Category: Politics

The Texas House gaveled in and out without a quorum again on Friday, as Republicans grew annoyed with Democratic lawmakers who left the state to prevent a vote on a redistricting bill that President Donald Trump urged them to pass.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced at Friday’s session that Democrats would be required to collect their monthly paychecks and per diems in person.

“While the Constitution forbids us from withholding pay, it does not dictate how we issue the pay,” Burrows said.

Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu scoffed at the threat. “Members of the legislature are paid $600 a month. Foregoing our monthly salary is a far smaller cost than the price of inaction,” he said in a statement.

Republican leaders are also freezing Democrats’ monthly operating budgets. “Absent members must also appear in person” to get approval for travel reimbursements or other House services, said Burrows.

The speaker said the Texas House “has also contacted the sergeant at arms of the Illinois House of Representatives, requesting their direct assistance in returning absent members.”

But that request isn’t making much headway further north. “No member of the Illinois House is responsible for attendance at Texas’ undemocratic sham of session,” said Jon Maxson, director of communications for the Illinois House Speaker.

“We are continuing to explore new avenues to compel a quorum, and will keep pressing forward until the job is done,” Burrows told the members who were in attendance Friday, pointing to the other item on the agenda — disaster relief for floods that plagued the state last month — as a reason to return.

“Every hour you remain away is time stolen from those Texans in need,” he said, referring to the redistricting bill that Republicans strategically attached to flooding relief.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has called the threats “grandstanding,” saying his state will protect the Texas Democrats and that the civil complaints issued in Texas have no bearing on Illinois.

Friday’s House action came hours after a suburban Chicago hotel complex where Democratic legislators had been staying received a second death threat.

The local police department, in coordination with the Kane County Sheriff’s Office Bomb Squad and the Explosive Detection K-9 Unit, searched the area and found no explosive device, according to a statement. There were 70 guests at the hotel center at the time.

A person close to the Texas Democrats, granted anonymity for security reasons, said they left the hotel after a bomb threat earlier in the week and declined to identify the delegation’s current location.

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

PRIMARILY INTERESTING: Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani’s resounding primary victory exposed how a Democratic socialist’s ability to dominate across the city, and his 56-43 win over the more moderate Andrew Cuomo has sparked a wave of energy for lefty challenges.

Pro-Cuomo lawmakers state Sen. Jessica Ramos and Assemblymember David Weprin have already drawn challengers, but a host of other low-profile electeds didn’t back Mamdani and saw their constituents vote overwhelmingly in his favor.

Thanks to data published by Sam Hudis and Competitive Advantage Research, Playbook was able to identify 23 Democratic-held legislative districts in the city where Mamdani captured more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round of ranked choice voting.

Five of those districts are occupied by lawmakers who didn’t receive the backing of the Working Families Party in its initial round of endorsements last year and stayed away from the brand of leftist politics that launched Mamdani to the nomination — and they could see the Mamdani momentum topple them next June.

These lawmakers didn’t endorse Mamdani in the Democratic primary — or they backed Cuomo. Four of them represent a cluster of neighborhoods near and along the border of Brooklyn and Queens and one comes from Northern Manhattan.

Support from WFP and the DSA will be key for any left challenger hoping to unseat an incumbent, but the groups told Playbook it’s too early to talk about next year’s primaries.

“The WFP is focused on winning in November, alongside Zohran Mamdani and our other endorsees all around New York,” party spokesperson Sydney Watnick said. “Our number one priority at this time is making sure that working families across the state know and feel that their elected officials are working together to make New York more affordable for everyone.”

Grace Mausser, the co-chair of the city’s Democratic Socialist chapter, told Playbook in a statement, “Currently, our Electoral Working Group is looking at Zohran’s historic victory to see where we can grow our movement across the city. We’ll be hosting several forums this fall to hear from interested candidates, discuss their campaigns among our members, and ultimately our membership will vote on who we should endorse.”

1. Maritza Davila. District 53. 

Zohran vote share: 75%

Primary endorsement: None

First elected: 2013

Nowhere else did Mamdani do better in the first round of voting than in Assemblymember Maritza Davila’s district, which includes what some political nerds have dubbed the “Commie Corridor.”

Three quarters of all primary voters ranked him first, with Cuomo nabbing a mere 15 percent of the vote.

Davila didn’t back anyone in the mayoral primary, but she supported lefty Maya Wiley in the 2021 race after rescinding an endorsement for former comptroller Scott Stringer following allegations of sexual harassment he denies.

Her most recent primary challenge was in 2018, when she won with 82 percent of the vote and got the backing of the Working Families Party.

“The voters of Bushwick and Williamsburg have always made their voices clear when it comes to the issues that matter most — the cost of rent, the price of putting food on the table, and being able to afford to get to work or school,” Davila said in a statement. “For years, these neighborhoods have been at the forefront of demanding action on rent stabilization, food costs, and affordable, reliable public transportation. That is why the community came out so strongly for Zohran Mamdani. His message resonated because it speaks to the daily struggles my constituents face and the fights I have taken on throughout my career from delivering summer SNAP dollars, to advocating for rent freezes to working to make the B60 bus free.”

