to 50 percent of 2024 volumes from 100 percent previously. Above the quota, imports will also face a 50 percent tariff.

Catherine Cobden, president and CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, in an interview with broadcaster CBC, said the timing wasn’t sufficient for domestic steelmakers confronting a crisis.

“This is something we should have been doing all along, but it’s fantastic to see that we are making progress,” Cobden said.

In a separate statement, Canadian steel maker Evraz said it has filed a complaint against steel imports from Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Turkiye and the US, against unfairly priced imports of oil country tubular goods.

The trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs has culminated in a verdict, after more than seven weeks of intense media scrutiny and testimony about drug-fuelled celebrity sex parties.

But beneath the salacious details, advocates say there are critical takeaways about how sexual violence is understood – and sometimes tolerated – within the criminal justice system.

On Wednesday, a federal jury in the United States delivered a split decision.

It found Combs guilty of transporting individuals to engage in prostitution, but not guilty of the weightier question of whether he engaged in sex trafficking or racketeering for flying girlfriends and sex workers to the parties he organised.

Prosecutors had described Combs’s activity as a “criminal enterprise” in which he leveraged money, power and physical violence to force former girlfriends into abusive circumstances.

The split ruling has, in turn, divided opinion about what the case means for the beleaguered #MeToo movement, which emerged in the early 2010s to bring accountability to cases of sexual violence.

For Emma Katz, a domestic abuse expert, the jury’s decision indicates there are still yawning gaps in public understanding about sexual violence. That understanding, she maintains, is necessary to assess the behaviours that accompany long-term abuse and coercion, particularly between intimate partners.

“I think a ruling like this would be a good news kind of day for perpetrators,” she told Al Jazeera. “The jury seems to have concluded you can be a victim, a survivor, whose boss beats you in hotel corridors and has control over your life, but that you’re not being coerced by him.”

“So much of what perpetrators do that enables them to get away with their abuse – and what makes their abuse so horrific and so sustained – has not been acknowledged and has disappeared from the picture in this verdict,” she added.

A ‘botched’ decision

How the jury arrived at its decision remains unknown.

But prosecutors had been tasked with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Combs used “force, fraud, or coercion” to compel his girlfriends into commercial sex acts.

The case was centred largely on the testimony of two women: singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura Fine and a woman identified only by the pseudonym “Jane”. Both were identified as former girlfriends of Combs.

The prosecution argued that Combs had used his financial influence, violence and threats of blackmail to coerce Ventura and the other woman to perform sex acts during parties known as “freak-offs”.

The evidence included surveillance video from March 2016 of Combs beating Ventura in a hotel hallway and then dragging her away. Ventura herself gave harrowing testimony at the trial, saying she felt “trapped” in a cycle of abuse.

She explained that cycle involved regular threats and violence, including Combs “stomping” her on the face in a 2009 incident.

But the defence’s arguments throughout the proceedings appear to have swayed the jury, according to Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor.

The defence blatantly admitted that Combs was abusive towards Ventura, as the surveillance footage had shown. But Combs’s lawyers maintained there was no evidence he coerced Ventura into committing sexual acts against her will.

The Los Angeles Times even quoted defence lawyer Teny Geragos as saying, “Domestic violence is not sex trafficking.”

“The big question in the case is: If you’re sexually abused or assaulted, why did you stay with your abuser for more than a decade?” Rahmani said. “I understand the psychology of abuse, but jurors don’t necessarily buy it”.

Rahmani broadly assessed that prosecutors “botched” the sex-trafficking portion of the case.

That included how prosecutors approached a series of messages from Ventura that indicated affection for Combs and active participation in sexual situations, which Rahmani noted were not revealed until cross-examination by the defence.

According to experts like Katz, such behaviour can be common in abusive relationships, in which an abuser expects a “performance of happiness” to avoid physical, financial or psychological repercussions.

“It would never surprise me to see a victim survivor sending loving texts and enthusiastic texts to somebody who they said was abusing them, because that’s all part and parcel of domestic abuse,” Katz said.

