Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, with 3 set to die over next month
Curtis Windom, 59, is set to die by lethal injection Aug. 28 in the state with the highest number of executions this year. Experts say an uptick in executions around the country can be traced to aggressive Republican governors and attorney generals pushing to get through lengthy appeals processes and get executions done.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