2. Stefani Zinerman. District 56. 

Zohran vote share: 65%

Primary endorsement: None

First elected: 2020

Assemblymember Stefani Zinerman successfully waded off a competitive primary challenge last year, but left-leaning Democrats are already eyeing her Bedford Stuyvesant and Crown Heights district.

Zinerman — a close ally of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — became the latest front on the House leader’s war to fend off the DSA in his backyard. He got heavily involved in the race, and it ultimately paid off: Zinerman beat Eon Huntley by six points last year.

Left-leaning City Council Member Chi Ossé, who resides in Zinerman’s district, has already made clear he wants someone to unseat her next year.

“Her pro-landlord lobby, pro-homelessness, pro-displacement agenda has been allowed to ravage our neighborhoods for too long,” he wrote in a lengthy statement. “Her abhorrent policy positions invite a primary challenge.”

Zinerman told Playbook in a statement that she commends Mamdani for his “impressive and inspiring grassroots campaign.”

“In each election, I have earned the trust of voters through hard work, accessibility, and by advancing a legislative and community agenda rooted in equity, accountability, and action,” she said. “Speculating about my political future without acknowledging the depth of my service or the diversity of thought within progressive circles is a disservice to the constituents of the 56th Assembly District and your readers.”

3. Jenifer Rajkumar. District 38. 

Zohran vote share: 64%

Primary endorsement: None

First elected: 2020

To political insiders, Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar needs no introduction. She was once famous for her remarkable stanning of our Mayor Eric Adams, but when his political capital nosedived she all but halted her cascade of appearances with the mayor.

This year, she was the moderate challenger hoping to unseat lefty Jumaane Williams for public advocate, and she levied attacks (which some criticized as racist) that he was lazy and absent from his job. Rajkumar — who is also a strong supporter of Israel — lost to Williams by over 50 points but was able to keep her district, which includes parts of Ridgewood, Glendale and Woodhaven.

“In 2020, Assemblywoman Jenifer Rajkumar made history, defeating an 11-year incumbent by the largest margin of any challenger in New York State and tripling voter turnout to a record high,” her spokesperson Jacob Gross said in a statement. “Since then, she has brought that same unmatched energy and results to her district every day, backed by a broad, diverse coalition — and she’s just getting started.”

4. Erik Dilan. District 54. 

Zohran vote share: 65%

Primary endorsement: Cuomo

First elected: 2014

Erik Dilan represents parts of Bushwick and Cypress Hills — and he has experience watching incumbents lose their seats to young, lefty challengers. His father, former state Sen. Marty Dilan, notably became the first sitting state legislator to lose a primary to a DSA member when he was ousted by Julia Salazar in 2018.

The Assemblymember’s most recent primary challenge came from DSA member Samy Olivares in 2022; he squeaked by with 52 percent of the vote. He did not respond to a request for comment.

5. Al Taylor. District 71. 

Zohran vote share: 51%

Primary endorsement: None

First elected: 2017

Harlem saw a swing toward Mamdani, and Assemblymember Al Taylor’s district was no exception.

While he didn’t endorse in the primary, Mamdani announced Thursday that Taylor is supporting him in the general election.

Earlier this year, the Harlem lawmaker stood with other Black electeds to support Eric Adams during the brief period when Gov. Kathy Hochul was considering removing him from office.

“As a longtime colleague in the NYS Assembly, I’ve had the privilege of working alongside Zohran Mamdani on issues that matter most to our communities,” Taylor said in a statement. “I look forward to continuing our work together, including making New York more affordable and our city safer. I am proud to support our Democratic nominee for Mayor and am eager to campaign with him leading up to the November election, doing my part to help create a brighter future for our city.” — Jason Beeferman and Bill Mahoney

SUBPOENA SITUATION: The U.S. attorney’s office in Albany has issued two subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James stemming from a pair of politically charged civil cases against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The subpoenas are an escalation of the Trump administration’s scrutiny of James, who has positioned herself as a ferocious opponent of the president. The Department of Justice earlier this year opened a separate investigation into mortgage fraud allegations against James, which she has denied.

The New York Times first reported the subpoenas.

“Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American,” James spokesperson Geoff Burgan said in a statement. “We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers’ rights.”

James’ civil fraud case against Trump led to a Manhattan trial judge last year determining the president and other defendants — including his adult sons — inflated his net worth and the value of his real estate properties. The judge ordered Trump to pay a massive financial penalty that, with interest, has ballooned to more than half a billion dollars. Trump is appealing that verdict.

James’ office last year successfully won a fraud case against the NRA, the pro-gun rights advocacy group, with a jury determining its longtime CEO misspent the organization’s funds on expensive perks.

“Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign,” James’ personal attorney Abbe Lowell said. — Nick Reisman, Josh Gerstein and Erica Orden 

‘HAPPY 90TH’: New York lawmakers joined the AARP to celebrate Social Security’s 90th anniversary today. The milestone comes at a perilous moment for the state’s social safety net, as the Empire State’s social service agencies brace for deep federal funding cuts in the Republican-led “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Vulnerable GOP Rep. Mike Lawler attended one AARP event today in the Hudson Valley’s Tarrytown. Lawler is a high-priority target for Democrats seeking to retake the House majority next year and he’s faced protests in his district over cuts to social service programs in the Republican megabill.