‘Stain on criminal justice’

From Katz’s perspective, the verdict underscores the reality of what has happened since the #MeToo movement emerged.

While #MeToo helped workplace harassment become more widely understood, the general public still struggles with the complexities of intimate partner violence.

“I think that the public has shown more willingness to consider how somebody might be harmed by an acquaintance, a work colleague, somebody who’s hiring them for a job,” Katz said.

By contrast, intimate partner abuse consistently raises victim-blaming questions like: Why did someone remain with an abusive partner?

“There’s still a lot of stigma around when you chose this person,” Katz explained. The thought process, she added, is often: “It can’t have been that bad if you stayed in the relationship.”

But domestic violence experts point to complicating, often unseen factors. Abuse can have psychological consequences, and abusers often attempt to wield power over their victims.

Children, housing and financial circumstances can also prevent survivors from leaving and seeking help. People experiencing such abuse might also fear an escalation of the violence – or retaliation against loved ones – should they leave.

Experts, however, say it can be hard to illustrate those fears in court. Still, on Wednesday, Ventura’s lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, struck a positive tone about the outcome of the Combs trial.

In a statement, he said Ventura’s legal team was “pleased” with the verdict and that her testimony helped to assure that Combs has “finally been held responsible for two federal crimes”.

“He still faces substantial jail time,” Wigdor noted. The prostitution transportation charges each carry a maximum of 10 years.

Several advocacy groups also praised Ventura and others for coming forward with their experiences.

The verdict “shows that even when power tries to silence truth, survivors push it into the light,” Lift Our Voices, a workplace advocacy group, wrote on the social media platform X. “The #MeToo movement hasn’t waned, it’s grown stronger.”

Fatima Goss Graves, head of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), echoed that Ventura’s and Jane’s testimonies were accomplishments in and of themselves.

“Coming forward and seeking accountability took extraordinary bravery and no jury can take that away,” she said.

Others were less optimistic about the jury’s split verdict. Arisha Hatch, interim executive director of UltraViolet, a gender-justice advocacy organisation, called the verdict a “decisive moment for our justice system” – and not in a good way.

“Today’s verdict is not just a stain on a criminal justice system that for decades has failed to hold accountable abusers like Diddy,” Hatch said. “It’s also an indictment of a culture in which not believing women and victims of sexual assault remains endemic.”

A tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran has slightly dampened the threat that the United States could be further dragged into an international conflict.

But many Americans are approaching the Fourth of July with a sense of trepidation if not outright fear — that such a war could still be on the horizon and that there is currently an increased risk of a terrorist attack in America because of it.

For so many reasons, we are a nation on edge. Which is why we have to be careful to not allow our fears to overtake our commitment to civil rights.

“Autocrats almost always use emergencies, sometimes real ones, sometimes exaggerated ones, and sometimes invented ones … to accumulate power,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of “How Democracies Die.”

None of the political experts I spoke with in past days said they thought President Trump planned the Iran bombing for his domestic agenda — that would be really extreme. But most shared Levitsky’s concern that it is in moments of anxiety, when society is apprehensive of external threats, that authoritarians find the most fertile ground for increasing their domestic power — because too often, people willingly give up freedoms in exchange for perceived safety.

Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professor who advised the Obama-Biden transition team on immigration policy, said that trade-off means “the situation with Iran and Trump’s immigration policy are very closely intertwined.”

No place is more likely to see that intersection of international and domestic policy more bluntly than California, and Los Angeles in particular.

Los Angeles is a “test case,” Brad Jones told me, where the Trump administration is already pushing to see how far it can go. He’s a political science professor at UC Davis.

“This is a very opportunistic presidency, and any opportunity that they can use to forward their immigration agenda, I think they’ll take full advantage of it,” Jones said.

We already have the Marines and National Guard on the streets, and under federal control, supposedly because Los Angeles is in the grip of violent chaos. Although Angelenos know this is ridiculous, the courts have, for now, sided with Trump that this deployment of troops on U.S. soil is within his power. And much of America, inundated with right-wing versions of current immigration protests, is seeing on a daily basis a narrative of lawlessness that seems to justify Trump’s crackdowns — including the arrest or detention of Democratic lawmakers.

Benjamin Radd is a professor at UCLA, an expert on Iran and a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations. He was featured in the documentary “War Game” last year about how a military insurgency could play out in the United States.

Not long ago — before the National Guard was deployed in L.A. against the will of Gov. Gavin Newsom — Radd was hired by a veterans group, which he declined to identify, to game out what would happen if Trump federalized the National Guard against the will of governors and turned them on the American public.

“And lo and behold, here we are now,” Radd said.

In his simulation, the pretend Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that could further a president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States.

But in the real world, it’s a concern that Trump would — either because of a genuine threat, or a Trumped-up one. Rudd said that would be a “big red line.”

“I’m waiting to see if this Donald Trump will actually do that, because invoking the act will be able to give him more of those emergency powers that right now are being stymied at the courts,” he said.

Los Angeles, Rudd points out, is home to a large community of Iranian Americans, of which he is a member.

It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to dream up a scenario in which the government sees this community as a potential threat if the conflict in the Middle East continues, as Japanese Americans were once viewed as a threat during World War II. Rudd said he didn’t see the likelihood of a mass internment, but pointed out that the government has already detained and deported students speaking out on the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza.

“Who gets swept up in that when you’re dealing with ethically diverse metropolises like Los Angeles that have a complex background and mix of people?” he asks.

Already, the administration has announced the arrests of 11 undocumented Iranians across the U.S. in the last few days.

“We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out — and we are,” Homeland Security Department Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland.”

Trump’s “entire playbook on immigration has been to characterize immigration as invasion and immigrants as invaders,” Motomura said. “Having a military conflict with Iran allows Trump to link any actions by Iran or its proxies as further evidence of invasion … and as even further proof that he must take drastic emergency measures against foes both domestic and foreign.”

Levitsky said that the “Trump administration is clearly learning how useful it is” to portray immigration as a national security emergency. He points out that the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador this year was supposedly necessary because it was depicted as an attack on America by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, although there was little evidence of such a planned incursion.

But the narrative of immigration as a foreign offensive has stuck — remember when “shithole countries” were supposedly purposefully emptying prisons and mental hospitals to send murderers and rapists to the U.S.?

And so many people accepted whatever erosion of rights these deportations meant in exchange for the perception of living in safer communities — never mind that the reality is that most of those now trapped in that Salvadoran prison are not violent criminals.

Success with that tactic has left the administration increasingly eager to capitalize on fearmongering and “looking for ways to use language like insurgency or emergency that frees it from from legal constraints,” Levitsky said. “And war is a great way to do it.”

Jones warned that even just stoking concerns that “there’s cells or there’s people on the inside” wishing to do us harm could be justification enough for more disintegration of rights.

Although all of that sounds dire, it’s important to remember that it hasn’t happened yet, and it may never happen. And if it does, it does not mean there’s no recourse to protect our civil rights — the people still have power.

“There isn’t a single strategy, a single slogan, a single movement, a single group, a single leader, a single protest,” Levitsky said. “There are literally 1,000 different ways for people to express their opposition to what’s going on, and what’s important is that Americans engage.”

Part of that engagement is accepting that democracy is not a given, and that American democracy holds no special powers to survive, he said.

“Frankly, that’s why we’re losing our democracy,” Levitsky said. “Brazilians don’t have this problem. South Koreans do not have this problem. … Germans don’t have this problem. People in Spain don’t have this problem. Chileans, Argentinians do not have this problem.

“All those societies have a collective memory of authoritarianism. All those societies know what it means to lose a democracy,” he said. “Americans don’t have an idea.”

Our greatest threat right now isn’t Trump or what he may or may not do. It’s our inability to believe that authoritarianism really is creeping up on us, that it could happen here.

And that all it might take is denial with a chaser of fear to topple a democracy that once felt unbreakable.