But Lawler was greeted diplomatically today and focused his brief remarks on efforts to bolster area Social Security offices and how the megabill benefits seniors.

“I am proud of the fact that as part of the tax bill, we were able to pass a $6,000 senior deduction, which will help offset Social Security taxes that is vital for our seniors who are living on a fixed income,” he said.

It was a far cry from the combative “Morning Joe” interview he had earlier in the day, where host Joe Scarborough pressed him on the law’s impact on Medicaid and district hospitals. Lawler accused hospital representatives of “parroting” talking points.

Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres joined a related AARP event in the Bronx today, telling the small crowd that he is “a lifelong ally in the fight for social security.”

“For me, there is no greater responsibility for the federal government and for America than to protect Social Security for the present and future generation of older Americans,” Torres said.

Torres didn’t directly criticize the megabill or his Republican colleagues in his address, but said “the top one percent does not pay their fair share into Social Security” — a pointed nod to the partisan debate. — Amira McKee and Emily Ngo

— QUEENS BOYS: Trump and Cuomo’s have crossed paths in their personal and professional lives several times before. (The New York Times)

— ONE WAY STREET: Mamdani has voiced support for Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill in her bid for governor of New Jersey, but the moderate is keeping her distance. (POLITICO Pro)

— GET OUT: The new Brooklyn headquarters for Adams’ reelection campaign has an outstanding vacate order. (THE CITY)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

A July 2025 CBS/YouGov poll asked Americans, “Do you approve or disapprove of the Trump administration’s program to find and deport immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally?”

The respondents were divided, with 49% of Americans approving and 51% disapproving.

But, as I’ll explain, that survey question addresses only part of the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.

I’m a lawyer and former adviser to senior state officials in Florida, and to the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. I also teach human rights and national security courses at Florida State University, including an interdisciplinary seminar called Refugees, Asylees & Migrants.

Immigration issues are complex. Discussing them is challenging, since key terms are often conflated and confused.

Clarifying these terms and their legal implications can help ensure people are talking about the same things – regardless of whether they agree about who should be in the country.

Some key immigration-related terms

Let’s start with terms describing different aspects of immigration.

Immigrant is a common term meaning a foreign national who intends to remain in the U.S. or another country where they weren’t born.

Migrant is a generic term that doesn’t have any specific legal meaning and is often used incorrectly as a synonym for immigrant.

Immigrants are considered documented if they’ve been issued an immigrant visa or a green card, thereby achieving lawful permanent resident status. Green cards and visas can be revoked – typically a consequence of certain criminal convictions. Visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission to enter but do not guarantee entry.

A lawful permanent resident generally can apply for U.S. citizenship after five years. This process is known as naturalization. In fiscal year 2024, 818,500 people were naturalized.

Once naturalized, revocation of U.S. citizenship – or denaturalization – is rare, traditionally resulting from fraud, omission during the application process or other extraordinary causes. Between 1990 and 2017, about 11 people annually had their naturalized citizenship revoked.

The Trump administration is reportedly expanding the scope of denaturalization and is being called out for allegedly weaponizing it against current political adversaries such as Elon Musk. However, denaturalization numbers remain low. The first Trump administration filed 102 denaturalization cases, and his current administration has filed five so far, according to NBC News.

In May 2025 – a typical month representing some of the most recent data available – about 47,000 immigrants entered the U.S. with one of the many kinds of immigrant visas. For example, the visas may be used for family-based immigration, including legitimate marriages to U.S. citizens and international adoptions. Immigrant visas are also available for employment-based immigration, including foreign nationals who invest substantial capital in the U.S. economy.

An array of nonimmigrant visas

Apart from immigrant visas, a variety of nonimmigrant or temporary visas are available.

For instance, there are visas for international students, although the Trump administration has expressed its intention to significantly restrict availability.

There are visas to facilitate travel and tourism, business, temporary workers, and for those with extraordinary abilities or achievements.

There are special visas for victims of human trafficking and other crimes who assist law enforcement.

There are even visas to facilitate international sports competitions.

In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. issued a record 8.5 million visitor visas. Stays are generally limited to six months.

In addition, visitors from more than 40 countries are allowed to travel to the U.S for tourism or business for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa.

Significantly, a foreign national entering the U.S. with a visitor visa, also known as a tourist visa, isn’t authorized to work.

What it means to be ‘undocumented’

The term undocumented essentially refers to people who didn’t obtain a green card or a visa – or stayed in the U.S.
after their documents expired. An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S.

Visa “overstays” represent approximately 40% of the undocumented population. As a matter of law, such overstays are civil rather than criminal violations.

Attracting more political attention are foreign nationals who cross U.S. borders outside of an authorized checkpoint without asserting a credible claims for asylum. The Border Patrol recorded an historic high of 249,741 encounters with such migrants in December 2023. That figure dropped 77% by August 2024, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

The Trump administration’s deployment of the U.S. military at the border has reportedly further reduced the number of encounters to the lowest level in decades, but questions regarding the legality of the deployment remain unanswered.

The Trump administration is also encouraging voluntary departure by offering travel assistance and $1,000 to “illegal aliens” who self-deport.

Being undocumented can be legal

Being undocumented doesn’t necessarily mean a foreign national is in the U.S. illegally.

Some foreign nationals are admitted into the country without documentation. Asylum-seekers, also known as asylees, are people fleeing persecution in their home countries. They generally must present themselves to federal immigration authorities at a port of entry, or after entering the country by other lawful means, and eventually substantiate their claims.

The Trump administration’s action to ban asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border was recently limited by a federal appellate court. The court’s decision effectively curtails the administration’s practice of deporting people to places where they could be tortured or persecuted, subject to any further consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Migrants escaping desperate economic circumstances are not eligible for asylum.

Refugees, like asylum-seekers, are fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries and are protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention as amended by its 1967 Protocol. This identifies five forms of persecution for relief – race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In 1980, Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the Refugee Act, which incorporated these international standards into U.S. law.

Unlike asylum-seekers, refugees apply for relief and substantiate their claims through the United Nations. They generally don’t get to choose whether or where they may be resettled.

Refugees and people granted asylum may seek lawful permanent resident status and eventually apply for U.S. citizenship.

In 2024, the U.S. accepted about 100,000 of an estimated 43 million refugees worldwide. Refugees are among the 122 million estimated to be forcibly displaced worldwide.

With limited exceptions, the Trump administration has suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and narrowed relief for women seeking protection from domestic and sexual violence in their home countries.

Humanitarian parole and TPS

Foreign nationals admitted into the U.S. as humanitarian parolees are undocumented initially, but their presence is authorized.

The federal government has historically used humanitarian parole to facilitate the admission of people from countries confronting significant violence or other compelling humanitarian crises when other processes are unavailable, overwhelmed or simply too slow.

For example, the U.S. launched a new humanitarian parole initiative in late 2022 to admit foreign nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Humanitarian parole also was used to admit foreign nationals following U.S. intervention in Vietnam and in Iraq after 9/11; after American troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021; and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Those granted temporary protected status, or TPS, by the federal executive branch are also believed to face extraordinary dangers if they return to their home countries. However, TPS can be granted only to foreign nationals who are already present in the U.S.

Generally, the federal executive branch has discretion to rescind both humanitarian parole and TPS, subject to certain rule-making requirements, if it concludes recipients can return safely to their home countries.

The Trump administration signaled its intent to terminate humanitarian parole and TPS broadly.

DACA recipients, or Dreamers, who arrived in the country without authorization as children, represent another protected category of undocumented foreign nationals legally living in the U.S. However, their status is uncertain due to ongoing litigation.

Mark Schlakman is Of Counsel to Rambana & Ricci, P.L.L.C., Immigration Attorneys, in Tallahassee, Florida.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

As dissatisfaction with the two-party system grows in the United States, the idea of an alternative, however unlikely, gains traction. Elon Musk’s recent call for an America Party may be unserious, but it speaks to something real.

Surveys consistently show that millions of American voters feel they lack real choices. They believe the two major parties don’t reflect their values, and they are exhausted by the constant polarization.

The bigger question isn’t whether Musk succeeds. As a public policy scholar, I think it’s why the U.S. political system is so hostile to new voices and ideas in the first place.

Why third parties rarely succeed

If he follows through on his idea, can Musk’s America Party actually take off? Probably not. History isn’t on his side.

That’s because the U.S. political system is structurally rigged against third parties, with deeply entrenched legal and procedural barriers that make it nearly impossible for new parties to gain traction.

In most states, getting a new party on the ballot is a formidable task. It involves gathering thousands of signatures, meeting stringent deadlines and complying with obscure filing requirements.

Even if a party gets on the ballot in one state, replicating that effort nationally is extremely hard. Each state has different laws, deadlines, signature requirements and legal demands.

Ballot access, campaign finance, media coverage and election rules overwhelmingly favor the existing Republican and Democratic parties. Even the Federal Election Commission is designed for partisan deadlock with an even number of members from each of the two major parties.

In a 2025 article on election administration in America, my colleagues and I analyzed all 50 state election codes. We found widespread legal and administrative barriers that systematically exclude independents and minor parties.

In 45 states, only major party members can serve on election boards, local or state bodies responsible for overseeing the administration of elections. In 27 states, judges must be registered with a major party. Campaign finance laws, access to voter data and registration rules also tilt the field to the major parties.

These structural barriers exist in both red and blue states. We found no statistical correlation between partisan leanings and these restrictions. That’s telling. It suggests that both parties, regardless of their ideological differences, are united in protecting their duopoly.

The founders’ warning

This entrenched two-party control runs contrary to the vision of the U.S. Constitution’s framers, who intentionally excluded political parties from the founding document.

This was no accident. The founders viewed parties as “factions” that had no legitimate place in the republic.

George Washington in 1796 warned that parties would inflame animosity and that the nation could not do enough to protect itself from this. John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton feared parties as “the most fatal disease” of government and hoped America could dispense of such groups.

An appetite for alternatives

Enter Elon Musk. His suggestion to create the America Party taps directly into a growing national frustration with the two-party entrenchment.

Public trust in major political parties is at historic lows, particularly among young voters and independents, who do not identify with any major party and may register as “no party preference,” “unaffiliated” or “independent” depending on state laws.

Despite Musk being widely unpopular, prone to conspiracy theories and exhibiting erratic and unpredictable politics, his proposal resonates with many Americans. An October 2024 poll found that 58% of U.S. adults say a third party is needed.

Additionally, the number of American voters identifying as politically independent continues to exceed each of the major political parties.

What do Americans really want?

Even if Musk never follows through, the idea of a new party highlights how undemocratic U.S. elections have become. It opens the door to conversations about reforms that give independents and third parties a fair shot and reflects the growing demand for alternatives to the two-party system.

Voters are frustrated by limited choices that fail to capture their full range of political views.

There are models to learn from. Most democracies use a nonpartisan election administration and don’t let political parties control the rules.

In the U.S., partisans referee contests in which members of their party directly compete. That conflict of interest would be unacceptable in business or sports. So why is it tolerated in elections?

Structural reforms and designs have been implemented to varying degrees in the U.S. with a goal of making democracy more responsive, fair, transparent and representative.

Reforms such as open primaries, which allow voters of any party affiliation to participate in any party’s primary election, proportional representation in places such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon, where political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive, and independent redistricting commissions have helped create more competitive electoral districts by reducing partisan gerrymandering.

So, too, have ranked-choice voting and fusion voting. In ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates by preference. If no one gets a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone wins. In fusion voting, multiple political parties can endorse the same candidate, who then appears on the ballot under each endorsing party’s line.

However, implementation of such reforms has been limited. Opposition to these reforms by the Democratic and Republican parties has, in many cases, been fierce.

It’s the system

The two-party system has insulated itself from competition.

The consequence is that today America has an impenetrable two-party system, the very scenario the framers and reformers feared most. Rather than focusing solely on Musk’s ambitions, the more pressing question is how to build an electoral system that reflects a modern, diverse democracy.

If Americans want more choices, and polling suggests they do, then they may want to examine the legal and procedural barriers that lock in the current system, which fails to address and accommodate their political preferences.

Thom Reilly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Since World War II, the United States has repeatedly supported governments that have been committing mass atrocities, which are defined by genocide scholar Scott Straus as “large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations.”

This includes U.S. support for Israel, which has remained consistent despite President Donald Trump’s recent disagreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over whether Palestinians are being starved in Gaza.

We are scholars of genocide and other mass atrocities, as well as international security. In our research for a forthcoming article in the Journal of Genocide Research, we analyzed official statements, declassified documents and media reports across four cases that involve U.S. support for governments as they were committing atrocities: Indonesia in East Timor from 1975 to 1999, Guatemala from 1981 to 1983, the Saudi-led coalition – known as the “Coalition” – in Yemen since 2015, and Israel in Gaza since October 2023.

We identified six rhetorical strategies, which are ways of talking about something, used by U.S. officials to publicly distance the U.S. from atrocities committed by those who receive its support.

This is significant because when Americans, as well as others around the world, accept such rhetoric at face value, the U.S. can maintain impunity for its role in global violence.

Feigned ignorance

When U.S. officials deny any knowledge of atrocities perpetrated by parties receiving U.S. support, we call that feigned ignorance.

For example, after the Coalition bombed a school bus in Yemen, killing dozens of children, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked Gen. Joseph Votel whether the U.S. Central Command tracks the purpose of the missions it is refueling.

His response: “Senator, we do not.”

This proclaimed ignorance stands in stark contrast with well-documented Coalition war crimes since 2015. As Yemen expert Scott Paul put it, “No one can feign surprise when lots of civilians are killed anymore.”

Obfuscation

When evidence of atrocities can no longer be ignored, obfuscation is used by U.S. officials, who muddle the facts.

When Indonesian forces carried out massacres in 1983, killing hundreds of civilians, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta sent a telegram to the secretary of state and multiple U.S. embassies, consulates and missions questioning the reports because they had “not received substantiation from other sources.”

Similarly, during the genocide in Guatemala, following Efraín Ríos Montt’s successful coup, U.S. officials skewed reports of violence perpetrated by the government, instead blaming the guerrillas.

In its 1982 report on human rights in Guatemala, for example, the State Department claimed, “Where it has been possible to assign responsibility [for killings in Guatemala] it appears more likely that in the majority of cases the insurgents … have been guilty.”

Yet U.S. intelligence said the contrary.

Reports of state atrocities and abuses in Guatemala can be found in U.S. intelligence documents from the 1960s onward. One 1992 CIA cable explicitly noted that “several villages have been burned to the ground” and that the “army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and noncombatants alike.”

Negation

As evidence of atrocities continue to mount, as well as evidence of who is responsible, U.S. officials have often turned to negation. They don’t deny that U.S. aid is being provided, but rather argue that it was not directly used in the commission of atrocities.

For example, during Indonesia’s atrocities in East Timor, the U.S. was actively training members of Indonesia’s officer corps. When Indonesian security forces massacred as many as 100 people at a cemetery in Dili in 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration’s reaction was simply to say that “none of the Indonesian military officers present at Santa Cruz had received U.S. training.”

Diversion

When public scrutiny of U.S. support reaches levels no longer easily dismissed, U.S. officials may turn to diversion.

These are highly publicized policy adjustments that rarely involve significant changes. They often include a form of bait-and-switch. This is because the aim of diversion is not to change the behavior of the recipient of U.S. aid; it is merely a political tactic used to placate critics.

In 1996, when the Clinton administration bowed to pressure from activists by suspending small arms sales to Indonesia, it still sold Indonesia US$470 million in advanced weaponry, including nine F-16 jets.

More recently, responding to both congressional and public criticism, the Biden administration paused the delivery of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs to Israel in May 2024 – but only briefly. All its other extensive weapons transfers remained unchanged.

As exemplified by U.S. support for Israel, diversion also includes perfunctory U.S. investigations that signal concern with abuses, without consequence, as well as support for
self-investigation, with similarly foreseeable exculpatory results.

Aggrandizement

When atrocities committed by recipients of U.S. support are highly visible, U.S. officials also use aggrandizement to praise their leaders and paint them as worthy of assistance.

President Ronald Reagan in 1982 praised President Suharto, the dictator responsible for the deaths of more than 700,000 people in Indonesia and East Timor between 1965 and 1999, for his “responsible” leadership. Meanwhile, Clinton officials deemed him “our kind of guy.”

Similarly, Guatemala’s leader Ríos Montt was portrayed by Reagan in the early 1980s as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment,” being forced to confront “a brutal challenge from guerrillas armed and supported by others outside Guatemala.”

These leaders are thus presented as using force either for a just cause or only because they are faced with an existential threat. This was the case for Israel, with the Biden administration stating Israel was “in the throes of an existential battle.”

This aggrandizement not only morally elevates leaders but also justifies the violence they commit.

Quiet diplomacy

Finally, U.S. officials also often claim to be engaging in a form of quiet diplomacy, working behind the scenes to rein in recipients of U.S. support.

Importantly, according to U.S. officials, for quiet diplomacy to succeed, continued U.S. support remains necessary. Therefore, continued support for those committing atrocities becomes legitimized precisely because it is this relationship that allows the U.S. to influence their behavior.

In East Timor, the Pentagon argued that training increased “Indonesian troops’ respect for human rights.” When a U.S.-trained Indonesian military unit massacred about 1,200 people in 1998, the Defense Department said that “even if American-trained soldiers had committed some of the murders,” the U.S. should continue training to “maintain influence over what happens next.”

U.S. officials also implied in 2020 that Yemenis under attack from the Coalition, led by Saudi Arabia, are advantaged by U.S. arms support to the Coalition because the support gave the U.S. influence over how the arms are used.

In the case of Gaza, U.S. officials have repeatedly referenced quiet diplomacy as promoting restraint, while seeking to block other systems of accountability.

For example, the United States has vetoed six United Nations Security Council resolutions on Gaza since October 2023 and has imposed sanctions on five International Criminal Court judges and prosecutors because of arrest warrants issued against Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Distancing and minimizing

U.S. officials have long used a variety of rhetorical strategies to distance the country from, and minimize its contributions to, atrocities committed by others with U.S. support.

With these strategies in mind, Trump’s acknowledgment of “real starvation” in Gaza can be viewed as a diversion from unchanged U.S. support for Israel as famine conditions in Gaza worsen and Palestinians are killed while waiting for food.

From feigning ignorance to minimizing violence and praising its perpetrators, U.S. governments and presidents have long used deceptive rhetoric to legitimize the violence of leaders and countries the U.S. supports.

But there are two necessary elements that allow this framing to continue to work: One is the language of the U.S. government; the other is the credulity and apathy of the public.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

INDIANAPOLIS — JD Vance brought reinforcements to his meeting with Indiana Republicans on Thursday, as the White House ramps up its pressure in red states to redraw their congressional maps ahead of the midterms.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, White House Counsel Dave Warrington and Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Director Alex Meyer took personal days to join Vance in making the pitch to lawmakers, according to a person familiar with the plans, granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive meeting. The trio took part in the conversation in their personal capacity.

One person inside the room, granted anonymity to describe the private conversation, said Vance “made a compelling case for what needs to be done,” as lawmakers asked questions and for more details.

“We’re optimistic they will do the right thing,” the person said. “They understand the microscope they are under.”

The inclusion of other top White House officials shows just how important the effort is for President Donald Trump as he hopes to retain power in Congress through the end of his term. In recent days, Trump’s team has pushed Republicans to redraw maps “everywhere where redistricting is an option.”A plan in Texas is already well underway, where Democrats in the Lone Star state fled in a last-ditch effort to stop the Legislature from passing a map that could net Republicans up to five seats.

A black curtain hung in front of the governor’s office as Vance met with legislative leaders, and Vance left the statehouse and headed to a local hotel for a Republican National Committee fundraiser. Still, Republicans in the state remained noncommittal following the conversation.

Gov. Mike Braun told reporters the meeting “covered a wide array of topics.” In response to a question about whether an agreement was reached, he said, “We listened.”

The meeting — which took place amid sustained booing by protesters gathered inside the statehouse — went “pretty good,” Braun added.

In statements following their meeting with Vance, neither Republican House Speaker Todd Huston nor Senate President Pro Tem Rod Bray mentioned “redistricting.”

At a rally following Vance’s talk with GOP lawmakers, Democrat Rep. Frank Mrvan said Republicans are “are afraid of the polling that they see,” and it’s led them to pursue redrawing the congressional maps.

“I know very confidently, and I believe, humbly, that this isn’t a done deal,” Mrvan said. “No matter if Gov. Braun bends the knee to Vance and Trump, it isn’t going to increase his prospect of being president of the United States.”

Mrvan’s lone Democratic colleague, Rep. Andre Carson, called on Republicans to reject the White House push.

“An attempt to silence our vote exists right now,” Carson told the crowd. “We want our Republican friends to do the right thing.”

​Politics

Katie Miller, a conservative operative who worked for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, is launching a podcast aimed at conservative women, she announced on X on Thursday.

“For years I’ve seen that there isn’t a place for conservative women to gather online,” she said in the announcement. “I wanted to create that space, where we have real, honest conversations with people across the political spectrum and across the world.”

Miller was a top aide for DOGE and had also served in President Donald Trump’s first administration.

She left the government to work directly for the billionaire and said in her announcement she was “concluding” her time working full-time for Musk.

Her podcast will air Mondays, she said.

“As a mom of three young kids, who eats healthy, goes to the gym, works full time, I know there isn’t a podcast for women like myself,” she said. “Hope you’ll join me.”

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

WHAT COULD BE ON TAP FOR 2028: There’s never been a full-fledged partisan gerrymander on the books for New York’s congressional districts.

Democrats and Republicans have split power in Albany during most modern redistricting cycles. When they didn’t in 2024, the lines drawn by Democrats after a series of court battles were nowhere near as aggressive as some partisans hoped.

Gov. Kathy Hochul now wants to change that in response to similar Republican efforts in Texas.

Redrawing the lines would be complicated in the Empire State. It couldn’t happen until 2028 at the earliest, and even then, it could only move forward if voters approve a constitutional amendment to permit a mid-decade gerrymander.

But that begs a big question: What would an all-out New York gerrymander look like? The political realities of 2028 are tough to predict. Some incumbents will be gone by then, and political shifts could come to various pockets of the state. And if President Donald Trump has his way, a new Census could throw the current mapmaking calculus out the window. But as things stand now, at least two Republicans have reason to fret, and maybe as many as four.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis has topped 60 percent in the past two elections. Her district currently encompasses Staten Island and merges it with portions of Brooklyn mostly to the east of the Verrazzano Bridge, most of them Republican-friendly.

In 2022, Democrats wanted to extend the district further north into Brooklyn to include portions of the left-leaning enclave of Park Slope. Enacting such a plan would turn the district into a battleground. A more aggressive approach — harkening back to a map used in the 1970s — would merge Staten Island with parts of Manhattan.

In Westchester, Democratic Rep. George Latimer has a lot of breathing room — he received 72 percent of the vote in 2024. Republican Rep. Mike Lawler doesn’t — he received 52 percent. There are towns, such as the ones immediately south of the Tappan Zee, that could be swapped from Latimer’s district to Lawler’s, growing the number of Democrats in the Republican’s seat.

The four Congressional seats on Long Island are currently split between Democratic Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi and Republican Reps. Nick LaLota and Andrew Garbarino.

“You could pull Suozzi’s district more into the city. You could pull Gillen’s district more into Gregory Meeks’ territory,” Hofstra University’s Larry Levy said, referring to the Queens Congress member.

That would allow for some portions of the Suozzi and Gillen districts to be merged with the Democratic strongholds currently situated in Republican districts: “You probably could make either Garbarino or LaLota more vulnerable, but not both,” Levy said.

In the western half of upstate, Democratic Rep. Tim Kennedy and Republican Reps. Claudia Tenney and Nick Langworthy each received around 65 percent of the vote in 2024. Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle got 60 percent.

There might be a path to joining slices of the Kennedy and Morelle seats with Democratic-friendly towns like Geneva and Oswego, allowing the Tenney district to become a bit more competitive.

But there’s not much to work with.

“Kennedy and Morelle are kind of islands of Democrats in a sea of Republicans,” one Buffalo Democrat said. With that in mind, the end result might just be jeopardizing two Democrats without actually making the Tenney seat winnable. — Bill Mahoney

MAMDANI TURNS UP PRESSURE: Zohran Mamdani sought to press his advantage today among Democrats who have yet to support him by leveraging a New York Times report that rival Andrew Cuomo and President Donald Trump have discussed the mayoral race.

“My administration will be Donald Trump’s worst nightmare,” Mamdani declared, predicting his policies to boost working-class New Yorkers would show how Trump has failed those communities.

The Democratic nominee for mayor accused Cuomo of “conspiring” with Trump. He spoke to reporters in Lower Manhattan outside 26 Federal Plaza, where federal immigration agents have been detaining migrants outside of court. Mamdani, who defeated Cuomo by 12 points in the June primary, stood with the leaders of labor unions that have endorsed him after previously backing Cuomo.

“We know that Andrew Cuomo will sell working people out for his interests, for the interests of the billionaires that support him, for the interests of Donald Trump,” Mamdani said, “because all of those interests are lining up as one and the same.”

Cuomo, who’s running an independent general election bid, told reporters in Midtown Manhattan that he doesn’t remember the last time he spoke with Trump and knocked the story as “palace intrigue.” The former governor said he did “leave word” with the president after an assasination attempt.

“I’ve never spoken to him about the mayor’s race,” Cuomo said, denying the Times report. “I had spoken to him when I was governor dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of times. We went through Covid together.”

Cuomo told reporters he would defend New York City against Trump “with every ounce of my strength.”

The Times additionally reported today that Cuomo has told business leaders he’s not “personally” looking for a fight with the president.

In Brooklyn, Mayor Eric Adams, who’s also running as an independent, said he’s never discussed the campaign with Trump and that his “conversations with the president is about bringing resources to the city.”

Mamdani told reporters today that he’s willing to talk with Trump and keep an open dialogue but only to improve the lives of New Yorkers.

“If he wants to actually act upon the cheaper groceries that he told us he would deliver, that is a different conversation,” the candidate said. — Emily Ngo, Joe Anuta and Amira McKee

‘LOOK ON THE HAT’: The first borough office of Adams’ uphill reelection campaign is borrowing the headquarters of one of Brooklyn’s old-guard political clubs.

The self-titled “child from Brownsville” cut the ribbon at his new Mill Basin office Thursday, announcing that the Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club headquarters — now plastered with “re-elect Eric for Mayor” posters — will serve as the nerve center for the campaign’s Brooklyn efforts.

“Why Brooklyn?” Adams said at the Thursday event, gesturing to his cap. “Brooklyn is the place I was born. When you look on the hat, it says Brownsville. It was the place that shaped and made me. It was the place that taught me the fortitude that I have right now to lead this city.”

Adams’ team said today it expects to unveil more offices across the five boroughs — just a day after the New York City Campaign Finance board denied the incumbent millions of dollars in public matching funds, putting him at a weighty financial disadvantage against Mamdani.

This isn’t the first time Adams has encountered trouble with the CFB, whose public matching fund program requires strict adherence to reporting mandates and individual donation limits.

A 900-page CFB audit of Adams’ 2021 campaign found more than 150 fundraising events that the Adams campaign said they paid for but did not document how much was spent and by whom — a red flag for potentially prohibited in-kind contributions. The campaign declined to address those irregularities in its official response.

POLITICO reported in 2021 that Adams also intermittently used office space occupied by the Democratic Party’s law firm without disclosing the relationship in campaign finance filings.

When asked about how much his campaign was spending to rent the home of one of New York’s oldest and most influential Democratic clubs, Adams shrugged. “Every payment we do is listed on the campaign finance so you can look at that,” he said.

Despite the CFB denying his funding request for the tenth time yesterday, Adams said he was unfazed, dodging questions about whether he would shake up his campaign staff or forgo the matching program to accept larger donations.

“The life of a person born in Brownsville, you’re always meeting obstacles,” Adams said, again gesturing to his cap. “But in all those obstacles, what happened? I’m the mayor, because I’m a working class, resilient, hard working New Yorker, and we’re used to obstacles.” — Amira McKee

DEPARTMENT OF WISHFUL THINKING: City Hall is asking agencies to contribute ideas for Mayor Eric Adams’ 2026 State of the City address — a request that assumes the mayor will win reelection despite poll numbers suggesting otherwise.

On Wednesday, Deputy Mayor for Communications Fabien Levy blasted out a message encouraging agencies to submit ideas for the theoretical address by Aug. 11, according to a copy of the missive obtained by Playbook.

The request comes as Adams, who is running as an independent, remains a longshot contender for a second term.

The incumbent is running as an independent in an overwhelmingly Democratic town. The Campaign Finance Board appears determined to deny him millions of dollars in public matching funds. And the latest poll had the mayor winning just 7 percent of the vote, coming in behind Mamdani, Cuomo and GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa.

Regardless, Levy is bullish on the mayor’s odds.

“New York City’s public servants are at their best when putting politics aside and staying focused on the work — and that is exactly what we are doing,” he said in a statement. “The State of the City takes months of thoughtful planning, and we intend to deliver a speech in early 2026 that is as groundbreaking as ever.”

Despite the aura of futility, some municipal workers are treating the exercise as a job preservation strategy, according to one city employee who was granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. Should Mamdani win the general election, as polling currently indicates, senior staffers would have a readymade plan to pitch to the new administration and prove their worth.

“Zohran’s people are going to gravitate to those who have an agenda that aligns with his populism,” another city staffer, also granted anonymity, told Playbook.

Levy is convinced there will be no changing of the guard.

“We have appreciated POLITICO’s coverage of our past four State of the City addresses, and we look forward to their continued coverage of Mayor Adams’ next four,” he said in his statement. — Joe Anuta

— MEGABILL CUTS: New York’s social service providers are bracing for deep federal funding cuts as poverty rates rise among the state’s elderly. (New York Focus)

— ANOTHER LAWSUIT: A former top NYPD lawyer is suing the department, accusing top brass of firing her for investigating Adams’ former Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey. (Gothamist)

— SLOW DOWN: New York City has instituted a new e-bike speed limit, but local officials don’t have the teeth to enforce it. (The Wall Street Journal)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics